iran agreed to it at first, but it fell victim to domestic politics in iran. it fell apart. turkey and brazil at the same numerical agreement th had with some differences. one, they drew up something called the tehran agreement. they said their rights to enrich inalienable we recognized. iran had started to enrich to 20%. that means there were much closer to nuclear capability. the other problem i see with the may, 2010 agreement is dead iran was going outside the establishment. this was unacceptable to the united states. on those four points, i know some of you will disagree with this strongly -- on those four points, this was not a good deal for the and it states. they went ahead with much tougher sanctions. then you have an effort in december, 2010, to revise the diplomatic process. iran came to the meeting saying their condition was that sanctions should be lifted and its right to enrich should be unequivocally recognized. the iranians stopped negotiating because the and it states wanted to have a modified deals what agreement. they said we will not talk to you until you

if iran is attacked, i suspect iran can retaliate in kind. that is that every option has gone out the window. the iranian authorities know they would retaliate if attacked by israel. they would lose cities and technology but also faith from their public world opinion is not in their support. >> is probably one of the questions right now where we know sanctions are affected. but are they effective enough to get the a readiness to change their behavior or opinion? the u.s. calculation is that the sanctions against the central bank and oil sales went into effect in july. the thinking is let's see how it goes after six months. i don't think anyone knows whether sanctions are strong enough to get the iranians to change their behavior. many people feel they are not but we will see. >> i have already answered but i will take another go at this. he mentions the iranians have time on their side on the u.s. side, there's a perception that time is on the side of the u.s. these sanctions are having a severe effect on the iranian economy. in theory, the a

and iran. nevertheless, this event forced iran to go for self-sufficiency, to finish billions of dollars of unfinished projects which iran had already paid to western countries like france and germany and the u.s. furthermore, saddam hussein invaded iran, and the u.s. and the west unfortunately provided support of thety depress sor, and his use of chemical weapons against iranian civilians with tens of thousands of iranians either killed or injured. this event also changed iran's security calculations. right after iran mastered enrichment technology, iran's nuclear case came under the spotlight in 2003, and the iaea board of governors issued the first resolution on iran's nuclear program. since 2003 and after 4,000 man days of iaea's inspection of iranian nuclear facilities, the u.s. and its allies generally agree on three things about iran's nuclear program. first, tehran does not have a nuclear bomb. second, iran has not decided to build nuclear bomb. and, third, probably years away, iran is

especially in iran. that's a country that's bigger than france, germany, italy and britain combined. the same is true for the small facility in which they could assembly a warhead or a nuclear device that could be placed in a container ship. chances are, you won't find that facility either. so in fact, the only way that you can credibly prevent iran from developing a nuclear weapon is to prevent iran from amassing enough enriched uranium for a bomb. so how much enriched uranium do you need for a bomb? and how close is iran to getting it? well, let me show you. i brought a diagram for you. here's a diagram. this is a bomb. this is a fuse. in the case of iran's nuclear plans to build a bomb, this bomb has to be filled with enough enriched uranium and iran has to go through three stages. the first stage they have to enrich enough low enriched uranium. the second stage, they have to enrich enough medium enriched rue yan y rue y uranium, and then enough for the first bomb. where's iran? iran's completed the f

iran must be engaged. iran has its own legitimate security. >> rose: don't you believe that the president of the united states, i mean part of what he tried to do at the beginning of his administration, this president was to engage iran. >> yes. and we supported. >> rose: and he was not successful. >> it was not, and we said to iranians that this was a mistake. we believe that this should have been grabbed, but we still have the common position of the five plus one. >> rose: let me ask you this too. this is sort of the heart of it i think, it is that while you and your government and most government do not believe, would not like to see iran have nuclear weapons. said that here at this table. >> to put it very mildly. >> rose: exactly. you think would be a great threat. >> well, we think any violation of any treaty would be a great threat. >> rose: do you have any worry that because of the way they've been able to delay and hide and some of those things, that they may be getting very close, so close that a

about iran. but after what i saw in iran -- iran and other places. so therefore, iran is following the world very closely. there are many people that think about the iranian leadership, so they know what the reactions have been. that's why i said iran would not like to be hit because they know very well that the way -- at the end of the day, they will be hit by israel. iran will not be able to retaliate in kind because the united states will be there for israel. so this is something that has to be taken into consideration and something that will have to force iran to stay at the negotiation table. one thing, maybe i should have said at the very beginning, the first question , what is left to be done for iran. twenty, 40 percent enrichment? because now we are at a point where this is not the way the politics should continue. i mean, the united states must definitely give up looking at the situation to find a quick solution. it's not a fast -- it is a fast society but in terms of politics, we're de

especially in iran. that's a country that's bigger than france, germany, italy and britain combined. the same is true for the small facility in which they could assembly a warhead or a nuclear device that could be placed in a container ship. chances are, you won't find that facility either. so in fact, the only way that you can credibly prevent iran from developing a nuclear weapon is to prevent iran from amassing enough enriched uranium for a bomb. so how much enriched uranium do you need for a bomb? and how close is iran to getting it? well, let me show you. i brought a diagram for you. here's a diagram. this is a bomb. this is a fu.inhe case of iran' plans to build a bomb, this bomb has to be filled with enough enriched uranium and iran has to go through three stages. the first stage they have to enrich enough low enriched uranium. the second stage, they have to enrich enough medium enriched rue yan y rue y uranium, and then enough for the first bomb. where's iran? iran's completed the first stage. to

especially in iran. that's a country that's bigger than france, germany, italy, and britain combined. the same is true for the small facility in which they could assemble a war head or nuclear device that could be placed in a container ship. chances are you won't find that facility either. so in fact the only way that you can credibly prevent iran from developing a nuclear weapon is to prevent iran from amassing enough enriched uranium for a bomb. so how much enriched uranium do you need for a bomb? how close is iran to getting it? let me show you. i brought a diagram for you. here is the diagram. this is a bomb. this is a fuse. in the case of iran's nuclear plans to build a bomb, this bomb has to be filled with enough enriched uranium. iran has to go through 3 stages. the first stage they have to enrich enough. the second stage they have some enrich enough medium enriched uranium. the third stage and final stage, they have to enrich enough high enriched uranium for the first bomb. where is iran? iran's

where is iran? iran's completed the first stage. took themanyear buthey completed it and they're 70% of the way there. now they're well into the second sta stage, and by next spring at most by next summer at current enrime rates they ll he finied t medium enrichment and move on to the final stage. from there it's only a few months, psibly a few weeks before they get enough enriched urium for the first bomb. la agentlemen, what i've told you now is not based on secret information. it's not based on military intelligence. it's based on the public reports of the international atomic energy agcy. they're online.. so if these are the facts, if these are the facts, and they are, where should a red line be drawn? a red line should be drawnht here. befo before, before iran completes the second stage of nuclear enrichment necessary to make a bomb. erit's few months away or few weeks away from amassing enough enriched uranium to make a nuclear weon. now, each day that point is getting closer. that's why i speak today with such a sense of urge

leadership continues to threaten attacking iran iran in turn threatening to counter strike u.s. interests in the region up next we talk to the former head of the israeli ministry of defense where the conflict is inevitable. with me i have aria hertzog the former head of the israel missile defense organization so thank you very much for joining us here on r.t. on major media outlets seem to agree that the decision by netanyahu and the israeli defense minister of iraq to strike iran is imminent with some suggesting that it might even happen this for israel on the brink of going to war with iran. about it . the same as you do. i believe that we are preparing all the options. i believe also but the u.s. is preparing options. we should see what happens iran has denied that it is pursuing nuclear weapons and despite the rhetoric on the rain inside it has not struck anyone why would iran strike israel if israel did not strike iran first first before iran did declare very clearly the they're preparing themselves to wipe israel from the globe which means that there is a real threat on th

threatening more and more in conflict with iran threatening to attack the nuclear sites within iran with the threat growing by the day and i'm still not confident that israel is really keeping at bay until november . it's very difficult for me to think about getting more contact with iran but at the same time there's the spread of military attack on iran interior and right now . seem to back of the talks that started so hopefully in moscow for example earlier this year so. the problem is that we're not having syria as a problem alone we're not having peace very iran the problem in the rhone we have turkey because conflict is escalating everything at the same time so where do you see the future of this argument between israel and iran if tel aviv would be rational. i would be happy and think nothing's going to happen because i think military attack on the raw. cookie nearly suicidal for israel. considering that with all the change in egypt in the neighboring countries the tech like this you don't know how the region will react and if netanyahu be rational i would be happy and safe and thi

have hit a new low over the looming nuclear threat from iran? >> those in the international community that refuse to put red lines before iran don't have a moral right to place a red light before israel. >>> sorting out u.s. options in the middle east, consequences for the region and the political impact in november. our political roundtable. joining us, the first muslim elected to the u.s. congress, democratic representative from minnesota, keith ellison. the chairman of the homeland security committee, new york republican congressman, peter king. author of the new book, "the price of politics," "the washington post's" bob woodward. "the atlantic's" jeffrey goldberg. and nbc's chief foreign affairs goldberg. and nbc's chief foreign affairs correspondent andrea mitchell. captions paid for by nbc-universal television >>> good morning. relative calm this morning in the middle east after several days of intense ti-american protests raged across many parts of the islamic world. and word this morning that the president obama has ordered evacuation of

have hit a new low over the looming nuclear threat from iran? >> those in the international community that refuse to put red lines before iran don't have a moral right to place a red light before israel. >>> sorting out u.s. options in the middle east, consequences for the region and the political impact in november. our political roundtable. joining us, the first muslim elected to the u.s. congress, democratic representative from minnesota, keith ellison. the chairman of the homeland security committee, new york republican congressman, peter king. author of the new book, "the price of politics," "the washington post's" bob woodward. "the atlantic's" jeffrey goldberg. and nbc's chief foreign affairs goldberg. and nbc's chief foreign affairs correspondent andrea mitchell. captions paid for by nbc-universal television >>> good morning. relative calm this morning in the middle east after several days of intense anti-american protests raged across many parts of the isl relative calm in the middle east after several days of intense anti-american prot

have hit a new low over the looming nuclear threat from iran? >> those in the international community that refuse to put red lines before iran don't have a moral right to place a red light before israel. >>> sorting out u.s. options in the middle east, consequences for the region and the political impact in november. our political roundtable. joining us, the first muslim elected to the u.s. congress, democratic representative from minnesota, keith ellison. the chairman of the homeland security committee, new york republican congressman, peter king. author of the new book, "the price of politics," "the washington post's" bob woodward. "the atlantic's" jeffrey goldberg. and nbc's chief foreign affairs goldberg. and nbc's chief foreign affairs correspondent andrea mitchell. captions paid for by nbc-universal television >>> good morning. relative calm this morning in the middle east after several days of intense anti-american protests raged across many parts of the islamic world. and word this morning that the president obama has ordered evacuation

iran must be engaged. iran has its own legitimate security. >> rose: don't you believe that the president of the united states, i mean part of what he tried to do at the beginning of his administration, this president was to engage iran. >> yes. and we supported. >> rose: and he was not successful. >> it was not, and we said to iranians that this was a mistake. we believe that this should have been grabbed, but we still have the common position of the five plus one. >> rose: let me ask you this too. this is sort of the heart of it i think, it is that while you and your government and most government do not believe, would not like to see iran have nuclear weapons. said that here at this table. >> to put it very mildly. >> rose: exactly. you think would be a great threat. >> well, we think any violation of any treaty would be a great threat. >> rose: do worry that because of the way they've been able to delay and hide and some of those things, that they may be getting very close, so close that at some point

many analysts point to iran's assistance. will iran change its course? listen to what president ahmadinejad says. mr. president let me ask you a question about human life. you spoke a great deal while you were here in new york about the value you place on human life. every life is important, you said. the government of syria has by all accounts killed about 20,000 people, about 250,000 syrians, men, women, and children have fled the country, and 1.2 million syrians have been displaced within the country. why will you not call on bashar al assad to resign and leave as president of syria. >> translator: do you think that if we do such a thing that the problem will be resolved? >> you say that you care about human life. you should take a moral stand. >> translator: yes, but do you think that if we make the request that you asked of, that the problem will be resolved? it's not so. the problem of syria is very complicated. and it requires a just and right solution, and i'm truly sorry and saddened not only in syria but anywhere in the world from any side wher

iran will defend itself. our hands are not tied. iran can defend itself. the second issue is, by principles, we do not mix the zyonists in our political considerations, in our political equation. and the third is that after all, the zionist regime is threatening iran. why is there silence in the world in this regard? the same international community that the lady mentioned, why are they-- why are they sitting silent in respect to threats against an autonomous country that is a member of that community. why should they not condemn it? please allow me to tell you the fourth point. why should the zionist regime establish a red line for the united states government's policy with iran. who are these people. please, someone tell me who these people are. >> rose: it's not the issue they are establishing for the united states government, it's the issue they may have for themselves. and why do you continue and every conversation to refer to them as a zionist regime rather than the state of israel? >> well, not you personally but does the united states government, w

between iran and the u.s., iran and the west. the problem is the lack of understanding in both sides. americans they do not understand iran. iranians do not understand america. the second major problem is mistrust. but mistrust is mutual. americans and the western countries, they need to understand why iran cannot trust the west. they have their own legitimate reasons. like americans and western countries, they cannot trust iran, iranians also they should understand why. being here i thought maybe that the most important job i can do to write a book on the nuclear issue as far as the nuclear issue is the issue number one. for the u.s. and the international community to present it the way the prospective and point of view of the iranians for american public opinion and politicians. to facilitate a possible peaceful solution for iranian nuclear crisis. >> there are a number of other questions, and you allude to this, related to trust. what do you say to those americans who argue that iran -- a deal with iran is really useless? that

and israel over iran because the u.s. has not been as forceful with this red line rhetoric as israel has been and israel is hoping that the u.s. will be more aggressive in setting in which there could be side of kind of consequences put upon iran if iran continues its nuclear program so clearly a lot of issues being discussed at the u.n. as all these world leaders are meeting in new york for the week. very i mean netanyahu estimated at timeframe of spring or summer twenty thirteen for iran to complete the next stage of its uranium enrichment and middle east commentator ramsey barritt says israeli prime minister is treading on dangerous ground he is digging a hole for himself he provided this timeline of one year where we can't possibly be go beyond that so he basically committed himself directly or indirectly that he is going to destroy iran's nuclear ambitions within one year if nothing is being done about it and you know why i feel like you are i think it's a message also to the united states that if you do not back us

conceded in that situation iran should have nuclear weapons. but i will argue. that fourteen reason why iran is not pursuing those not one to have. nuclear weapons. the reason is that is not going to enhance security. in the region and internationally that would be very stupid of the wrong. it's broken when talk a little bit about the sanctions iran's oil revenues have declined since the western sanctions won in place and i know that the government has come out and set anywhere in time so he hasn't really effected anything but they have these sanctions have eaten into iranian economy really haven't they course or no dog the sanctions are said in court that impact and they will what if you say that. to convince the rein in. richmond no they are not in the long term sanctions are going to have to you know very much and that's why all doing all along. in fact. situation is with the current situation is very good for the americans why they should change the course so that's why to me why it is that why the americans are all going against israel is that we can achiev

iran will defend itself. our hands are not tied. iran can defend itself. the second issue is, by principles, we do not mix the zyonists in our political considerations, in our political equation. and the third is that after all, the zionist regime is threatening iran. why is there silence in the world in this regard? the same international community that the lady mentioned, why are they-- why are they sitting silent in respect to threats against an autonomous country that is a member of that community. why should they not condemn it? please allow me to tell you the fourth point. why should the zionist regime establish a red line for the united states government's policy with iran. who are these people. please, someone tell me who these people are. >> rose: it's not the issue they are establishing for the united states government, it's the issue they may have for themselves. and why do you continue and every conversation to refer to them as a zionist regime rather than the state of israel? >> well, not you personally but does the united stes government, wou

. -- it will not help iran the the russians were to attack iran. building the weapon would have strategic - 4 iran. the current government is pursuing a path similar to those lines. what are we doing to make sure the's while we are pursuing policy, the pressure will have to be a component it to make sure it does not change that equation in the wrong direction. the u.s. military has done quite a lot to signal that the u.s. is not looking for a military confrontation at the expense of the tension that it is having with israel. >> i'd like to be seen as if i was promoting -- i was not promoting or attacking iran. when you talk about striking out iran and into a suitable level of -- pseduo level of [indiscernible] under pressure, iran chose the way of diplomacy. they do not learn anything from negotiating from the table. based on my personal observations, iran wants to be a supplier country of technology, not just a country that develops its own needs. in 2005, during talks, they country said it wanted to share technology. iran does not want to lose fa

>> translator: in iran there is only one regime so perhaps they are protesting against that and in iran, the judicial branch is not under the power of the government, of the administration. they have their own laws and that's what they follow. and we have no interference in that. and the government has paved the way for the highest form of freedom for all people, and you see that comfortably people criticize, people sometimes trespass the border lines of proper protest and they insult one another. as a president, i'm in the middle of the people of iran without drawing any borders, without drawing any red lines, and we converse. >> right. but this isn't just any protester. this could be your daughter in the future. it is the daughter of your predecessor, the president. a fairly significant moment that she has been imprisoned. do you feel uncomfortable that this lady is in jail? >> translator: you see, let's separate the two arguments, the two topics. the fact that whether i'm happy at anyone going to prison, no, never. never. no one should go to prison. but also keep in mind that in any

. >> or iran in 1979. >> this has happened in the past. so i don't think that we should misunderstand what this is. the reason we provide aid in egypt and lybia is because it serves american interests. >> but our americans are not being served if this is the response. >> it serves our interests to have egypt willing and able to maintain a peace treaty with israel, for egypt to continue to be a strong partner. let's be clear. the government, once president obama called president morsi, immediately in egypt, the security forces came out and have provided very significant protection. same in tunisia, same in libya, same in yemen. and all of these leaders have very forcefully conveyed their condemnation of what had transpired. >> there were conflicting messages from morsi. in arabic, they said protest. in english, they said protect. >> what has happened is that the egyptian government has protected our facilities. our embassy is open today. things are calm. and morsi has repeatedly been clear in his condemnation of what has occurred. we are in

threatening more and more in conflict with iran threatening to attack the nuclear sites within iran and with the threat growing by the day and i'm still not confident that these were really keeping at bay until november. it's very difficult for me to think about getting in contact with iran but at the same time there's the spread of military attack on iran interior and right now. seem to back off the talks that started so hopefully in moscow for example earlier this year so. the problem is that we're not having syria as a problem alone we're not having he said iran is a problem in the rhone we have turkey because conflict is escalating everything at the same time so where do you see the future of this argument between israel and iran if tel aviv would be rational. i would be happy and think nothing's going to happen because i think military attack on iran could be nearly suicidal for israel. considering that with all the change in egypt in the neighboring countries the tech like this you don't know how the region will react and if netanyahu the rational would be happy and safe and think

would respond when iran is going. the response you own is going to respond i mean these are the important question which is this cannot predict. and in fact no one can predict your own is going to respond but do you have like a guess how much could a war with a one cost the global economy but i've no doubt i mean as soon as there is the first planes or the first missiles are flying all the wrong over the price of oil is going to. jump at least for a while and that would. basically economy problems now. that would be very helpful incentives for the global economy will says what started talking about this possible strike. united states is have different views on whether this strike should take place or not what will happen in your opinion after the u.s. presidential election i guess if president obama is reelected he would have time to. work out a plan that would be been appreciative for both america and iran up to this point the american. basically can see that the pressure. dismissing the presidential election they ca

>> iran is not an island. most of its weaponry in black market supplies come from russia. >> bill: yeah, but you start there. russia can't beat them. >> start note, actually russia can, but also if you do a blockade, bill, suddenly you're in it with china, too. >> bill: you're in it with china, absolutely. >> you either whack iran if necessary, or you do a blockade and then in it with iran, russia, and china. >> bill: you're going to be it with we'll be right back and china anyway. >> are we going to stop chinese ships at sea by force? >> bill: we have to. >> i rarely disagree with you, but on this i got to. the bottom line for me is this, with what romney is preferrable because as you said, he will back israel. obama's dislike for israel is just visceral. >> bill: let's give kirsten the last word. >> this is ridiculous. obama does not dislike israel and there is barely any light between the two of them when you get down to really fundamental issues, like the fact that obama will not stand in the way of israel

many analysts point to iran's assistance. will iran change its course? listen to what president ahmadinejad says. mr. president, let me ask you a question about human life. you spoke a great deal while you were here in new york about the value you place on human life. every life is important, you said. the government of syria has by all accounts killed about 20,000 people, about 250,000 syrians, men, women, and children have fled the country, and 1.2 million syrians have been displaced within the country. why will you not call on bashar al assad to resign and leave as president of syria. >> translator: do you think that if we do such a thing that the problem will be resolved? >> you say that you care about human life. you should take a moral stand. >> translator: yes, but do you think that if we make the request that you asked of, that the problem will be resolved? it's not so. the problem of syria is very complicated. and it requires a just and right solution, and i'm truly sorry and saddened not only in syria but anywhere in the world from any side whe

hopes diplomacy can stop iran. netanyahu argued ultimatums don't lead to war, they prevent them. >> i believe faced with a clear red line iran will back down and this will give more time for sanctions and diplomacy to convince iran to dismantle its nuclear weapons program altogether. >> david martin has more on netanyahu's plea for action. >> reporter: it looked like a cartoon but it was deadly serious. israel's prime minister netanyahu drew the red line that would trigger an attack on iran's nuclear program as clearly as it has ever been drawn. >> a red line should be drawn right here. before -- before iran completes the second stage of nuclear enrichment necessary to make a bomb. >> reporter: that second stage is taking place at this underground facility near the holy city of qom where iran is enriching uranium to a 20% level of purity, one step away from the 90% needed to build a bomb. according to the latest report by u.n. inspectors, iran has about 200 pounds of 20% uranium. roughly two-thirds of what it would

must set specific limits for iran. he suggested otherwise israel will move forward on its own. >> those in the international community will refuse to put red lines before iran don't have a moral right to place a red light before israel. >> netanyahu's call for a red line to restrain iran was presumably the main topic a private one-hour phone conversation with president obama this week. secretary of state clinton said publicly the u.s. will not set any deadlines after which netanyahu told an israeli paper i hear all those people who say we should wait until the very last minute, but what if the u.s. doesn't intervene. that is the question. we have to ask. >> joining me now is israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu, thank you so much for joining us, mr. prime minister. there has been all this talk about red lines put before iran which you have talked about. can you tell me what you would like that red line to be in the best of all possible worlds for you and for israel, away would you like the u.s. to admit to in term

iran must be engaged. iran has its own legitimate security. >> rose: don't you believe that the president of the united states, i mean part of what he tried to do at the beginning of his administration, this president was to engage iran. >> yes. and we supported. >> rose: and he was not successful. >> it was not, and we said to iranians that this was a mistake. we believe that this should have been grabbed, but we still have the common position of the five plus one. >> rose: let me ask you this too. this is sort of the heart of it i think, it is that while you and your government and most government do not believe, would not like to see iran have nuclear weapons. said thatheret this ble. >> to put it very mildly. >> rose: exactly. you think would be a great threat. >> well, we think any violation of any treaty would be a great threat. >> rose: do you have any worry that because of the way they've been able to delay and hide and some of those things, that they may be getting very close, so close that at som

was from iran. the land of love o. [laughter] >> we have a 7 billion people in the world. the population since january 2012. and the middle east, or the portion of a -- maybe 200 million pillio. a small portion of. they formed the big events of the world -- if a war happens in that area, 7 billion people, could we not, all of us be able to sit face to face and see what is hurting us or what is taking us and then come up to some kind of a solution which every human being is looking for, which is pursuit of happiness, freedom and providing for their children. thank you. >> and we will go to the gentleman in the turqouise shirt. >> think you. my question, you are talking about the importance of mobilizing iranian citizens. we saw but was not so effective. i am thinking how you are thinking people might be able to revolt against the government and if it could be successful this time. >> the iranians learned the lesson of the iraqis. iran is a huge country. a very nice country. a very interesting terrain

on the rainy inside it has not struck anyone why would iran strike israel if israel did not strike iran first first before iran did declare very clearly the they're preparing themselves to wipe israel from the globe which means that there is a real threat on their side in addition to that they develop very carefully the delivery capabilities they have. ground to ground ballistic missiles of few kind she had three assure him twenty five. most of them deployed in quantities and what they still need to eat the nuclear device to be put on top of those missiles in order to have the full capability to attack us no you just need to combine this activities in this capability is that there are always the threat of the iranian president and find out whether we need to be. in a position to try to do our best to prevent a nuclear to be it's believed that israel has several hundred nuclear warheads and very clearly israel. is threatening to strike iran could it not be said that israel is the more belligerent party here you don't believe so we really don't know about israeli nuclear capability i know

, i think to myself: the people of iran, who may not be to blame for the fact that iran's leaders want potentially a new clear bomb, they will really suffer. could we see an uprising in iran like in other countries? >> i believe we could. i believe that iran is ripe for a grassroots revolution. the only problem is, do we is have time? first of all, there was an uprising in 2009. this administration and president obama did not stand by the people -- >> jamie: why that was? >> i have no idea. i have no idea. there is no way i can explain why when it happens to this fundamentalist extremist, lunatic regime on the quest for nuclear weapons that the president steps aside. when it happens in libya, he steps in. i have no idea why he... interfered in egypt and not in iran. i think had the president and the international community acted differently, in '09, we may have had a different regime in iran. but i believe there could be a grassroots revolution. there are many young people in iran who hate the ayatollahs and the big question is, do we have time? and the answer is no. as the prime minis

would respond when iran is going. to respond is going to respond i mean these are the important question which is this cannot predict. and in fact no one can predict all you're on is going to respond but do you have like a guess how much could a war with iran cost the global economy but no doubt i mean as soon as there is the first planes or the first missiles are flying all the wrong i mean the price of oil is going to. jump at least for a while and. it's. basically economy problems now. would be very helpful incentives for the global economy was this was started talking about this possible strike. united states have different views on whether this strike should take place or not what will happen in your opinion after the u.s. presidential election i guess if president obama is reelected he would have time to. work out a plan that would be beneficial for both america and iran up to this point the american should basically can see that the pressure. dismissing the presidential election they cannot dismiss the pressure

>> iran is not an island. most of its weaponry in black market supplies come from russia. >> bill: yeah, but you start there. russia can't beat them. >> start note, actually russia can, but also if you do a blockade, bill, suddenly you're in it with china, too. >> bill: you're in it with china, absolutely. >> you either whack iran if necessary, or you do a blockade and then in it with iran, russia, and china. >> bill: you're going to be in it with we'll be right back and china anyway. >> are we going to stop chinese ships at sea by force? >> bill: we have to. >> i rarely disagree with you, but on this i got to. the bottom line for me is this, with what romney is preferrable because as you said, he will back israel. obama's dislike for israel is just visceral. >> bill: let's give kirsten the last word. >> this is ridiculous. obama does not dislike israel and there is barely any light between the two of them when you get down to really fundamental issues, like the fact that obama will not stand in the way of isr

must set specific limits for iran. he suggested otherwise israel will move forward on its own. >> those in the international community will refuse to put red lines before iran don't have a moral right to place a red light before israel. >> netanyahu's call for a red line before iran is presumably the main top nick a private one-hour phone conversation with president obama this week. secretary of state clinton said publicly the u.s. will not set any deadlines after which netanyahu told an israeli paper i hear all those people who say we should wait medical the very last innocent, but what if the u.s. doesn't intervene. that is the question. we have to ask. >> joining me now is israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu, thank you so much for joining us, mr. prime minister. there has been all this talk about red lines put before iran that you have talked about. can you tell me what you would like that red line to be m best of all possible worlds for you and for israel, away would you like the u.s. to admit to in terms of

mean see iran. basically not to pursue its nuclear program in fact let me put it that way that can bring the radical of iran radicals in terms of. nuclear program those who are all going for nuclear weapons in other words dad would be the best. case scenario for them that the israeli attack. can basically. to me. strengthen the hands of the radicals ones that are. what the absolute majority of the rainy and pundits and elites. data once that happens to me what they want is a capability. since two thousand two thousand and three that iran doesn't want the weapons iran wants the capability but what is your personal take on ahmadinejad saying that he wants to wipe israel off the face of course this is to me mostly a rather. rather than a plan but it's something that a president the country comes out and says to the world media to me that's very unfortunate. that the president of the country would say that but i'm not at all convinced or rather convinced opposite that there is no plan. well walking is v