syrian conflict possibly the rebels rockets weapons and al qaeda but it's uncertain bloody boring across its shared border. the spanish police lanes teachers and students angry because no thieves. thanks to thirty cards measure progress you. can say it before. unavoidable. and iran's nuclear program must be targeted with a military strike against the reported. u.n. inspection the fail to resolve the. stories in half an hour from now in the meantime will rising pressure on iran finally explode into a military attack well that's the question peter. cross-talk next. british science.

markets finance scandal. find out what's really happening to the global economy because we want. to see. the welcome to crossfire people of paradoxes contradictions and iran is the drumbeat towards war now inevitable as the chattering classes discuss the possible date of israeli attack on iran the us military and intelligence community says iran is not developing nuclear weapons has not demonstrated any intention to do so is this rapidly turning into another dumb war of choice. to the states. to cross-talk

a complex situation surrounding around i'm joined by patrick clawson in montreal he is the director for research at the washington institute for near east policy and senior editor of middle east quarterly and in washington we have got out doug he is a professor of political science at the national defense university and in brussels we crossed to gilbert doctorow he's an independent scholar and author of great post cold war american thinkers on international relations all right gentlemen this is cross talk to me as you can jump in anytime you want gilbert if i go to you first in brussels can you explain something to me the american military establishment and intelligence community says iran is not developing a nuclear weapon i has no intention of doing it and then you changed or in the same page in the washington post new york times everyone's discussing when the attack is going to happen what is going on this seems to be an amazingly paradoxical situation. well i don't have a direct answer to that question but yes there is a lot of cross talk within the united states and within the foreign policy

community so i'm not particularly surprised that. the personalities or interests within the pentagon would be inconsistent in their public position now with. the positions of the foreign policy analysts who have taken all the airtime till now all right ok patrick if i can go to you can you do resolve this i can you square the circle for me. it's certainly ok the united states for years to get the material to make a nuclear weapon to actually make a nuclear weapon the united states only a few weeks some indications are only the united states a week actually making a bomb is the easy part hard part is getting the syria with which to make the bar and iran has spent billions of dollars and twenty years now getting the material to actually make a bomb so we don't want to wait until that last week well i don't think there's

anything here but if we have the director of national intelligence james james clapper says in front of congress if there is no evidence that iran is building a nuclear weapon that's the head of national intelligence are few weeks to build a nuclear it takes a few weeks to build a nuclear weapon they don't have to make that decision until the last minute they have already spent billions of dollars building huge facilities with which to make the materials that will let them make that decision when they want to make it they haven't done it yet but what they have done is violated their safeguard agreements with the i.a.e.a. ok get out do you want to jump in there if i if i may. i believe there is no way it was roger any country by intention there is no way to norwalk anybody's intentions are we have to judge which is go on facts not the intentions and the facts as they have been stated. is that till now. has

not the only good it's all delegations to. nonproliferation treaty i.e. a court last reports last report set out a list twenty pages of violations by iran that's the reason why the i.a.e.a. board has repeatedly censored iran that's the reason the security council has repeatedly voted for sanctions on iraq is to say that iran has to demonstrate that it's purely peaceful intentions that's the wording in this existence all of that is sort of always the eagerly that he sort of like and. go ahead get out because i reported by you there's a report why is all i ear did not and has not said that it enters makings a bomb the i.a.e.a. said or you say you have violated it has meant it has many violations the question of violations is not making the bomb the question of violations is its safeguards agreement the whole point of the. dangerous things. only if you

would if you were absolutely transparent and open and a iran has not been well iran's and if you may go back to gilbert if i go back to gilbert in brussels iran's nuclear program is the most inspected program in the history of the i.a.e.a. what do you think about all of this here gilbert if i can say with you in brussels i mean is this it there's a drumbeat to worry respective of what the i.e.e.e. i i e a has to say about anything because most people say the last report was just a recycled one of the one before go ahead. but i think this is the fourth off the mark the issue has moved on the issue of relations with iran has moved on considerably from the strictly strict starting point of its nuclear ambitions. know what were side issues have become the central issue that is the economic warfare being being entered into against the iran be ratcheting up sanctions with a certain word a certain point the quantitative element becomes

a qualitatively different relationship and becomes an exercise existential threat to iran we're approaching that point and the the he issue of its nuclear ambitions or how about has been proven has fallen from a subsidiary position i can see that coming out in in a just few minutes we in the the pentagon will be and the department of defense and the state department because there is a significant. more significantly more. restrained pentagon under under present leadership but under panetta as opposed to the war the where you hawkish. position of the state department and the foreign policy community supporting the state department ok patrick if i can go to you it seems to me that israel and iran are already at war we're just scratched. adding it up ok

there's there's there's a problem of other. civilians are being killed scientists are being killed diplomats are being attacked i mean this is we're going down this path right here and it seems like there is neither side really wants to step back from brain care except for maybe obama doesn't know what to do but it is certainly a lot of other people seem to have already decided that they want to continue down this path where we have a major blow out of one form or another hopefully not all out war because the regional implications would be immense and there are a lot of american interests in the region. as your guest in brussels was explaining the united states and the european union and its allies have launching what is in effect an economic war against iran saying to the iranian leadership look you can either have your nuclear weapon or you can stay in power you get to choose and the iranian leadership has to decide they can either keep their nuclear weapon or they can stay in power that's the choice that's before them and they have to make that

choice and we will see this year which of the world and i mean are you kind of jumping ahead here again i keep stressing here that there is there's no one has proven that iran is it has intentions even to build a nuclear weapon i mean i'm more open to you know evidence here is that you know it's a really good idea because i mean it seems to me you're kind of railroading as a down a certain path here let's keep in mind you know i'm going to be in the security of those you know security council is good god if i can go to you when he wants to hear you say that i mean there is this drive to war i mean if the evidence doesn't fit you know they just throw it out because war is the worst possible thing we have happen here. and this last war if as our wars in iraq and afghanistan taught also anything it is that it is much easier to start wars and ending it and as you said it is true there is a law live in war going on between iran and israel and the united states president obama for his created he lives international community to pause not office

sanctions on iran and they need some time to see how it will work ok and there is no it is very irrational toward talk about war war. everybody will be very bad not only through it n. not only to the middle east all work or oil prices are very high now because of this ok gilbert if i can go to you i think patrick kind of put it really out there very openly it's all about regime change that's what this is about it's not about the nuclear program the united states and its allies particularly israel want to regime change there for some reason they think it will be better advised. to you know i mean that change the regime you get the regime or the nuclear weapon you have a choice well you can read strange you say well can you give one of your picture i guess we don't have or some people have sovereignty from don't go but what do you think about this. well you summed it up in the last sentence the word rational came

up here and i'd less like to put it into a context as to who is behaving more rationally in the sense of working up to their own interests yes america has interests in the middle east and i think going to an attack on iran would jeopardize those interests so is america acting rationally by its very aggressive position that we run today on the other hand we often are persuaded that the iranian leadership is irrational. and i am not persuaded of that . believe that they are rational and they are looking after their interests and only they could be only suicidal if in the context of the american positioning of troops in israel today they were to take any action there was and is an essential threat to israel. i believe the moderator has been a bit coy with respect to a rain in the iranian intentions of building a nuclear device let's assume that they do ok they would be rather strange people in the context of what we've seen in iraq i would be i would absolutely agree with

you ok because if you're being threatened that's what you're going to do is to try to protect yourself patrick if i go to you i mean the end of the element of rationality here i mean who's being rational who's being irrational. well the russian government like the american government the french government and the governments of other countries in the security council are being very rational they are saying that the threat of political ration of nuclear weapons and of a nuclear arms race is such that we have to reinforce the nonproliferation treaty and its provisions which say that countries have to be fully transparent to the international atomic energy agency and when countries aren't fully transparent in international atomic energy agency the security council says to that country suspend your activities until you can reassure your purely peaceful intentions we're not going to wait to the last minute we're going to reinforce the n.p.t. the nonproliferation treaty by saying that i a e a international atomic energy agency safeguards have to be followed that's what the international media said

rational position worry about a nuclear arms race throughout the middle east and indeed throughout the world if countries can ignore the jump in here we're getting i wish you a break after a short break we'll continue our discussion of calls to war stay. slept.

lists.

leg. length welcome back. to my ship we're talking about whether it'll be a strike against you. ok get out i'd like to go back to you in washington you know before i went into television and journalism i was an academic historian and of modern european history and i can remember reading because i wasn't alive at the time of the hysteria that the united states had about the soviet union acquiring a nuclear weapon i remember the hysteria of the united states when when china was

acquiring a nuclear weapon and you know what they have never gone to war with each other deterrence works ok so again i agree with bill but what if you know iran were to acquire a nuclear weapon it certainly being threatened by the west right now would it really use it. but i am very glad you is this point because i believe it is very very assist to say that the only western powers can decide who is the national and who is. it is through their it and has not started a new war for at least a hundred and fifty years and as a iranians like anybody else they are not they will. seal a lot is in their best interest and close to do it and that if it n. makes a bomb and this is not proven in any way they are not likely to use it because one or two ones will not be taught is that are you all tonight this the it is that you

has more than blue hundred nuclear weapons there is a iranians nor is there are limits and they only hands will not that there is no you all saw the foreign minister of britain talk about if you have any example egypt turkey saudi arabia and other countries might try to do is assume this is also wrong because egypt is in no position to lawmakers are born now after a arab spring saudi arabia does not have the infrastructure sot there is a lot of misunderstanding misleading statements about b.n. and if your end makes up god ok gilbert what do you think when we are overlooking the going to run in brussels go ahead but nobody has said a word about israel and that's required remarkable that patrick was speaking of books very reasonably about the dangers of proliferation without mentioning the fact of the already use of nuclear power in the region well i have in front of me

the the last issue of foreign affairs magazine which as a total which speaks for itself this is time to attack iran. coming from the single most of orotate of. journal of the us foreign policy community. sums up the overwhelming position of the that community and you have the same time in the online edition of foreign affairs we do see heterodox country views which dispute that which suggests. that even a nuclear iran could be acceptable and could be worked with the issue that i want to bring out is a debate in the united states foreign policy community is along one line only and that is can we do it it is based on efficacy norris totally the question of should we do it or what would the consequences be of doing a play to take out a nuclear capability of iran what do you think about that patrick i mean you know

one of the things that you know we have seen we have a disaster in iraq we have a quagmire in afghanistan and libya is a mess i mean how when you sit with the law of unintended consequences going to be taken into consideration ok strike iran what are the implications are going to be cleaning easy when you think. well what we're seeing is the israeli has been using covert assassinations and cyber war against iran and it's slowed down iran's nuclear program so we've got a reminder and i'd like to remind my viewers on saturday i'd like to remind my viewers that iran has the right to develop nuclear power for civilian use it has a right to a nuclear program i mean every so we have one is it. has its right rights come with obligations that has rights and responsibilities it only can exercise those rights within the framework of its responsibilities under the international treaties it's signed and it's precisely that's the problem is iran wants to have the rights

without the responsibilities of being open and transparent to the international atomic energy agency inspectors that's why the international community including the russian government every people who voted for sanctions on iran rights come with responsibilities and because the run has been irrational about not living up to its responsibilities there is concern that iran would be irrational again if it gets to have nuclear weapons and that's why there is a lot of concern about what would happen if iran caught these nuclear weapons the unintended consequences of a nuclear armed iran are in many people's minds much worse than the unintended consequences that could come from attacking iran if it refuses to have a diplomatic compromise but again patronize really. ok dad i was the guy was going to go to you because you know the iran certainly not a threat to the united states ok it's israel that wants the attack here so if if if the united states and israel are involved in attacking around how does that serve

american foreign policy interests its geopolitical interests i see only downside ok go ahead. yeah this will not serve american interests and it is of great concern among american officials that israel will start war especially before the elections when this administration can do very little and then the united states will be in a position to ns a war will have nor as an option but to ends a war united states does not want to war start another war always another muslim country in the middle east and then instead of talking about war there are other options engaging here and accepting it's limited you shown and the doing business with your own concern again like any other and clear and just invests in it endlessly it was here and this probably will have better options then war ok gilbert what do you think about that because it it really does get down to

the israeli angle here the israelis want you can take my maintain their regional supremacy here in any country the challenge is that is going to be deemed a threat to demonize the new hitler eccentrics cetera. here's what the american involvement. and rainy and agenda predates the nuclear issue by far we take this all the way back to the origins of the uranium revolution the united states was actively conducting economic warfare against iran in the one nine hundred ninety s. well before there was any hint of a nuclear threat so what we're talking about today is an acute stage. of an issue that has a long chronic history behind it is this a rational policy is it i believe it's a bullet emblematic of us foreign policy in so far as it does not correspond to the interests of america as

a country is it corresponds to the interests of the foreign policy community which is extremely self important ok tragic what do you think about that i mean again i mean why why is the united states so obsessed with his with iran because he it goes back to the revolution doesn't it i mean we've had this we say this is our reason for not only since israel's very pointed out to me i mean it was a united states was helping to develop me and china to their power and. china has voted repeatedly in favor sanctions china and russia have voted to keep italy in favor of sanctions against iran at the united nations but times are good they should you trying to they're not part of the if they're not part of this discussion of attacking iran that's a very different part of very different for sasha to do and they know they are it's the conversation about iran's nuclear program you're the one who said there's not a problem the russian and chinese government's disagree with you they think there's a problem here. or is it's a phrase we know that leave only ever at the united nations security council

discuss are going to just know if iran and the us once ever use a talking about there's no problem with the iranian nuclear program the russian and chinese government see a problem there's a reason why the international community as a whole season problem with the brain. nuclear program it has to do with the interest of the international community in stopping it but at the same time they're not promoting a war agenda against around that's a very different conversation for if i may all racial i want to think you know going. yeah we will talk about it and as an american citizen i would feel lists that and if iran has then pakistan was appalled pakistan is becoming very much close to or feel this state is a good idea at least as our government is in charge and say that again comparing it and pakistan a new credit and we'll be there then you could affect us then ok gilbert do you do

you think it's a double standards even implied here when it comes to political ration because again we have because there is a country in the middle east that has up to two hundred nuclear warheads and that's israel and it's never been investigated inspected by the i.a.e.a. it doesn't even admit to having a program of hypocrisy is the small change in the plan mostly so i don't think it's particularly shocking to see apocryphally here. yes there are double standards that's patently true ok patrick what do you think about that why don't we just have a no nuclear free middle east everybody signs up to it all countries. why not a nuclear free world that doesn't well it starts somewhere let's start something or give up its nuclear weapons why not let's start with russia why not start with russia if you want to start with the united state of these are united states five x. values for obama's address because that's why he's proposing be unilateral cuts in u.s. nuclear arsenals mr obama has been opposed to pollute ration everywhere and he wants to move towards nuclear zero it's called getting rid of nuclear weapons that's one

of the reasons he's so opposed to look ration is he would like to see the world move away from nuclear weapons and i agree there's a double standard eight countries have nuclear weapons and those countries have should move towards a new canoe zero it's going to be a long slow process but let's move in that direction together as a group meanwhile let's reinforce our efforts against proliferation that's why the focus on iran because the concern about proliferation ok good i'm going to give you the last word in this program what's next i think you'll i believe i he is and there is a double standard and it is racist too as you know i'm sad to say that i.e. is that americans are british the french are more rational than there are plans they iranians israel will not be as secure or less it is accepted by its native was more a new crowd awakens more arms or not there's a right way to make peace the right way is for people thought and do business

together live together little from each other and stop fighting scope arms that he says you know unfortunate looks like to the drumbeat of war he still will continue many thanks to my guest today in washington montreal and in brussels and thanks to our viewers for watching us here to see the next time i remember just awful.

i'm. going. to.

get you people. the u.s. prepares to pull strings of the syrian conflict by possibly calling the rebels iraq and its weapons some al qaeda linked militants are already pouring across a shared border. iran's nuclear program must be targeted with a.