is to reach out to iran. but that bill is out there and might attract new support. there are other new ideas in region. getting other companies to stop selling -- tele-communications to iran. some other members are interested in looking at the connections with china, latin america, russia. but some other countries that have been some what steps is to -- somewhat skeptical about sanctioning iran -- looking at those countries. looking rather at going back and maybe advancing some of the sanctions ideas that have been around anyway. i will stop there. >> thanks very much. it is a pleasure to be back at heritage. and has been a couple of months. as someone who was part of the formal set of experts to look at this problem said at that would be useful to contextualize for the arguments here and those watching a home while we were thinking about. the challenges that iran poses to the united states and countries in europe and asia is not just about the nuclear program. that is obviously the important one. on the nucl

overture to iran in the context of the iran-contra affair. in which there were many arrests of people close to centers of power. we had the removal of ayatollah month certificate ri as khomeini's designated success accesser in 1989. that seriously shook the regime. we had a serious rift over whether or not to end the iran/iraq war in 1987-'88 when iran was losing, and there were many senior figures that said, no, iran should continue. that was a major rift. in 1999 we had major student riots, several killed. just in 2000 we had -- 2004 we had the council of guardians which vets the candidates, basically disqualified almost all of the major reformist candidates for the parliament, and there were sit-ins and various protests right from within the regime, so the idea of a rift in the regime is new i think is not correct. ayatollah rafsanjani was actually a key figure in many of these rifts. he is a very, very clever back-room operator. he tends to lose elections. he did win for president in '89 and then again in '93, but that was after khomeini

we need to impose serious sanctions on iran and need to do it without delay. we have been delaying long enough. the bill has been introduced for some time. i talked to the chairman of the committee about it and there's no reason not to move on it today. the chair: the gentleman yield back? mr. burton: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from indiana yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: mr. speaker, thank you. what we see -- the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the motion? mr. berman: jim strongly opposed to the motion. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. berman: what we see in the offering of this motion to recommit is a political party or the leadership of a political party that, number one, is not serious about pursuing an effective strategy to stop iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability. and two, is using the pretext of iran to strike every single provision of the bill that we have been -- we have presented and debated on. the very first provision of this bill is to strike all that follows after the e

so when centcom thinks about what to do with iran, it tends to think about how to make iran more a country and less a cause. if the regime is a country, you can deer the it -- deter it, contain it. i think what's going on within iran suggests that the situation is fairly fluid, it may play out in the way ken suggested, and i think it probably will, but there's obviously a great deal of things that are moving pieces on the street. and so we should be certainly thinking about management, but we should also be thinking, i think, a little more holistically about the main fault line in the regime which is the fact that half of its population is under the age of 24, and how do we exploit that? >> good morning, gentlemen. with all due respect, i'm from iran. first and foremost, you have to understand the culture of iranian people which is different from other nations. you cannot compare iranian culture with other countries. transportation no similarities. now, my question, my comment is when a regime is deceiving its own people for the past 30 years it has been deceiving its own people, has been

citizens to go to iran as tourists? >> americans have a little more hoops to go through but there are lots of companies in the united states that legally take groups to iran. and you can google that or get lonely planet's guidebook to iran and look in their resources chapter but there's a company -- i'm in seattle and there's a company that takes many groups to iran every year. the guy who accompanied is making his own educational tour of iran under the tour. the only way to go to iran is take a tour or visit friends. >> i had a friend with the stanford travel program. >> so stanford appearance program. >> but it was a big success. >> basically, i spent four months in european and leading tours and making the tv shows and i've had the three most powerful travel experiences outside of that that i've had are educational tours that i've taken to central america and it's educational tourism where you have an organization who meet with different aspects of society and you try to get a firsthand look at all these complicated

citizen is it safe to travel to iran with a u.s. passport? i've heard from many people that it would not be wise to travel without an iranian passport and that is difficult to obtain. >> technically -- this is a legal issue so i don't want to give you any binding advice. what i've heard is some people it's dangerous for them to go back to iran if they left the country under shady circumstances during those changeover from the shah to the khomeini and they have a tough time getting out. as far as the issue of christians and jews going to iran, that is no problem at all. i met lots of christians and jews running businesses there and, you know, people just said it's a dominant muslim society and we do our thing and we're fine. >> how do we reconcile that iran supports family values at the same time supporting suicide bombers which depletes. i don't deal with that. what am i going to do, continue to refuse to learn about them? i would say that it's wrong for americans to think that we have heroes that only wish they had more than life to give for

i went to iran for none of those reasons. i went to iran because i think you should know people before you bomb them. [applause] you know, sometimes it's necessary to bomb people and kill them i guess but i think it's bad character to dehumanize our country so it doesn't hurt to read our country included is good at dehumanizing an enemy, collateral damage, you know the problem, not letting photographs of cast gets -- you see extended family, you just kill them all because osama. he wasn't. they are dehumanized. we don't cry. a beautiful blonde girl is kidnapped and aruba and we cry, you see, she's humanized and i don't want to put up with that. she's precious, they are precious. we are children of god. we can all find solutions. [applause] so i had the opportunity a year ago. well, there was a lot of saber rattling and talk about military strikes and so on and in my hometown, seattle the local united nations chapter said what can we do to encourage some discussion in peace and i said the only thing i can do is make a tv show

this is the time to isolate iran. i think that what obama should do is get all the allies, india, china, russia, and take it straight to ahmadinejad that we will not allow iran to have nuclear bombs. i think that if the united states -- there is no way that ahmadinejad can be stronger. host: how would bring together an alliance with other countries around the world force the running in's hands -- iranian's hands? caller: they can do this politically. if the european union in the united states can have some options in terms of economic prosperity, it will force the iranians to tell ahmadinejad that we do not want you in power. host: hit them in the pocketbook and it will change their nuclear policy? caller: yes. host: pa., tom, democratic line. go ahead. caller: i have noticed that nobody is really saying anything about this. what about people realizing that obama will not always be in the white house? for instance, many people might realize -- think about how different the last administration is, goals and ideals? som

added to this tension between states about what to do about iran there are differences between public and official thinking and we certainly saw this in the aftermath of the 2006 lebanon war when a ahmadinejad enjoy it in a claim in the arab streets and this was quickly dissipated by a stark reminder to arab regimes of iran's provocative ability of a one absentia but over arab regimes and the palestine fun and a clear issue and this members in the wake of the gaza crisis. i think this dynamic space to the underlying problems of governance and legitimacy in the arab societies and how that impasse threat perceptions of iran and also in both the public and official realms. an editorial captioned this dynamic noting that that gap between arab societies and governments is a bleeding wound that iran has been able to exploit and this wound has pushed iranian foreign policy toward parana and brings machete. taken in summoning this lot of consensus endeavor city about the nature of that has a poor and implications for u.s. strategy especially if we try to forge some consensus on the region in

want to go to war with iran because of this. they are definitely against that and they have come out and said that. just keeping on saying it, that republicans want military action, they have not said nothing about military action in this thing that is going on over there now. they are just asking the president to support wanting their freedom and the right to protest. host: the next view is from carol, iowa, tony on independent line. caller: i think the obama administration is probably doing the right thing just because you never know what they are up to over there. kind of like the story of troy, how you defeat a great army, suck them in and get them from behind. so i think they are doing all right. we will see. time will tell. host: "usa today" as a story about iraq. the front-page story is about the drawdown of u.s. troops. despite risks, country is eager for drawdown. american see progress, the hot spots remain. as the june 30 the deadline approaches, writes "usa today," for most u.s. troops to withdraw from iraqi cities at

the region to isolate iran. not only does this approach flattened the multidimensional landscape of regional politics, it misread the nature of the iranian challenge. but it also carries unintentional trade-offs in terms of other u.s. interests. holding out for some illusory purpose in the arab world will not only fail to remove the iron claws of iran to return to prince turki's metaphor, but it could actually unleash a whole host of other unintended consequences. so with that i'll close and take questions. [applause] thanks, fred. i just want to start with one quick question to both of you and that i will open it up to the audience. david, you mentioned a number of retaliatory capabilities they all. in the specific instance of an attack on its nuclear capabilities from israel or the united states which seems unlikely right now, but the israel option certainly is still talked about, what do you think would be their preferred choice of retaliation, and where do you think it might take place? and, fred, and the sa

is there going to be a war with iran? whatever the suppression. the united states was supportive of democracy and was not willing to confront the regime directly. the threat with iran is there a possible acquisition of a nuclear weapon and a willingness to use it. if those judgments in israel and the united states, but also in other parts of the world, in france, britain, if those judgments are that i ran is out of control, dangerous, prone to violence, something may be done -- some type of greater action to stop denuclearization of iran. host: the person was touching on outside influences. other muslim countries such as saudi arabia could have an influence on iran. guest: right now, very little. in the philippines, will lead to a successful revolution was that a leader lost popular support. i do not think there is any country in the world that has a degree of influence in iran that we had to the philippines. an outsider is. to be able to intervene. the iranian people need to work out this on their own. host: we have someone on the democrats' line

to talk about iran. i feel very fortunate to have the opportunity at particularly this time to be going around the country to talk not only my book but about this country that is so vexed in the american imagination. it seems as though right now the united states is very much having a conversation about iran. and this is for a handful of reasons partly because iran, it seems, permanently in the news. but also because now is a particularly unique time. it's the 30th anniversary of the iranian revolution, this february marked that 30th anniversary. and who can really imagine that three decades have now gone by. and it's been an opportunity for everyone who thinks about iran and covers iran and is related to iran to stake and pause about this revolution and where it may ago. it's also a relevant moment to be talking about iran because there's a new administration in washington who is reviewing this country's policy on iran. there seems to be a recognition of the fact that the previous administration's polic

terrorist groups make voyages to iran to receive training at unspecified locations. this is the regime we are talking about. this week the true colors of that regime are on broad display. we must rally the world around because of the iranian people. i urge the administration, i urge president obama to follow the lead of this house, to speak out on behalf of the iranian people and their quest for freedom and human rights. i yield back. >> the gentleman from california. >> i want to yield myself 30 seconds. the minority whip spoke about america's moral commitment to speak out on behalf of people yearning for freedom. we have an even higher moral commitment, and that is to do the things that help extend -- expanded the extent of human freedom around the world. it is in that context that i know that this house and this administration are pursuing this mission, that a higher authority to do the things that produce the greatest likelihood -- likelihood of the expansion of human freedom. i now yield two minutes to a great member from the state of georgia, mr. scott. >> than

it is carefully targeted to focus only on financial ties with iran's energy sector to hit iran where it is economically most vulnerable and the bill includes a sunset provision to lift this authorization once the president certifies, certifies, that iran has ceased providing support for acts of international terrorism and has ceased pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. i am proud to have assumed the lead democratic role on this legislation tacking over for president obama, then senator obama, who served the lead role when he was in the congress. mr. president, secondly, let me also take a brief moment to comment on the iran refined petroleum sanctions act of which i'm proud to be a cosponsor with the majority of the senate. the bill would clarify existing legal ambiguity by authorizing the president to sanction foreign firms involved in supplying iran with refined gasoline and or assisting aran with increasing its refining capacity. iran is forced to import as much as 40% of its annual gasoline consumption due to the fact that the refining infrastructure was destroyed during the i

a good sense of what is happening to iran. how this will play out. it is important to examine that at this point, the implications for middle east security and politics, of the profound changes that have affected iran recently. much will depend on how these various players in the countries, including the great powers will assess the nature of the system that is emerging from the turmoil in iran. from the middle east, and more specifically from the arab states, that much is certain. revolution has entered its second age, ever since the election of ahmadinejad in 2005. this new age has several trades characteristic -- the growing assertiveness of the once timid supreme leader, the immensely important and economic rise of the revolutionary guards and previously very important key power centers, including clerical once. the coal states had to rebuild ties in the 1990's. and the rejection of popular legitimacy. we have to understand something -- here we see iran -- we look back to 1979 and we see a very bumpy road. factionalism pla

i think another issue to put iran in context is that iran is not the iran of the 1980's. during the war with iraq, iran, to to a situation where they were a low work middle and come -- a lower middle income. their government had social policies and policies with a number of economic relations. there was the unification of the exchange rate, but what it said was that prior to this, if you had contacts with the regime, you got to buy dollars or euros at much lower exchange rates than someone would on the local market. by unifying the exchange rate, they eliminated the extraordinary opportunity for corruption and level the playing field. that ended up improving economic efficiency and help spur a steady growth -- helped spur a steady growth. these reforms, many of them have blasted cut -- have blasted, -- have blastlasted. these foundations are owned by some of the religious establishment. we have seen more distortions in the economy. growth has been rapid, but much less so than you would see in other countries in the gulf and there has been all lot of losses in terms of eff

do you think it's good to keep iran in isolation? >> jaw i think perhaps too much was made of the cooperation between israel and arab states. i mean, i'm -- i'm not sure i completely understand your question of -- i mean how the two are linked. >> well, if israel feels a threat from iran and that's why it's cooperating with mad rid arabs so keeping the threat of iran alive might have some benefits. to resolve some conflicts in the region. is that a true assumption or no? >> that's an interesting take. you know, i mean, i think, you know, our interviews in the region, when we looked at, at arab perceptions of, of the iranian threat, one kuwaiti rights activist said you know address the palestinian issue and you'll defang iran in the region. and i think much of its mobilizing capability, the vocabulary that it uses is is related to the arab-israeli issue. it's not completely and i think the fundamental issue is governance in societies and the gap there, the tension there is often expressed in the terms of the arab-israeli conflict. tha

to tell him how damaging it has been to the image of iran b. i know from reading various comments that inside iran mr. ahmadinejad was very much chided for this. the rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness does not belong to any nationally, and ethnicity, or religion. it goes beyond these borders. host: this from the paper this morning. it is an ap story which says that on wednesday iran accused the u.s. of intolerable meddling. it has fuelled a bitter post- election dispute. the iranian government summoned the swiss ambassador who represents the u.s. interests and iran to complain about american interference. guest: this has been a tactic of the iranian regime to pretend that the desire for choice of freedom is of foreign imports. you remember success of the arrests and trials of iranians within the country like a philosopher who was accused of fomenting the velvet revolution. that shows the degree of the fear that they try to say the desire for freedom is not iran. the way the protesters have acted demonstrates that you do not need

along with them sent people to iran to overthrow this election. this was all plot from those jews. they could not get all the people involved in so they went to the young people with innocent minds to get them to overthrow ahmadinejad. everyone knows george bush has never won an election yet, yet we did not take it to the streets. that was a plot that came from israel to finally get ahmadinejad out of there. host: before you answer, there is a story about is really a strategic interest from a different perspective this morning in "the wall street journal." it says some is release price ahmadinejad's road. its says he has gained unlikely supporters. officials in israel, a country he wants to eliminate. the chief of israel's intelligence agency told a closed committee hearing that his reputation as a holocaust- denying troublemaker makes it easier to enlist international support against iran's nuclear program. a new leader will mousavi would have posed a more serious problem for israel's interests against iran. guest: some think it is to their advan

not to be seen trying to influence iran. but the government is blaming the united states and the british for meddling or making social networking available. by simply saying that they stand with the people. this morning, we heard from the press, essentially asking obama and the state department to say more about this. if this -- is this going to be the pathway? >> what you can see, they are using this as a foil, the great satan, to justify policies and gain public support. we do not want to get into this necessarily, but what you saw over the weekend, was a very strong statement by the government. the fundamental principles that the country was founded on. these are principles that we will be standing up for. this is where we see this violated. >> if they will accuse the united states of meddling, will there be a willingness to do more about this, on the part of the united states. >> we have done a lot and because of the reasons i have spoken about before, i am not necessarily thinking that we have to get into a kind of wash

he was open to talks with iran without pre- condition. ruth on the republican line, which you make of the president's approach? caller: this last ellis of the same thing i wanted to sue. obama should just back off of iran and let them be. just let them do their own thing. the same thing in afghanistan and in the other countries. he wants to send money to build the mill. the money he wants to send over there we need over here. -- to bail them out. he always wants to give people money, give people money, but he doesn't for over here. our health program, they have synergy, and a first person who signs up on that there's a $6 charge. if they go up to $10 apiece if they add more people into the family they pay for all the medical. the prescriptions are all paid for and you do not have to worry if you have somebody who has cancer right now. anything now there will be covered under that insurance. there will not be charged any more for it. there is nowhere as you can buy insurance that will be that cheap. it is synergy with the company and the p

would be a deterrent to iran. how are we going to persuade the israelis that even though their nuclear capability cannot deter iran, arts can? >> any guarantee by the u.s. would be designed to discourage other countries from seeking nuclear weapons and designed to protect them as well. its focus is not entirely on israel. as far as israel, there is a legitimate question? how serious are the israelis when they make that argument about the existential threat? because the iranians are suicidal, they say. we would be addressing an issue which has not been discussed seriously in israel, namely how serious is the argument that the iranians would be inclined to extinguish 3000 years of a rather impressive national history, when they achieve a nuclear bomb. i don't take the discussion versa visit. >> from the american foundation. i would like to take you back to your mark on identifying some of the ideas that seem to be shaping a good deal of the policy deliberation in washington about how to proceed with a negotiation wi

ir iran islamic republic of iran. the shah used to be on one money. now khomeini is on the money. 10,000 rials on the dollar. lots of zeros when you're paying your hotel bill, that's for sure. in my work in europe i'm when he will known to find untouristy places. if you're traveling in iran i wanted to find touristy places. this is a good touristy restaurant. [laughter] >> thank goodness there's a touristy restaurant. what a glorious society. my heart was stolen there. excuse me a sec. the greatest square is the amoms square for khomeini. a great mosque architecture. wonderful bazaar. if you've been to the grand bazaar this is much better. this is for local people. and an issue for me was religious freedom as i mentioned i'm really curious about freedom. i'm passionate about freedom and i don't like it when people don't have political freedom or religious freedom and in iran i wanted to hear what was going on. i said is it really free? can a jew or a christian like run a business? run for office or whatever? and he said yeah, it's free. what's the dea

, former united kingdom ambassador to iran. he was at that post from 2002 to 2006, and he will be talking with us in just a few seconds. the numbers, if you want to get involved in the conversation... you can send us an e-mail, and you can also send us a message via twitter. that address is c-span wj. >> first we want to look at a couple of headlines from the brittish newspapers. "the telegraph" has this. iran election protestors worthy of execution says the cleric. this is from yesterday's speech prayers at tehran university by ayatollah khomeini, who says the regime's opponents were rioting in defiance of god's will. also this morning in the times on-line, the headline, leading demonstrators must be executed, ayatollah khomeini demands. he says that these people should be treated as people who wage war against god and deserve execution. ambassador dalton, your response to those statements made by ayatollah khomeini. guest: well, it is very wong that anybody who wishes to express their view peacefully should be exposed to that

iran, we also have to be steady in recognizing that the prospect of iran with nuclear weapon is a big problem. and that we have got to work in concert with the international community to try to prevent that from happening so my expectation would be, and we discussed this, that you're born to continue to see some multilateral discussions with iran. there is a structure that exists that include russia and china. they're going to be discussions that continue around iran pose a nuclear program. -- and iran's nuclear program. i think we're going to have to see how that plays itself out in the days and weeks ahead. on iraq, obviously any time there is a bombing in iraq, we are concerned. anytime there is loss of innocent life or the loss of military personnel, we grieve for their families. it makes us pay attention. i will tell you that if you look at the overall trend, despite some of these high-profile bombings, iraq pose a security situation has continued to dramatically improve. when i speak to general cody are now or our ambassador in a rock, -- when i speak to the general or our ambas

we have to allow him time to address everything. we have major concerns, iran, the war's going on. if he will focus on anything he needs to be able to get to the people he has delegated to do certain things and make sure that their report card is up today. he is the principal. host: we approach your calling and went to get some of the viewpoints in. we will also speak about iran in a little bit. we will talk about the media and tomorrow and speak with the editor in chief with sync progress concerning congress of the white house. in this case matt is mccann the specific point that the media has a letter with president obama. he cites some statistics. the writer has worked for a couple of gop senators. this is from "the philadelphia inquirer," and this is one of them. there's definitely a bias for the president -- we have a caller now from franklin, new hampshire. caller: a think it is the type of media, as far as the visual, sound, the radio -- he sounds good and looks great and is easy to sell, but the further you get away from where you visually watch him and listen to him -- i be

if it is an israeli attack to be to try to show that iran is going on the offensive against this attack and even in the event of a u.s. attack to try to draw israel into the conflict. one question is though whether they would try to close the state's in this event and i think that might be a little more difficult because as keith show iran is quite an owner of all to xiaoning, its oil exports and the iranians will have to think very carefully about whether to try to inhibit exports out of the straits of hormuz with the possibility they could get hit in this area as well. i should point out though that this would be something that iran it attempted it would be one of the areas where a could impose a strategic cost on the united states by internationalizing the complex, global energy markets was speak to that. after a conflict in the strait of our moves or around the persian gulf and other than that i think one would have to look for not just immediate retaliation but potentially retaliation over time that could, in the form of a proxy and tax if there are proxy is that what this into ira

to make into iran. iran is an extremely important geo political nation. that is something at the time the u.s. was interested in protecting and preserving. the interests collided with one another. there was a british cia-hatched coup that was hatched that brought back the shah. host: in a speech made yesterday, he talk abouts brittain. since the revolution, it might be the source for the leader when the government faces its greatest crisis in 30 years. why don't we hear more about this relationship between iran and great britain? guest: i'm going to say for those listening that were born in that culture. there has been a historic animosity between the clerics -- this goes back a century or so and the british. we're talking about the british empire and afghanistan and so on and so forth. there is a famous saying, a famous book that was a slogan that said that everything that happens in iran is work of the british. it is a well-known thing. that goes back to the interest of the british have had in that re

iran has -- is prepared to do. we have the ministerial meeting coming up next week on the margins of that. it will be focused on afghanistan and pakistan. iran has been invited to attend that meeting. we will see if they accept. >> [unintelligible] >> i am not aware of it. >> there appears to be a significant division within the administration when it comes to darfur, and whether or not there is a genocide occurring there. yesterday, they say they are seeing the remnants of genocide implying that the worst violence is behind the region. on monday, ambassador rice -- can you clarify where the administration stands on that? >> edit there is no question that genocide has taken place in darfur. we continue to characterize the events as genocide. we want the special envoy to do just -- scott briefly yesterday. he spent a lot of time on the ground and sudan. -- in sudan. there is less violence as a result of court it government actions as it -- and that has existed in the past. our goal is to save lives, facilitate lasti

army forces were entering to iran. talk about the influence of social media sites in the coverage of what has been going on. guest: the government was worried about it, so they shutdown text messaging. a lot into nine -- a lot internet sites were shut down. obviously, it is a huge organizational tool. twitter is up and running. people compose messages on that. it is interesting in looking at other countries where there have been attempts to organize protests. the right to assemble in other countries is banned so they get around that using the social media networks because they can organize and the government cannot stop them. it is a big leap to jump from their to a regime change. i do not think that is what the young people want. people do not want that kind of upheaval. they just want the system to work. host: madison, florida. caller: you have touched on the question to some degree. to what extent the other arab countries fear iranian power. and whether the level of education rises and weather it portends a desire f

eerily detour iran to attacking them. in spite of several billion dollar investment by the israelis and robust nuclear deterrent including a second strike capability through the naval capabilities. well, israel is not certain that its own nuclear capabilities made toward iran what steps can we take federal going to reassure israel that our nuclear guarantee to would detour iran because if i understood you were suggesting you said we have sufficient credibility that if we offered to do the guarantee that would be a deterrent to iran so how are we going to persuade the israelis even though their nuclear capability cannot detour iran that ours can? >> first of any guarantee by the united states would designed to discourage other countries from seeking nuclear weapons and would be designed to protect them house also its focus is not entirely on his real. as far as israel is concerned i think there is the legitimate question to ask how serious are the israelis about the existence of threat and that the iranians because they ar

and terrorist groups make voyages to iran to receive training at unspecified locations. this is the regime we are talking about. and this week the true colors of that regime are on broad display. we must rally the world around the cause of the iranian people, and i urge the administration, i urge president obama to follow the lead of this house to speak out on behalf of the iranian people and their quest for freedom and human rights. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: yes, mr. speaker. i want to yield myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. berman: the gentleman, for whom i have great respect, the minority whip, spoke about america's moral commitment to speak out on behalf of the people yearning for freedom. we have an even higher moral commitment and that is to the things that help extend and expand the extent of human freedom around the world, and it is in that context that i know that this house and this administration are pursuing t

sn>> i wanted to ask you to examine the scenario of an iran that does not come back to the u.s. and agree to any kind of negotiations, even at they settle down, after the elections. what should the u.s. attitude be, hillary clinton already spoke of crippling sanctions, haven't we somehow boxed ourselves in already with comments like that and the vague deadline of the end of the year? what she response be in h country if they don't come back and also a question about obama's speech yesterday, there has been a lot of criticism that he was a bit too squishy in terms of his use of language, he talked about violent extremism and never talked about islamic extremism and didn't talk about terrorism, did he go too far on the other side on his effort to reach out? thank you. >> well, if iran chooseses not to come to the negotiating table, then it will set in motion consequences which we do not need to talk about, before they take that decision. i certainly -- i'm not so naive a person as to think if they don't come to table it should have no effect whatsoever it will have an effect but t

but i think that the focus has to be what is going on inside iran. this is not about us or on our bilateral relationship right now. this is about iranians and the iranians having their right to express themselves, respect their political will. the president made a very strong statement i thought standing very firmly behind those who want to have their views respected and be able to peacefully assemble and want to have access to the media. so, right now our focus is on this dramatic situation unfolding inside iran. >> the situation is unfolding in a country with which the obama administration over months now has been attempting to engage and i am simply asking whether the prospects for bus and seeding or not seem to be improving or slipping away. >> well, again, this is a rapid the evil thing situation -- rapidly devolving situation. like all of you, we are following with great interest what is happening in iran and it is a rapidly evolving situation right now. >> let me put it one last way and then i will yield. a very knowledgeable source told me th

we look forward to iran in response to our engagement. we want to bring about a concrete -- a comprehensive peace to israel and the neighbors in the region. they're right to exist in peace and security is undeniable and non-negotiable. hothey should be able to live in peace and security. arab states must do their part to support the palestinian people as they develop the institutions that will sustain their state. they must recognize israel's legitimacy and in doing so choose progress over a self- defeating focus on the past. the u.s. will never do anything to undermine israel's security. we do not believe that these two objectives are incompatible. we believe they are critical elements of a comprehensive and effort to secure peace. i hope you enjoy your first visit to the united states. i look forward to continuing our conversation and working with you more on these issues. >> madam secretary, i like to say to you how much the government of israel appreciates your support of israel. we value your friendship greatly. you made many contrib

the president densey in iran matters, people should give a chance to iran to pursue the path to dem crassy. host: can i ask you, if it does happen that mr. ahmadinejad wins, how will that path continue in your mind? caller: i think he will see a lot of iranians are not happy. i think he will method rate his stance and be more a meanable to make a certain deal with the west, particularly the united states and his views will be moderate towards israel. host: we had a reporter join us at the beginning of the program saying in her words, he was still pretty defiant as far as making changes in his policies and certain attitudes that he holds. she said she didn't see that changing. caller: i believe that's right. mr. ahmadinejad is a very hard-headed individual. the reality will force him to change. he's going to be hearing from supreme leaders and others in the government that he needs to method rate and tone down and slow down his harsh language and approach the west and solve the issues iran has with the west. there is a zanger that iran might be attacked by israel and america and a combinati

and iran. someone referred to it as a grand agenda. it is not so important what you call it, but it is important that you do it. i am concerned that they want to reach out diplomatically and that it will not be strategically bounded. host: should iran have nuclear weapons of their own? guest: they say they do not want nuclear weapons. there is a dispute going on about the nature of their civil nuclear program and whether that is ultimately aimed at giving iran a nuclear weapon or not. i think that what is important here to remember is that certainly at this point, the idea that iran is going to give up its civil nuclear program, including uranium enrichment, as part of the deal with united states is a pipe dream. what we will have to do is basically be willing to accept that iran is going to have civil nuclear activities and work with iran to implement international verification mechanisms through the international atomic energy agency that would give the world confidence that the risks associated with those activities are being contro

iran draws even closer to crossing the nuclear point of no return. admiral mike mullen, the chairman of our joint chiefs of staff has stated that they have enough uranium to make an atomic bomb. international inspectors also report that iran has enough low ridge uranium to achieve nuclear weapons break out possibilities and possible military dimensions to it iran's nuclear program remains unresolved. additionally, iran continues to develop chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missiles while army and bankrolling violent islamic extremist world wide -- worldwide. we need to keep this in mind when we determine the appropriate response to the iranian regime's policies and actions. today, we must focus on the hopes of the individual iranians who had been robbed of a better future for almost 30 years by regime that promises almost nothing but misery and malaise. now's the time for all responsible nations to stand four square with the people of iran as they seek freedom, as they seek true self governance at home. we must send a clear signal today t

the taub was being made fun of as a sellout to iran. but the pivotal point* one was in 2000 season as yasser arafat declared war against israel we began to see iran throw more support for hamas even though fatah was actively and engaged in war use a hamas outflank the position of going into war initially they were together but then hamas says we can do this on our own with iranian assistance. the key event was when saudi arabia determined it no longer wanted to support hamas in 2004. there were a series of attacks in the saudi kingdom of al qaeda on the arabian peninsula an affiliate group began to launch attacks throughout the kingdom and this point* the saudis realize their support for it buy wind organizations was a liabilities of a began to cut back and as they did specifically with hamas iran rushed to fill the void and gave them more funds and more assistance by the time the elections to replace january 2006 and sanctions put in place by the west it was iran that completely filled whenever hamas was not getting it from the outside

will continue to use all avenues to convince iran to meet its obligations. and with that i will take your questions. >> you have any reason to believe the allegations of fraud are apparent? >> as i said we are concerned by these reports. they are deeply troubling but we are in a position as is the rest of the international community right now, we are in a position or still assessing what went on. it is difficult to assess because there per not in the international monitors. >> right. but it given the developments the run-up to the actual election on friday, was the administration's surprise to the announced results? >> i think as the vice president said on sunday, there was such concern expressed by a number of the candidates that's of course, it led to doubts regarding the election results. >> so you have doubts? >> we do have doubts. >> in the european countries the germans and britons have called for an investigation into the voting irregularities does the united states supports that? >> i have not seen these reports of calling specifically for an investi

thank you. >> i would like to refer to a former question concerning the future of iran. when you look at people who have an important role like mr. mousavi, mr. rafsanjani, mr. kasai me, they are all part of the regime. but this movement go far beyond -- does this movement go far beyond? how do you envision the future of iran? will it be an overthrow of hypocrisy -- will it be an overthrow of the theocracy? but will do you envision for yourself and the family? -- what role do you envision yourself and the family? >> as a partially explain earlier, the situation has grown just -- has grown beyond just the result of an election and a candidate. most iranians are quite aware of the fact that having always been limited to prescreened candidates of the regime's choice as to who they get to vote for, to begin with, they were stuck in a position of having to choose between a lesser of two evils, or multiple evils, whenever it is. it presents an opportunity for such prescreened candidates to join with the masses, and it would be difficult for us not to anticipate for caller: cal

if there needs to be a change in iran, it has to be from within. it has to be the iranian people on a daily basis have to live the life that they're living, calling for it. i know it is extremely difficult to do that in an oppressive regime where they go out and unfortunately at times, do the kind of things they do to put down these kind of concerns and questions, even if it is in a peaceful manner, which generally it has been in the past week. be that as it may. for it to have a longstanding impact, i think it really has to be done internally. on the other hand -- again, having been here, understanding the way the politics of this country and particularly the hell, i can see why there would be these movements to try to come out in support of a certain group, for a number of different reasons. you know, i think we are all aware of how congress works. there are a number of different reasons that they come up with certain statements such as this one. i am glad, however, that at least it is only to the extent that they're condemning violence against p

to iran having some -- civil nuclear power. is that a change in american policy? if i'm correct, secretary of state condoleezza rice said if the issue that iran wanted was in power, we could solve the problem. but i do not think there are any differences between the president and the former administration on the need to stop iran from getting in a car bomb. what is crucial to point out are the people that are the most worried, are not just israel, but it is all the arab states due to a historic enmity with iran, these regimes are very nervous and quietly working with united states. when the president was trying to see yesterday as we have got to end the gap between what you say publicly and what you say privately, because privately, these regimes are very nervous about iran. but publicly you do not talk that way. , and that has to change, i think the president said. host: we have a history dealing with nuclear power, certainly with china, the policy of deterrence. would that work with iran? guest: when you think about it, you h

iran may have nuclear weapons, the possibility that iran will continue to expand, and it has hezbollah allied with hamas in lebanon growing in power. it has hamas increasingly as a proxy on one side of israel. it has syria as a client state. is there any sense that egypt and perhaps even saudi arabia and some of the gulf states at this point would functionally ally themselves with israel against iran or is it that the enemy of my enemy can be useful but that doesn't make him my friend? .. i done of i completely by ed wood made that cover, i think it would be more of a fig leaf or anything but we know where their feelings are on the prospect of an iranian nuclear weapon and do whatever they can two hopefully for iran from achieving. >> i want to look for questions out there and make sure you have a microphone before you start to talk in moscow right over here if we can, start here. >> i have two questions. and the first is can you give some background on the fatah hamas negotiations sponsored by egypt which have been apparently totally unsuccessful, and my second question has to do with

regime change is coming to iran. the bad news, the regime will, in four or five years, have nuclear weapons. we've got to learn to deter iran until internal evolution of the society makes it a pacific kind of nation. no one would care if belgium got nuclear weapons because the belgians are happy, cheerful, peaceful people. host: we're spending an hour with george will, and our conversation is akin to a baseball game, we're all throw, pitches at him, he's taking swings. let's get a call from kevin. caller: i'm pleased to be on, i'm very happy. i have a very quick comment. mr. will, i respect your opinion, i think you're one of the few intellectuals left in the journalism industry that comes with a quality perspective and empirical data with the things you say. here's my concern. i think we have kind of lost sight of governing our own country. in the bush administration, we were out promoting democracy with weapons, now we have an african american president in office, the rise of this underlying racial disparity in our

who see iran's attempts to acquire a nuclear capability as potentially leading to iran acquiring a nuclear weapon. they're very nervous about that. a nuclear iran, they feel, will definitely destabilize the middle east. that school of thought exists more in the official circles in the middle east, in egypt and saudi arabia, some of the gulf countries. among the populace, it is different feeling. among the populace, they see is real cause nuclear capability -- israel's nuclear capability as the real threat. the president alluded to a nuclear-free world. when he talked specifically about the danger that iran poses in this area, without mentioning israel by name, i think he rubbed some people in the muslim world the wrong way. host: good morning. caller: good morning. just commenting on the previous discussion about the iran issue and nuclear arms, i think in a lot of ways, the iranian issue -- while it is a real issue, it is a diversion, the same way that the iraq war was a diversion away from dealing with terrorism. posted -- focusing so much on iran acquiring nuclear weapons has ignored th

the leaders of iran, not the iranian people, you have to make that distinction, but the leaders of iran, mahmoud ahmadinejad, president -- i want you to say that five times quickly with me -- i'm just kidding. i want you to call him mahmoud-genocide. [laughter] there will be no spelling tests. these men and they have surrounded themselves believe the end of the world is near. they believe that the arrival or the appearance of the islamic messiah, known as the 12th imam are believe his appearance on earth is eminem. the actual word they are using is imminent. furthermore they believe the way to hasten or speed up the islamic messiah is to annihilate the two countries, israel as they describe as the little satan, and the united united states they describe as the great satan. to quote we've drawn together and put in the book i want to share with you so you understand a little bit what they are singing in their own words. now this is from january, 21, nine months before 9/11. i happened to be fighting the last jihad. iranian supreme leader ayatollah khamenei said it is the mission of the is

has been shattered by iran -- in iran by the protesters that took to the streets this week. the state department's human rights record noted iran's human rights record worsened and it committed -- continued to commit serious violations. it severely limited citizens tried to change their government peacefully through fear, free and fair elections, using smear tactics and fear and intimidation to try to squelch the revolt that is obviously taking place in the iranian people's call for freedom and democracy. if you look beyond what does happen this week, it was only the most recent demonstration of the brutality of that regime and its troop authoritarian nature. we must also recognize that the iranian regime is not just a threat to its own people, but indeed, it presents a threat to the security interests and to global peace and security through its pursuit of nuclear weapons capability, through its pursuit of chemical and biological weapons program, and its pursuit of long-range missiles and by being a state sponsorship of global violent islamic extremist acts. we are here tod