syria the international community is on all concerned about the prospect of a new nuclear weapons power in west in regards to the line to program and that absence of a comfort level can be quite problematic and can lead to war but what is happening is that the israeli government of the government of prime minister netanyah manipulating the political forces in the united states and i must say also manipulating the international atomic energy agency creating reports particularly last november which then of the fodder for the news media in the united states to carry out what i would refer to as yellow journalism sort of hyping the alleged threat from iran as reflected in those reports the threat of and you know testing of a nuclear weapon particularly the selling but the iranians are determined to go for nuclear weapons and people are reluctant to criticize some issues of the israeli government particularly when the claim is the iranian government is going to kill all the jews well that's an issue that strikes very close to the heart given the holocaust and many other attacks throughout history against jews the problem of course is it's a phony argument that doesn't exist if iran was such a existential threat to israel and to the jewish people why hasn't already launched a conventional weapons attack on israel it has the planes it has the missiles it could cause a lot of damage with conventional  doesn't do it because a doesn't want to that's not its intention and b it would be eliminated as a country because israel the united states would immediately bomb the heck out of them would destroy the government and and overthrow it so the people who run the iranian government are not mad mullahs are not crazy they are rational people whose policies i strongly disagree with but who have a very keen sense of wanting to survive and so by over exaggerating the threat and  touching issues very close to jewish being the israeli government has a certain level of support among american jews and a great deal of criticism as well and then you have the congress both  senate the house who were clearly instruments of is really influence of in the on a period of november december of last year when the that the israeli lobby was pushing for  new sanctions aimed at depriving iran of the export of crude oil and that was a proposal which the obama administration opposed very strenuously arguing i think quite correctly that the likely result would be to create a spike in world oil prices and that of course would have a very detrimental effect not only in the world economy but on the u s economy as well nevertheless the senate voted one hundred to zero to support that legislation to carry out sanctions against the iranian crude oil sector as well as the national bank of iran house of representatives followed suit and passed similar legislation and that's why we have the the oil sanctions against iran now in place which are to be a to go into effect in mid year two thousand and twelve all of that is a  sign of the most advanced power that any foreign government i think is ever had on u s the u s political system with regard to the question of going to war against  government and so i think what that reflects is that particularly in an election year president obama is still very vulnerable to of the pressures of coming from the republican party and from the right wing in general the united states which of course dispose of great power over the news media and can control to a great extent the narrative that is coming out of washington d c and from the world in general and therefore i think we have to anticipate that president obama is going to handle this question of policy toward iran very carefully with kid gloves he will be very reluctant to make statements that indicate a  willingness to compromise with iraq to reach an agreement and that may well happen or the ability of the united states to negotiate the a settlement the agreement that is really needed in the situation a nuclear arm iran would ignite a nuclear arms race in the middle east it would give terrorists a nuclear umbrella it would make the nightmare of nuclear terrorism a clear and present danger throughout the world i want you to understand what this means because if we don't stop it it's coming they could put a bomb anywhere they could put it in a missile they're working on missiles that could reach the city they could put it on a on a ship inside a container reach every port they could eventually put it in a suitcase or in a subway now the threat to my country cannot be overstated those who dismiss it are sticking their heads in the sand less than seven decades after six be banned from every respectable platform on the planet but there is something that makes the outrage even greater you know what that is it's the lack of outrage because in much of the international community our destruction are met with silence it's even worse because there are many who rush to condemn israel for defending itself against iran's terror proxies not you not america obama and prime minister new tenure are in virtual agreement about the legitimacy of a first strike against iran a preemptive strike without any further provocation besides iran potentially building a nuclear weapon and this is a fundamental change for obama and for the united states the first time that we engaged in preemptive attack was in iraq struggle for the democratic nomination for president in two thousand and eight now he's completely reversed himself and is in alignment with prime minister netanyahu i don't think there is any real support for  preventive war and international law there is some support for anticipatory military action meaning that if there is a very imminent attack coming from the other side that there would be legal basis for taking anticipatory military action fit what the law actually says so both on that issue as well on the issue of trying to prevent iran is from having nuclear enrichment the difficulty is that the united states has run into that is an international law is not on its side and it's created greater ease for the iranians to get international sympathy and undermined administration's ability to create a very strong international coalition against it the united nations charter which is the primary treaty in the world and the united states has ratified the u n charter for big countries from invading other countries unless they are acting either in self defense or the security council gives it blessing now obama has said largely in response to pressure from israel which views iran as a threat that obama will act to prevent iran from getting nuclear weapons this goes beyond the containment policy that the united states pursued during the cold war when the soviet union had the no numbers of proven nuclear weapons i think the primary concern of the israelis are having is not necessarily that iran would get a nuclear weapon and use it but that in the process of the iranians getting a weapon or getting a capability the united states and iran would negotiate some form or a deal would be found and that deal would be acceptable and would reduce u s iran tensions but would not necessarily reduce israeli iranian tensions and as a result israel would feel abandoned facing a hostile iran more alone than it currently is moreover an nuclear capability would in the israeli perspective shift the balance of power reduce israel's maneuverability in a matter that the israelis obviously don't like to see now does all of this amount to an existential threat in my assessment it doesn't in my assessment these really leaders actually don't believe you ron is an existential threat but heightening the rhetoric and the hysteria around this question to an existential debate has been calculated in israel to be a useful political tool in order to pressure the united states to take far more hawkish positions and measures against the iranian nuclear program realistically i can't see a scenario where around to launch a suicidal nuclear strike against israel or anybody holds presumably if they want to to consider a nuclear weapons option they are doing it for the same reason any other country has developed nuclear weapons they see it as a deterrent against possible aggression and when  iran has the ability in retaliation against a strike against iran to launch this house apparently as many as three hundred such  percentage of the shower of three missiles that are launched in retaliation actually get through the israeli anti missile defense system that would mean dozens of israeli targets obviously problem keeping it closed but as long as even if they can manage to close it for one or two days would perceive they'd be closing it as a real possibility and that would put huge pressure on so we have this irrational situation where israel is at least the prime minister says that it is really drumming up the war drums for attacking for attacking iran and we know from military analysts found intelligence analysts overwhelming in the united states and to a significant degree it is route that at best this will buy a little bit time but also likely increase in iran's resolve to actually develop nuclear weapons so we know that this would be a very bad idea not to mention that would be a bad idea for the global economy and certainly for instability in the middle east but somehow we're stuck in this situation both israel and the united states of being very dependent on a huge military industrial sector and dependent on having an enemy to to warn about and this case we make it a very irrational solution that could be a danger to the global order but there's a big difference between justifying your pentagon budget and actually going to war against a foe like iran the reason being that iran can strike back oh i think that the feeling was that saddam hussein's iraq did not have the capability to strike against the united states and therefore during the bush administration was viewed as a photo that we could afford to carry out an aggressive war against that's not the case against iraq because iran can hit us forces in the region both  naval and army ground forces in the middle east and cause a great deal of damage on all which the mil u s military i don't think believes is worth a war against iran there is much discord debate going on within the iranian government as we as we speak we've all seen what happened in the two thousand and nine elections the curren elections there's an obvious internal power struggle going on between the ayatollah and i and then there's and how the revolutionary guard fits into this no one's quite sure so there are various folks of power and it's not clear whether the among those various power groups within iran certainly there is disagreement as to whether they should in fact the vel nuclear weapons so an actual attack might draw all of them to the conclusion that redouble just redoubling their efforts that the only way that they're going to have security is to in american campaign military campaign against iranian nuclear facilities the likelihood of actually being able to prevent the iranians in the long run from getting a nuclear weapons would not be achieved at best it could set back the program a few short years i think there's a consensus in washington than includes moderate democrats and moderate republicans only over to the right wing of both parties that says iran is an enemy and therefore we have to do something to overthrow their government and they're pressuring them economically by crippling sanctions or bombing the militarily will result in regime regime change the differences are one of tactics the far right wing of the money and back in the very very conservative forces in israel united states they favor a military strike the other folks favor crippling sanctions you know they've just most recently prevented iranian banks from using the international banking system that allows thanks to transfer money back and forth and so iran has been very badly hit by that in among other sanctions the u s is never use that against any other country in the world including iraq and other countries that were formally at war with i think we should pursue the policies that were actually engaged in the sanctions even though everyone know that sanctions cannot force anybody to do anything but that they do seem to be having an impact and this idea that the iranians are finally coming in at least nominally coming back to the negotiating table in this other forum i think is a very positive you know positive of it positive movement forward president obama has taken some great steps toward seeming open in relation to negotiations with iran but i think one of the biggest challenges that we face in the united states and preventing a war with iran is to convince our policymakers convince president  that sanctions are not diplomacy and that sanctions in fact pave the road for a war the same way that they did in iraq and they harm the ordinary people inside iran the same people that mr obama and others have said they would like to reach out whose lives they would like to better so these type of sanctions may eventually need to walk so even if they don't say explicitly that they support what they advocate may very will shape and things are deteriorating even even worse so how can one are can anyone you know advocate economic sanctions on the one hand and then claim that you know is concerned about the plight of iranian people and as i have made clear time and again that during the course of my presidency i will not hesitate to use force when it is necessary to defend the united states and  already there's too much talk of war the last few weeks such talk has only benefited the iranian government by driving up the price of oil which they depend on to fund their nuclear program the sake of israel's security america's security and the peace and security of the world i was not the time for bluster was the time to let