from washington, "the mclaughlin group," the american original. for over two decades, the sharpest mind issue one, israel versus iran. >> iran, who stands behind these a taxes, is the biggest terror exportedder in the world. >> israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu this week accused iran of being the

biggest terror exportedder in the world. on monday, terrorist bombers attacked the u.s. embassies. the landmass between the caspian and black sea, hugging russia. then another terrorist bombing attack in bangkok, thailand. iran denies that it bombed the israeli embassies. the question is, what is the likelihood of an israeli military strike on iran? george friedman, findser intell four, says that the likelihood of an israeli strike on iranian nuclear facilities is . one, extreme difficulty. "such an attack would involve israeli air sortedees over 1,000 miles. coordinated with missile attacks from israeli submarines. ship from israeli submarines. ship launch of bunker busting

bombs necessary for much of the task. iran's anti-missile defense system is anything le defense system is anything mickey mouse." >> civilian casualties in israeli. "likely rocket and missile attacks from hezbol attacks from hezbollah and ham expected. there will be in no lightning victory achieved such as during >> three, crippling oil prices. "an israeli attack would prompt iran to close down sea traffic in close down sea traffic in the persian gulf at a southern choke point, the strait of hormuz, where some 20% of global oil production passes. oil prices would be likely to spike and cripple global economic growth. >> four, no u.s. assistance. to be successful, the action would require u.s. assistance, and that aid is unlikely to be

forthcoming, especially in an election year. >> five, fear of annihilation. even if iran screeds in building some kind of nuclear arsenal, the islamic republic faces immediate annihilation if any of the weapons are ever used. question, let's assume that prime minister netanyahu picks up the phone and calls up president obama and asked whether his defense secretary, that's the israelis defense secretary, can call u.s. defense secretary panetta to discuss prudent military action against iran. what do you think commander in chief obama would say to him on the phone? go ahead and have your guy call my secretary of defense? and let them discuss it. you think he would say that? >> i think obama would say to the prime minister, sir, we do not want you attacking iran.

and if you do attack iran, united states is not going to back up here. we don't want a war. we think our sanctions are working. we doo7t think they have decided to build a bomb. they don't have a bomb. we think we've got time. we know your concerns, but do not attack iran. the thing that netanyahu wants, john, is where israel has a powerful military, but they cannot take out these installations themselves. what will happen if -- what netanyahu wants bring the united states in, because what you have to take out is there any ship missiles or anti- aircraft or ire forces, navy, missiles, nuclear sites, and frankly i think in order to stop the long range nuclear program, you've got it take down the regime. and even we are not prepared to do that. >> eleanor. >> i agree with most of what pat just said. and i would commend you for that set-up because i think there's a lot of loose talk that makes it seems like too would be very easy for israel to undermine the nuclear -- >> as they did in syria.

>> right, exactly. when the best case scenario is they would probably set it back maybe three to five years, and they would inflame the ordinary people there who see nuclear possession is their god given right. they would feel that way if they were assaulted from the outside. i do think, though, that secretary panetta has probably had conversations with the israeli defense minister, and each side knows where each side stands. and i think what the israelis are gambling is that there could be a window before the election before -- before our election where this president might not be willing to stand up to the israelis, which is if he gets reelected then they know they won't get any help. i would think pat is right, that that president sees all the downsides and he understands that the sanctions are squeezing them. their currency lost half its

value, hyperinflations. sanctions tieder than they are ever been. the europeans won't import oil. so you have to give that time to work. >> do you think -- what do you think? >> i think they're right, president obama does not want the israelis to attack. but there are differences in viewpoint here. the israelis consider this a threat, it's not such threat to us. and the israelis see the window for them acting on their own perhaps to delay this program closing. and they would really not entrust president obama in 2013 or mitt romney or rick santorum. they probably could trust rick santorum to take care of the problem but the others they have doubts about so they want to do it themselves. if they feel there's no other alternative, but the straight force set up is correct, this would be at the very far end of their capability, and the question is how much damage could they do and it would be worth potential downsides? i don't think the iranians would close a strait of hormuz or attack our interests in the gulf because then they bring us into it, and at the very least they're going to lose -- the

navy and a huge part of their military. >> the proposition is that they can't do it without us. >> they can do something. the question is, can they do enough? and you're right, it's not -- >> you know what this spreads out is of nuclear reactors. they have about seven from the northern part of the country up near -- what's the name of the body of water up there? >> black sea. >> the black sea, all the way down -- >> it's a big task. but they look at this jeep that has an effect been at war with them for decades. they don't consider highly rational. they consider willing to do anything, attack diplomats, sponsor terrorism, and it's a risk they don't want it take. >> i think it's the caspian up there, caspian to the black sea. >> caspian is further east. >> mort. >> i do think this is seen by the israelis as a threat, and this is something they're just not willing to live welcome they don't feel the united states is going to be supportive even though they would like the united states to be supportive. but that is a country whose ethic has been captured in a

phrase never again, which means they're not going to risk what they see as another holocaust that might befall steam it's a very small country. there will be very vulnerable. iranians have made it clear that they intend to do whatever they can to damage the israelis. this is the kind of threat the israelis cannot live with. >> mort, the -- look, israel -- >> be inflicted on israelis. >> but what is worse for the israelis, to take the risks of making this attack or to live with an iran with nuclear weapons that could destroy israel? >> i cannot commend that single- page piece which he packs so much in, in the current issue of baron's, but -- what is one of other points he makes, very consequential -- >> oil? >> of course, the gas prices here. but that's the kind of a secondary consideration. but this window of opportunity that they have, he seems to

feel that it's underrestable they'll have the bomb. then he says, so what? then they'll have some serious things to talk about. but he doesn't mean the bomb. because the iranians know that if they use the bomb, it will be a immediate annihilation. you follow me? >> yes and no. but real issue from the israeli point of view is that they're building this facility near the mountain of kom where they will if they get all of their various nuclear facilities there, the israelis will not be able to do anything about it. so that's the window that will be shutting on them. >> you understand they have nuclear plants all the way down from the caspian down -- the rest of the country. >> they have to transform -- >> about seven nuclear plants. >> they're not plants, john. >> materials -- developed and it's only [everyone talking at once] >> right now, israel is the threat to iran. iran is more -- >> israel will destroy iran?

>> they have 200 to 300 nuclear weapons p if the iranians develop and build a bomb, i don't think they're going, to but if they do, israel will put those 200 weapons on a hair trigger. i don't believe the iranians are as nuts as everybody else says. they haven't fought anybody since when, john? >> go ahead. >> and if the israelis do attack, it doesn't end the threat. >> no. >> it postpones it. and in the meantime, you have iran retail eighting with all kinds of terrorist attacks, the set-up you showed. that's what the hint of what they can do. and that can rapidly get out of hand and certainly affect us in this country as well. >> even if there was a nuclear response by israel, or nuclear attack, iran will continue to have a mass of conventional army that -- and they will have the public fervor for some kind of action hostile action against israel that will be immense.

there's that consequence too. and they will have a conventional military, a big one. >> yes. but let's face it, you just have to watch what iran has been doing what they have been saying. you cannot diminish the ex tents of that threat to israel. they're not threatening iraq anymore. but i point out in the war with iraq, they had 100,000 kids to clear up the bomb sites on the ground, and they -- they died, they were willing to do that. you have a level of radicalism and religious fervor in that country that makes normal calculations. >> exit question -- >> opposite side. >> exit question, what are the odds of an israeli military strike on iran right now? pat? >> i would say one in five. not one in three or one in four. one in five. i just don't think they're going to do it because it i don't think they can succeed, and i don't think they're confident the united states will back them up, and you don't wound a snake, you kill it. >> will the united states in

fact disapprove and -- could a that lead to an ç-- >> obama the joint chiefs, the intelligence community, none of them wants this war with iran. and they don't want the israelis to drag us into one. >> eleanor? >> a opinion in israel is divided so i agree. i think -- between one and four, and one and five. i think this person that you had in the set-up is pretty on the mark. >> rich? >> it's about a 70% chance intolerable threat if iran gets the bomb, you're never going to unravel that. plus you end up with a turks with the bomb, egypt with a bomb, saudi arabia with a bomb. if iran gets the bomb, the odds of the nuclear weapon going off in a conflict in the middle east increase drastically. >> what is wrong with the -- madd doctrine assured destruction, operating on that level? >> even if you assume -- [everyone talking at once] >> we live it the entire cold war. >> even if you assume iran won't nuke anyone, it gives

them carte blanche for each more of the behavior they've engage in. [everyone talking at once] >> only nation that ever used a nuclear bomb, only nation used a bomb is the united states. we bombed -- >> john, north korea has not done a thing despite -- they haven't intimidated us! >> they do not center a threat. >> who doesn't? >> north korea. south korea, north china will attack north korea. but iran -- absolutely. >> why? >> because let's listen to what iran is saying and doing. and what they have been doing for terrorist attacks. they're not under threat. israel is under threat. >> wait a minute [everyone talking at once] >> knocked off. >> who knocked offer the nuclear site iran? >> of course but why is that because they're trying to stop the development -- stalkarazzi trying. >> what are the odds. >>

when we come back, love and marriage! people! look at you!

texting...blogging... all this technology,

but you're still banking like pilgrims! get high yield free checking at capital one bank. why earn bupkis, when your checking could earn five times the national average!! and free atms anywhere. five times the national average!!! that's new school banking. sign up for high yield free checking at a capital one bank. what's in your wallet? somebody help me down.

issue two, brides no more! wedding ceremony, bridal music, smiling couples -- forget about it! today more and more americans are shunning marriage. the percentage of american adults married today is 51%. so says pew research center. that's the lowest rate of married adults ever recorded in any earlier pew polls, and it doesn't stop there. those americans who do marry are waiting longer before they say i do. in 2010, the marriage rate four

americans age 25 to 34 was 44%. 50 years ago, 1960, 82% were married. so why is marriage becoming increasingly passe? item, divorces. the divorce rate in america has long been 50%, one out of two merges fails. item, economy. today americans wait until they have a firm financial footing, like graduated from college, on a payroll, before walking down the aisle. item, no stigma. americans today are less likely to turn up their noses on those who live alone or co-habit. >> people have a lot of options in their lives now. society doesn't disapprove of you if you live alone or if you live with an unmarried partner. >> now hold on! the number of children born out of wedlock has gone up. there's a troubling correlation. more unmarried people having more children out of wedlock.

today the percentage of americans born out of wedlocthi question, does it strike you as ironic that just as heterosexual interest in marriage is on the wane, gay and lesbian interest in marriage is rhapsodic. >> yes, that's an irony. and when they say the marriage died, they'll put it on the heterosexuals who have done a job of destroying it as an institution. 1970 had about 10% ill legitimacy rate and another people people mig is erodiég among the middle and the working class. if you look at marriage rates among the upper class, it's behavioral the same as 1960. it's eroding in the middle and working class which adds to the economic pressure, and it's creating a real crisis. >> you know who supports you on that? >> who is that? >> charles murray. >> he is a scholar at aei who

just wrote a book called coming apart, about this class division which is not just economic, it's social and cultural. >> he makes the same point you just made. you should notify him that? without knowing it you made the same point which is a corroboration! [everyone talking at once] >> john -- >> brad wilcox on this for a long time. >> john, the triumph of the counter-culture morning working class white folks the rate is way over 40% mock hispanics, or hispanics it's 51. among african-americans, it's 71%. among the poor it's pandemic. the valuables of the counter- culture with regard to family and marriage and divorce and pre-marital sex and all of these things are triumphing in the culture and in society and we're seeing the consequences of it now. some of us feel it means coming apart -- [everyone talking at once] >> do you think the state should be involved in marriages? why do we have the requirement

of registration is needed for the state? >> i think the jude joe christian idea of family and children of enormous benefits to the society and can form that society on the basis of its values. and it did. unfortunately the values are changing, there's no doubt about it. they defeated gay marriage out there. but legislatures are passing. >> on the abstract level is there any reason why marriage should be related to the state and you have to sign a book if you want a license to get married? >> children various rights involved, married couples there's also children involved. obligations and duties. so yes -- [everyone talking at once] >> you want the state to be involved in now the children are reared. >> new york i want -- there's obligations to protect the children. you can't do certain things. >> you mean could be a tax responsibility to take care of a child if the child is born out of wedlock? >> society has agreed they will be educated on you can do by home -- >> can't religious institutions carry that problem? >> unfortunately -- >> why have the state --

>> unfortunately -- >> you don't need the 78 involved in a marriage. >> true if we were country like we used to be, yes. we're a secular-christian country and increasingly secular. >> are you doing anything about it? >> i just wrote a book that got me in trouble! [everyone talking at once] >> they're so in love with the institution of marriages, there are a lot of enduring relationships that don't have marriage. >> it's co-habitation. >> right. and. >> what's wrong with that? will he denounce that? >> it's called shack, up. >> i do not see a decay in our values. bring back some of those high paying manufacturing jobs poling see a lot more marriages along the traditional lines that pat seems to favor. >> you also have a situation where women now can get jobs that -- enable them to be self- sufficient. they don't have to get married to have a reasonable life. that has changed dramatically. >> are you saying that women

like marriage more than men do? >> no, i'm saying they like their independence just as much as men do and they now can afford their independence so they don't have to get married to have -- >> interesting point! >> so marriage is, what, disappearing. >> no, it's not disappearing. it just happens later in life -- >> why. >> because there are a lot of good benefits to being married. >> like what? >> unless i'm mistaken, they've companionship -- >> you can have that without marriage! >> they'll instruct you! [everyone talking at once] >> i don't want to turn this into a personal thing. there's also an environment in which you want to raise children. and that's one of things -- [everyone talking at once] >> joke about gay marriage is of course, we're in favor of gay marriage because they deserve everybody right to be as miserable as everybody else some that puts it in

perspective. >> cohabitation, that's -- divorce revolution has receded somewhat and has gone back to the levels of around 1970s co- habitation, that's radically -- [everyone talking at once] >> not married to start with. >> right. and they aren't as stable and aren't as -- >> we'll be right back with predictions.

mitt romney wins michigan. yes or no? >> yes, he will carpet bomb santorum. >> yes but not by enough to eliminate. >> yes, thanks to the negative ads. >> yes, and drive to the polls in an american car. >> i said before, yes, and he will! bye-bye!