>> worries iran today? how far iran away his iran today and will israel go? well lit, according to the last quarterly report which is actually very interesting in a lot of ways, iran has on the order of 109 kilograms of uranium hexafluoride which has been in rich to 19.75%. if you took another step and enriching that up to 90%, which is how we weapon grade, you're looking at the lower amount of one bomb, about 15 kilograms, so if they took that step, probably somewhere between six months and a year. now i should talk about that one weapon. where the number four comes from is iran is a much larger amount of lower enriched uranium, which they would have to subsequently go up to 20% in the go up to 90% and that you could use the map to see how they get for weapons out of that large stockpile but that would be tough to do. the other point about weaponization is, if iran wanted to break out quickly, it's not simply a matter of deciding to go to 90%. you would have to be the enrichment of to 90%. you'd have to convert that yap back into metal which is not an easy p

to iran. on the other hand a nuclear iran would affect the balance of power and start a nuclear race." but i would conclude on a positive note and say until we see these things, until these changes happen, and they will not happen in a day or nity to some of the influence, bring some of the organizations that have been closer to iran to a place we feel more comfortable with. i don't believe we should do this at any price. as we approach homs, for example, some components ready to move, we should not, in my view compromise our positions. keep in mind we are at this moment in a moment of strength and they need to end this. thank you very much. looking forward to the discussion. >> thank you very much for for per spentive observations. >> thank you. thank you so much. it's a great pleasure being here. i just want to echo what congresswoman harmon said in the opening, woodrow wilson truly is quite amazing in creating that political space for conversations that you rarely find anywhere else. feer p

-iran diplomacy. they have not really provided hope for anything construct is to this diplomatic agenda the administration is following. for the obama administration itself, it put its neck out there on the campaign same as open to diplomacy. in 2009, gesturing to correction of diplomacy but i seek not to much into spending gobs and gobs of political capital on diplomacy with iran up and running in a way that it will be fruitful. i can't entirely blame them for that. it's not clear to me they have enough f., particularly this year to get things rolling in a fruitful direction and obviously we have all noted they have lots of domestic priorities on which they are spending political capital. so i don't envy the position at which the obama administration combines itself. i think the echo with other panelists have said any diplomatic process that has the hope of producing long-term results would be itself a long-term protracted process of meetings after meetings after meeting there would be easy to sort i

iran has a goal in mind. one that has pushed for years through terrorism, covert actions and, i believe, through the active pursuit of a nuclear weapons program that would only bring its broader goals within closer reach. as the great theorist of international relations hans morgan feld once put it, the principle means by which a nation endeavors with the power at its disposal to maintain or re-establish the balance of power are armaments. this is what we're witnessing in iran. and it must be stopped. [ applause ] now, in the weeks and months ahead, israel and the united states face a day of reckoning. we either do what it takes to balance the power in the broader middle east, or risk a nuclear arms race across the region that's almost certain to up end it. now, president obama knows all this as well as i do. that's why he has said repeatedly and as recently as yesterday that he's determined to prevent a nuclear iran. and i appreciate this affirmation of our common goal. [ applause ] it is in the service of t

the danger posed by iran. from terror networks to the nuclear weapons program, secretary panetta is the person at the pentagon to make sure that iran is not a threat to american national security. ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming a great friend, the secretary of defense of the united states, leon panetta. ♪ [ applause ] >> thank you, michael for that very kind introduction. congratulations, on becoming aipac's new president and thank you, thank you for your life-long dedication to a strong u.s./israel relationship. it's my great honor to be here. and to be the first secretary of defense to address the aipac policy conference in more than 20 years. i come here as secretary is but more significantly i come here as a life long friend of israel. a few weeks ago, i had the opportunity to sit down with howard core and lee rose enberg at my office in the pentagon. they briefed me on how they saw the future of the u.s./israel relationship and together we discussed ways to strengthen, to enhance and

sure those who call for a military strike on iran and i don't call for military strike on iran at least at this time point to the example of israel strike on the iraqi reactor which set the iraqi program back so far that was never reconstituted and also the israeli strike on the syrian reactor which set the syrian program back so far that it is yet to be reconstituted so there is something to be said for setting programs back for buying time ok valorie so do you think you're iran is like what the syrians and the iraqis are going to exactly and the thing is is that i mean if i can ask you if there is a military strike against iran that's open war and there the consequences of that for the region are sorry men's and an arms race could ensue after that i mean isn't that another law of unintended consequences that are not being thought about here yeah i mean the iranian response to any kind of a military attack on its nuclear facilities is very hard to predict but we can we can assume that there will be one some a symmetric to a large extent but there will be one and this sort of unpredicta

sure those who call for a military strike on iran and i don't call from the terry strike on iran at least at this time point to the example of israel strike on the iraqi reactor which set the iraqi program back so far there was never reconstituted and also the israeli strike on the syrian reactor which set the syrian program back so far that it has yet to be reconstituted so there is something to be said for setting programs back for buying time ok valorie so do you think you're iran is like you know what the syrians and the iraqis berkeley exactly i mean the thing is is that i mean dollar if i can ask you if there is a military strike against iran that's open war and there the consequences of that for the region are sorry men's and an arms race could ensue after that i mean isn't that another law of unintended consequences that are not being thought about here. yeah i mean the iranian response to any kind of a military attack on its nuclear facilities is very hard to predict but we can we can assume that there will be one some a symmetrical to a large extent but there will be one and thi

iran. if we all know the threat in iran is real, would you discuss the relationship of iran to syria, to hezbollah? and on 60 minutes, secretary panetta said there was a red line for us. i know in the discussions between mr. netanyahu and the president and the last several days there seems to be some closing of the gap on our different ideas about dealing with iran and the growing concern. what actions, military or otherwise, should we be considering in connection with iran? i don't mean to put you in a classified positionment but just generally could you give us your idea? >> yes, sir. the iranian threat is basically along four lines. there's this nuclear program where they're enriching more uranium than they need for any peaceful purpose. and that went through denial and deception. they have tried to keep that program going. the iaea has tried the best to monitor it. they've had an unfortunate visit there recently. the second threat is the long range rocket and ballistic missile threat. t

regarding iran and the western hemisphere, you know, obviously iran, facing these very effective sanctions and their aggressive enforcement is becoming increasingly desperate, looking for friends wherever they think they can find them. and they're not getting the kind of response on that tour of tyrants that you referenced, our analysis of what happened is that it fell very far short of what the iranians had hoped for. that said, we are concerned about the activities of iran and hezbollah in the western hemisphere. we continue to monitor the situation closely. we will take appropriate action to counter any threat that may arise. we are aware of and concerned about allegations that some latin-american drug trafficking organizations are linked with hezbollah and iran. we have not found information to verify amount of the allegations, but of course the recent incident concerning the attempted assassination of the saudi ambassador is a very large question mark and wakeup call. we are continuing to look for direct links and we are engaged very extensively with our partners in the hemisphere. bo

iran gets a testable weapon. the red line must come much sooner than that. [applause] the president's interview with jeffrey goldberg, while interesting, is not a policy. everyone in this room knows that president obama and members of his head fenestration have spent many months now issuing public statements that are more focused on containing israeli action than they have been on curtailing iran. [applause] i think everyone on this panel and in this room hopes the military action can be avoided. the only possible way for it to be avoided is if the iranians understand that we will stand firmly shoulder to shoulder with the israelis and we will take military action if necessary. [applause] >> let me ask you very quickly, the consequences of a falling out of the regime. >> clearly, it is in america's interest to go. it is in israel's interest and it will clearly hurt iran. iran uses syria as a place to which they funnel money and weapons to terrorist organizations. it is past time for bashar al- assad to go. his de

sure those who call for a military strike on iran and i don't call from the terry strike on iran at least at this time point to the example of israel strike on the iraqi reactor which set the iraqi program back so far that was never reconstituted and also the israeli strike on the syrian reactor which set the syrian program back so far that it is yet to be reconstituted so there is something to be said for setting programs back for buying time ok valorie so if you think you iran is like the syrians in the iraqi brigade exactly and the thing is that i mean valid if i can ask you if there is a military strike against around that's open war and there are consequences of that for the region or a remains and an arms race could ensue after that i mean isn't that another law of unintended consequences that are not being thought about here. yeah i mean the iranian response to any kind of a military attack on its nuclear facilities is very hard to predict but we can we can assume that there will be one some a symmetrical to a large extent but there will be one and this sort of unpredictable elemen

about the perceived threat that iran is building a nuclear weapon. with regards to iran president obama said we have a window through which we can resolve the issue peacefully and as he doesn't like the grounds of who are israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu is pushing very hard for a more affirmative response from president obama on his readiness to go to war with iran addressing the influential pro israel lobby apac on monday after meeting u.s. president he said we have waited eight for diplomacy to work we have waited for sanctions to work we cannot afford to wait much longer a very tough statement right there but fresh after the meeting with the israeli prime minister president obama says he's ready to say to restart talks with iran and there is still a chance for diplomacy to work and there's a very high degree of ambiguity to president obama's stance here on the one hand you have president obama saying all options are on the table that he is not bluffing and is ready to go or go to war if needed on the other hand members of his administrat

iran is a signature of the n.p.t. and yet is going through this very very intense scrutiny with implied threats as well and i think there's a we've got to be very careful to show a balance in our approach which comes back to the original discussion we were having about the need for that balance when discussion discussing the issue in general is it really balance though to allow iran to arm itself with nuclear weapons well as i said that we come back to the evidence business and let's examine the evidence so you point to me the substantive evidence of that i have failed to see it our former directors and director generals of the i have said they cannot see this stand of evidence so i think we have to be very very careful here we cannot want to make the same mistake we made in iraq where on the basis of secret intelligence and circumstantial evidence we basically went to war in a false promise could we see a rerun of that i think there is a thing you know the rhetoric is building up i mean there is you know the annual c

it would be a huge statement to iran. this missile defenses are aimed at iran. if russia and the united states could work out a joint arrangement so that russian radar information were shared with the new missile defense system, that would be really powerful statement to iran that their threats are not going to work, that they are more isolated, and that even russia and nato are working together against them. they are pushing russia and the together. that is how much of it. the world use them. -- that is how much of a threat the world use them. i would not give the russians detail over whether or not a missile system could be used. we could not give them to tell. we would have to work out some sharing of the information, especially the radar information. that would be so valuable. there may be a way to give information in real time if there is an iranian launch of a missile. if that missile is going towards russia or europe, there may be ways you could share information that would be mutually advantageous. i would think we would want iran to know we would help r

uc the iran takes out where iran is the battlefield with a proxy war? >> how would they react regionally? >> it is reacting to policies overall. not just specifically on sanctions but to iran is influential and hoping coming from afghanistan all the very much against the agreement between united states and afghan government and inserting pressure and influence including the very limited manner. there are reports with the rebels in the north and dock write-up. this is not meant for the united states for what is supporting the u.s. sanctions regime. looking at the drawbacks there are things iran can do in the region when it is faced by sanctions. and still despite loss of influence and power for after the fact with the straighter for moose is an act of retaliation, low-price is have gone up. a way to say if if the u.s. herds their economy, they can retaliate. it is not the same scale but they can retaliate. that is why the military option is not re a solution because of potential conflict would be very messy and could take years. >> iraq and afghanistan b

[laughter] yep, iran. every day i open the newspapers and all i read about all these red lines and time lines. i read about what israel has supposedly decided to do or what israel might do. i'm not going to talk about what israel will do or will not do. i will never talk about that. pasqua -- [applause] but i do want to talk to you about the dangers of a nuclear-armed iran. i want to explain why iran must never be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. president obama has reiterated his commitment to prevent that from happening. [applause] he stated clearly that all options are on the table and that american policy is not continued. well israel has the same policy. we are determined to present iran from developing nuclear weapons. we believe all options on the table and the containment is definitely not an option. the jewish state will not allow those that seek our destruction to possess the means to achieve that goal, a nuclear-armed iran must be stopped. [applause] now, amazingly some people refuse to ackno

would be bad for everybody of course we don't know whether it is a nuclear iran well if iran had nuclear weapons they would still be directly under the targeting sites of the united states of britain and of israel if they had a nuclear weapon they could not defeat us we couldn't separate persia whenever we felt like doing it forever whenever we needed to do it if you look at iran iran's energy industry has peaked and with the economy its support it supports its declining it's a country of. a limited number of shia muslims surrounded by a vastly greater sunni. population that surrounds it and hates them would rather kill them than than israelis or americans or brits and finally. if you look at the map iran is completely surrounded by u.s. military bases that have been built in the last ten years in cold war terms if you will iran is completely contained but i think we need to remember that there iranian iraq was completely contained in there to stop that war the one card i would have on that you would ask what would happen if we attacked iraq the iranians have a tremendous capability with

in which the bush administration thought it was punishing iran by not talking to it, iran's influence in the region grew exponentially. first you had a situation in iraq and afghanistan, two states which leaders, whose leaders tended to be enemies of iran. suddenly they were now, iran was now the king maker this those two states. iran who only had a couple of dozen spinning centrifuges in 2003 had up to 8,000 by the end of 2008 when bush left office. and by challenging an increasingly unpopular america in the middle east, iran's soft power throughout the arab world was also expanding. against this backdrop, obama made something that no one else had done before. he made a promise of diplomacy with america's foes a central part of his torn policy platform. and talking to the iranians became the poster child of that platform. but under normal circumstances, it would have been a losing card. in fact, politically suicidal. it now became a winning proposition precisely because of the american population's rejection of the bush foreign policy and the neoconservative ideology that it was base

on by iran. and also would take a major hit if they did get involved in response to an attack on those nuclear facilities by israel. so there would be great risks that they would take the places that harbor them would take, and also i just think their interests are not aligned at all precisely with iran. >> what about iran cutting off the strait of hormuzz? >> well, that's not a threat if we don't want them to. but we might decide to cut off their oil shipments as a possibility of one of the option. that is an option to look at so it's kind of ironic that they're threatening to close the straits of hormuzz because they can't if we don't want them to because our military and naval capability is strong enough so that they could not do it against our will. on the other hand, if you really look at blockade as a possibility, and if the world is willing to understand that iranian nuclear weapons is such a threat to the region and to the world peace that it is willing to really stop iran from doing it b

and iran brushes off claims by the u.n. nuclear watchdog it's trying to raise evidence of explosives testing to keep the site israel's threats of attack. criticism from eastern citizens. the new rules against overspenders takes effect hungary getting its funding slashed although some leeway is given to spain but the region's followers say they're the ones getting the force of the overzealous take. the next we hear why sanctions and threats of military action don't work when it comes to solving the radian nuclear dispute. i'm joined by john baron a british member of parliament and the only member of the conservative party to vote against taking military action in libya john thanks as being to r.t. you now you recently put forward a motion to the house of parliament urging the government to rule out military action in iran and you say that move would be counterproductive why is that but i think it would it's not only naive but it's illogical it's naive because the policy of force has clearly failed the policy of saber rattlin

recently russia has been sending delegations to iran and iran's russia and in this respect the situation has improved. and many russian officials now say that there is no reason to believe that overran a single developing nuclear weapons. western pressure and sanctions are a large leap politicized us their purpose is to influence to the people of iran. we owe. the russian foreign minister a visit to the states last week here. his talks with the. trade states this clinton she asked the lover off two to two to tell that to translate to the iranian side that talks maybe a last chance to avoid a military attack how scary is that. people. of course we have often received similar threats over the past thirty years. on two occasions so i think they even had a specific detail for attacking iran. should what we know and americans know that throughout the five thousand years of iran's he's throwing people of iran have always defended their country they're really two separate fires their allies for their homeland has friends from before. i think such threats are intended mostly for domestic consump

recently russia has been standing delegations to iran and iran's russia in this respect this situation has improved. many russian officials now say that there is no reason to believe that iran a single developing nuclear weapons. western pressure and sanctions are a largely politicized us their purpose is to influence the people of iran. we owe the russian foreign minister a visit to the states last week you know the jury in his talks with. trade states this clinton she asked the lover of two to two to tell that to translate to the iranian side that talks maybe a last chance to avoid and military attack how scary is that. for your people. of course we have often received similar threats over the past thirty years. on syria kishen so i think they even ahead as specific details for attacking iran. but we know and americans know that throughout the five thousand years of iran's history the people of iran have always defended their country they're really two separate flies their lives for their homeland is for others from before. i think such threats are intended mostly for domestic consum

so there is tension in the world, between israel iran and the u.s. and iran. now we are hearing, of course, as both sides would like you to believe, there is no daylight between the u.s. and if israel, we are on the same page as far as this goes. but there has been some tension with israel doing more sabre rattling, saying they are ready to launch a preemptive strike because now is the time, you don't want them to dig deeper and hide their uranium enrichment facilities and make them inpenetrable to american or israeli bombs upon so time is running out, some say. but the president says we do need to give diplomacy and sanctions more time. we expect to hear that. we will see the language he uses in just a few minutes when he appears here in washington. >> it does seem, steve, as we have tracked this, certainly on this sunday morning hour, we have had our eye on iran, that time is not a friend to the u.s. or israel when it comes to iran's intentions, or their plans where nuclear power and possible weaponry is concerned. what about any reaction from iran? they kno

iran, hezbollah and the quds force. the revolutionary guard corps, special forces unit responsible, a division responsible for foreign clandestine operations including assassinations pose a real threat to the our country, as i said. both these groups are now heavily involved in the global cocaine trade and as a result of that activity, they have come much closer into our neighborhood and even closer on to our doorstep. they are now operating and working in close proximity and collaborating with mexican and colombia drug trafficking cartels not only in the western hemisphere but other locations such as guinea pasell in west africa. thanks to venezuela, and hugo chavez, these operatives from these very threatening terrorist groups are pours into our neighborhood, into the western hemisphere. the hezbollah quds force are masters at identifying infrastructures around the world and leveraging and exploiting them for all they're worth. this has been their modus operandi for decades. if you don't think they don't recognize the

sure those who call for a military strike on iran and i don't call for military strike on iran at least at this time point to the example of israel strike on the iraqi reactor which set the iraqi program back so far there was never reconstituted and also the israeli strike on the syrian reactor which set the syrian program back so far that it is yet to be reconstituted so there is something to be said for setting programs back for buying time ok valorie so do you think you're iran is like what the syrians and the iraqis were going to design and the thing is is that i mean if i can ask you if there is a military strike against iran that's open war and there are consequences of that for the region or are a menace and an arms race could ensue after that i mean isn't that another law of unintended consequences that are not being fought about here. yeah i mean the iranian response to any kind of a military attack on its nuclear facilities is very hard to predict but we can we can assume that there will be one some case of metric to a large extent but there will be one and this sort of unpred

will go to war if iran crosses these red lines and the red lines will be that iran has nuclear capacity and not a nuclear weapon and obama has said iran has to get a nuclear weapon before we decide to act militarily so they're not the u.s. is not them and they are not us there seems to be that is an important distinction to make between the two countries and their interests and what they've said sort of outline is we hear a lot of course from you know leaders in israel we hear a lot from apac and some of the voices. they sort of put out into the public to make their case we don't often hear from iran so i think it's important to point this out i know a little more than a week ago iran's supreme leader ali how many i gave a foreign policy speech and as part of that speech he addressed the issue of nuclear weapons and here's what he said he said the iranian nation has never pursued and will never pursue nuclear weapons there is no doubt that the decision makers in these countries opposing us know well that iran is not after nuclear weapons because the islamic republic logically religiousl

world against iran. so israel has to weigh give kinds of considerations right now. it also knows that we probably have more capability to inflict greater damage on and cep sent k the iranian nuclear program than the israelis do. do they want to subcontract out something that's so fundamental to them. would it not be better for the americans to do it than for israel to do it. will the united states in the end actually go ahead and do it. i think what jeff is talking about in terms of trusting whether we would, i think that issue is increasingly being addressed. i think there's much less question as to whether or not this president, if he says he's going to do it will actually do it. in the interview he gave to jeff where he says he doesn't bluff, i think that was a very important message. but i again, i link it to the other point. there was a presumption on the part of many people around the prime minister that at the end of the day there were enough people within the obama administration who are prepared

israel and iran are -- the united states and iran are slave slaves to think erect -- electoral cln dares right now. i'm working my ass off and all you do is respond to the dick joke? is that what this is. we built this whole thing. election -- he said erection. [ laughter ] so now here is my point: the united states and iran are slaves to their electoral calendars right now. (bleep) there you happy? [ laughter ] it's up to you guys not to get caught up and perhaps muffle the drums of war a little bit israel. what? you've got to be kidding me. netanyahu could be calling parliamentary elections as soon as this fall. so your overheated rhetoric is preelection shvandz waving, too? came aare one. dude, iran and israel are in an election year. here overhearing each other's stump speeches and freaking out. if we're not careful these two dickheads are going to drag noose a war. i did say dickhead i meant respected ally. i said proud and ancient culture with much to teach us. persian baklava. not that israeli baklava is not good it's quite good p. what the (bleep) is baklava? nothing beats a deep

intelligence believes iran is not ready to build a weapon yet. >> we have to assume that iran will only reach that stage when it can produce a large number of warheads, say 15 or 20, in a short space of time, together with the corresponding millis -- missile technology. >> iran believes that would safeguard the country from foreign aggression. for now, the world is left guessing as to what iran's aims are. that, too, only strengthens to run's -- iran's and. >> pope benedict has arrived in mexico. >> 70 dissidents have been arrested ahead of the visit. that includes 15 members of the ladies in white movement who say the government wants them to not be present for his visit. >> john, what do you make of the pope's decision to visit cuba then. the must be political aspect to it? >> it is described as pastoral. that means in effect that his pastoral -- his primary concern is the life of catholics. the catholic cannot live in isolation from society, and so there's always a social aspect, a political aspect. cuba is a special case. cuba is in transition. president raul castro is a pragmatist,

recently russia has been standing delegations to iran and iran to russia in this respect this situation has improved with many russian officials now say that there is no reason to believe that overran a single developing nuclear weapons. for western pressure and sanctions are a largely politicized us their purpose is to influence the people of iran. we owe the russian foreign minister a visit to the united states last week you know the jury in his talks with the sec treyf state clinton she asked lover of health to to to to tell them to translate to the iranian side that talks may be a last chance to avoid a military attack how scary is that. for your people. of course we have often received similar threats over the past thirty years. to a cation so i think they even ahead as specific details for attacking iran. should but we know and americans know that throughout the five thousand years of iran's history the people of iran have always defended their country they're really two separate feist's their lives for their homeland his father's from default. i think such threats are intended mo

the secular and democratic iran let them have all the technologies in the world. whatever they like. not this regime. not this regime. we should despise the culture and values of your society if you don't know it. >> we have come to the end of the hour. please join me in thanking our panelist for a fascinating study. [ applause ] >> thank you all for coming. >>> the chairman of the house armed services committee buck mckeon joins us to discuss defense cuts by obama administration including decreasing the eyes of the army and marines and the the affect that could have on the military. >> people are just starting to understand how serious this is. i mean, they are just starting to come to grips with the 487 billion that's being cut out of the president's budget that we're dealing with right now, starting into. then you add another 500 to $600 billion on top of that that's just across the board cuts that no thought, no planning, no nothing. in fact, when we have the secretary of navy and the cno and marine commandant in week before last in hearings, i asked them, i s

iran is a signature of the n.p.t. and yet is going through this very very intense scrutiny with implied threats as well and i think there's a got to be very careful to show a balance in our approach which comes back to the original question we were having about the need for that balance when discussion discussing the issue in general is it really balance those who allow iran to arm itself with nuclear weapons well as i said we come back to the evidence business and let's examine the evidence that you point to me the substantive evidence of that i have failed to see it our former directors and director generals of the i a e a have said they cannot see this and stand through the evidence so i think we have to be very very careful here we do not want to make the same mistake we made in iraq where on the basis of secret intelligence and circumstantial evidence we basically went to war in a false promise could we see a rerun of that i think there is a danger of what you know the rhetoric is building up i mean there is you

iran is the war in iran it should be iran the us has been picking and choosing which countries to intervene in for centuries as the list of nations that america loves to hate expands the concept that no work more is also an option seems to have been for about the situation i heard see. how to talk more about why america seems to be so gung ho about going to war then check their filmmaker and blogger at news de sac there dot com dot net welcome to the show so right here you think america is addicted to war. well from the ship from the halls of montezuma to the shores of tripoli that's how the u.s. marine corps anthem begins as a sort of a global salute to its own war making powers that have gone on for you know well over one hundred fifty years in various parts of the world united states has become an empire really not just a nation it has interests all over the world it has troops and and bases and military relationships and in well over one hundred fifty countries and so this is really something that's not just the militarism but it has actually concrete purpose it takes care of supporting

iran with a nuclear weapon. the two leaders, who being benjamin netanyahu and president obama, have not always had the easiest relationship. once again looking less than comfortable in their narrative together, we'll get into the politics of the u.s./israeli relationship coming up with the mega panel. this will focus on the presidential election, but once again, the rhetoric sounds more and more like israel at least is escalating threats that a strike on iran may be in the cards. then today new nbc survey showing by matter of popular opinion, which is an interesting way to assess these things, but the majority of americans want to take military action in iran if iran continues towards a nuke. that said, only a fifth of those polled want americans taking that action. they prefer israeli action. these are the polls that depends how you ask these questions. what's clear, however, that you and i can agree to today is that tensions between israel and iran are at multi-year highs around fear that it may not be a quest

would be bad for everybody of course we don't know whether it is a nuclear iran well if iran had nuclear weapons they would still be directly under the targeting sites of the united states of britain and of israel if they had a nuclear weapon they could not defeat us we could incinerate persia whenever we felt like doing it or ever whenever we needed to do it if you look at iran iran's energy industry has peaked and with the economy its support it supports its declining it's a country of. a limited number of shia muslims surrounded by a vastly greater sunni. population that surrounds it and hates them would rather kill them than than the israelis or americans or brits and finally if you look at the map iran is completely surrounded by u.s. military bases that have been built in the last ten years in cold war terms if you will iran is completely contained but i think we need to remember that the iranian iraq was completely contained and that didn't stop that war the one card you have i would have on that you ask what would happen if we attacked iraq the iranians have a tremendous capabili

now about iran, you are right. i've long worried about iran. i'm a jewish grandmother and soon to be a jewish great grandmother. i come by this honestly. iran is not only a threat to israel that we all understand and get, and the clock is ticking, but iran has shown over the years that it is capable through hezbollah to attack this hemisphere. the attacks in the '90s were the largest massacre since the holocaust. more jews did there. so we better take this seriously. and if iran gets a nuclear weapon, the arms race that will ensue and the destabilization. not only of the region, but of the world, i think means that iran and a few other countries like pakistan are countries we need to worry about. it's in our national interest to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon. >> let's elaborate a little bit on that. what would a nuclear capable iran mean for groups like hezbollah? >> well, certainly, david, there's no greater threat that anyone faces. israel or the united states, than a terrorist armed with a nuclear weapon. and when you think abou

iran accuses -- iran accuses the american government of orchestrating 9/11. that is as brazen as denying the holocaust which they do. [ applause ] >> iran calls for israel's destruction and they work for this destruction. they work for this every day, each day. relentlessly. i say all that to make one point clear. this is how iran behaves today without nuclear weapons. think of how they will behave tomorrow with nuclear weapons. iran will be even more reckless and a lot more dangerous. now, there has been plenty of talk recently about the cost of stopping iran. i think it's time we started talking about the costs of not stopping iran. [ applause ] >>> a nuclear armed iran would dramatically increase terrorism by giving terrorists a nuclear umbrella. let me ex whian what that means. it means that iran terror plot like hezbollah and hamas will be em bold tondz attack the united states and others because they'll be backed by a power that has atomic bombs. so the terrorism we see today could grow ten field if not month more. a nuclear armed iran could choke off t

iran is a signature of the n.p.t. and yet is going through this very very intense scrutiny with implied threats as well and i think there's a we've got to be very careful to show a balance in our approach which comes back to the original discussion we're having about the need for that balance and discussion discussing the issue in general is it really balance though to allow iran to arm itself we have nuclear weapons well as i said we come back to the evidence business let's examine the evidence so you point to me the substantive evidence of that i have failed to see it former directors and director generals of the i have said they cannot see there is substantial evidence so i think we have to be very very careful here we do not want to make the same mistake we made in iraq where on the basis of secret intelligence and circumstantial evidence we basically went to war in a false promise could we see a rerun of that i think there is a danger of what you know the rhetoric is building up i mean there is you know the annua

would be bad for everybody of course we don't know whether it is a nuclear iran but only if iran had nuclear weapons they would still be directly under the targeting sites the united states of britain and of israel if they had a nuclear weapon they could not defeat us we could incinerate persia whenever we felt like doing it or ever whenever we needed to do it if you look at iran iran's energy industry has peaked and with the economy its support it supports its declining it's a country of a little. the number of shia muslims surrounded by a vastly greater sunni. population that surrounds it and hates them would rather kill them than them israelis or americans or brits and finally. if you look at the map iran is completely surrounded by u.s. military bases that have been built in the last ten years and cold war terms if you will around is completely contained but i think we need to remember that they had the iranian iraq was completely contained in there didn't stop that war but one car the i would have on had us what would happen if we attacked iraq the iranians have a tremendous cap

israel, iran, and turkey. those three countries are still capable of acting, and i'm not suggesting always for the good, in ways that can change the nature of conflict or peace making in this region. just a said of observations. i have the moderator's prerogative. i'm going to ask each of you the question i presume is on the minds of everyone in this room and most of official and unofficial washington but i want to do it in a very provocative manner. so here is the question. by the end of this calendar year, will iran's nuclear sites, by the end of this calendar year, will iran's nuclear sites be struck in military action. i'm going to be very hard on this one. i want a yes or no from each of you initially, and i want a one -- if the answer is no, i want a one sentence, maybe two sentence explanation as to why. will israel or the united states strike iran's nuclear sites by the end of this calendar year? and if not, very briefly, why not? i would gladly give you my view after you give me yours. so why don't we

regarding iran and the western hemisphere, you know, obviously, iran facing these very effective sanctions and their aggressive enforcement is becoming increasingly desperate, looking for friends wherever they think they can find them. and they're not getting the kind of response. on that tour of tyrants that you referenced. our analysis of what happened is that it fell very far short of what the iranians hoped for. that said, we are concerned about the activities of iran and hezbollah in the western hemisphere. we continue to monitor the situation closely. we will take appropriate action to counter any threat that may arise. we are aware of and concerned about allegations that some latin american drug trafficking organizations are linked with hezbollah and iran. we've not found information to verify a lot of the allegations. but, of course, the recent incident concerning the attempted assassination of the saudi ambassador is a very large question mark and wake-up call. we're continuing to look for direct links and we're engaged very extensively with our partners in the hemisphere, both to

iran. we all know the threat in iran is real. would you discuss the relationship of iran to syria, to hezbollah? and on "60 minutes" secretary panetta said there was a red line for us. i know in the discussions between mr. netanyahu and the president in the last several days there seems to be some closing of the gap on our different ideas about dealing with iran and the growing concern. what actions, military or otherwise, should we be considering in connection with iran? i don't mean to put you in a classified position, but just generally could you give us your idea? >> yes, sir. the iranian threat is basically along four lines. there's this nuclear program where they're enriching more uranium than they need for any peaceful purpose. and that went through denial and deception. they have tried to keep that program going. the iaea has tried its best to monitor it. they've had an unfortunate visit there recently. the second threat is the long range rocket and ballistic missile threat. that on

iran is a signature of the n.p.t. and yet is going through this very very intense scrutiny with implied threats as well and i think there's a we've got to be very careful to show a balance in our approach which comes back to the original discussion we're having about the need for that balance when discussion discussing the issue in general is it really balance those who allow iran to arm itself with nuclear weapons well as i said we come back to the evidence business and let's examine the evidence so you point to me the substantive evidence of that i have failed to see it our former directors and director generals of the i a e a have said they cannot see this instant of evidence so i think we have to be very very careful here we do not want to make the same mistake we made in iraq where on the basis of secret intelligence and circumstantial evidence we basically went to war on a false premise could we see a rerun of the i think there is a danger of whoa you know the rhetoric is building up i mean there is you know the

clearly important to iran, and that regime is clearly important to iran. what the effect would be and overtime how that would manifest itself is pretty hard to forecast. >> you have anything -- >> no, there are very few countries that are standing tall or short with syria these days. iran happens to be one of the few. >> john, did you have a question? >> i want to take david's notion that maybe iran would be a screw driver away from having a bomb. and could be very successful for a long time doing that, versus the notion that maybe there's an israeli attack, and there's a whole series things that come from that, that may involve us. if those are two possible scenarios, what does the middle east look like in five years time if that's where we are. either the iranians move toward having some sort of ambiguous weapons capability in five year's time. or there's an israeli strike that somehow involves us, and whatever secondary things come from that, where is the middle east then? taking general cartwright's notion that you can slow down a bomb but you can't st

we did not go to war with iran. in 1998, iran allegedly operating through hezbollah, kidnapped and murdered a u.s. green. we did not go to war with iran. in 1996, iran allegedly supported the terrorist group that bombed the towers, a u.s. military residence, that attacked 19 u.s. servicemen. we did not go to war with iran. in these situations, we seem to follow the advice of pope john paul ii mac who said war is not always inevitable. instead of going to war with republicans and democratic administrations, president carter, reagan, bush, clinton, put public sanctions on iran. in recent years, the united states had expanded those sanctions. this year the european union joined the efforts to sanction iran. that includes halting new imports. in addition, the eu has imposed new banking restrictions on iran. these restrictions known as reach into the global banking system. they short-circuit iranians a money system. without the ability to be the international banking system, it is unlike a bit iran's current inflation ra

i will engage iran's neighbors. i will station multiple aircraft carriers and warships at iran's door. i'll stand with the syrian people who are being mercilessly slaughtered. i know that the fall of assad would not only be an important victory for liberty, but also a strategic blow to tehran. as president, i'll be ready to engage in diplomacy. but i will be just as ready to engage our military might. israel will know that america stands at its side in all conditions, and in all consequences. >> mitt romney speaking to the apec conference, which is a pro-israeli lobby group based here in washington, d.c. this following remarks last night among others the israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu, and the republican leader in the u.s. senate mitch mcconnell, on sunday, of course, the president speaking to the apec conference. all of these speeches have been posted on our website, at c-span.org. mitt romney speaking via video conference. he is in boston tonight, awaiting the returns, super tuesday, massachusetts among

>> well, i think iran is well, two dimensions to this. i think on one count they feel somewhat under siege and on the other hand they are feeling their oats. the iranian lands, they probably view arab spring is a good dating and an opportunity for them to exploit which thus far have not worked to their favor. so, today, through their proxies, particularly decided and made a conscious judgment to reach out against primarily israeli and u.s. interests. >> they are displaying some capabilities. >> well, yes sir, to a certain extent, even though the attacks that you reference were not successful in case they blew one of their own up but they regard those as successful because of a psychological impact they have in each one of the countries. >> quickly, in the situation in mexico, do you believe that, as you know 50,000 mexicans have lost their lives as a result of drug-related violence. is your assessment that these violent criminal organizations pose a threat to the united states, including states along the border? >> yes, sir, they do. ther

on iran mitt romney on sunday went so far as to say that if you are reelected iran will get a bomb and the world will change. how do you respond to those criticisms? >> you asked a couple of questions there. let's start with the iran situation since that's been the topic of the news for the last few days. when i came into office iran was unified, on the move, had made substantial progress on its nuclear program and the world was divided in terms of how to deal with it. what we've been able to do over the last three years is mobilize unprecedented crippling sanctions on iran. iran is feeling the bite of these sanctions in a substantial way. the world is unified, iran is politically isolated. what i have said is that we will not countenance iran getting a nuclear weapon. my mol see is not containment, my policy is to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon, because if they get a nuclear weapon that could trigger an arm's race in the region. it would undermine our nonproliferation goals and potentially fall into the hands of terrorists. we've been in close consultation with all our all