tv Cross Talk RT January 22, 2014 2:29pm-3:01pm EST
theories to attack damascus has ever seen. she says her fight has nothing to do with her government as a manhunt a thing that war means there and we have to leave and we have to fight for peace and life we can't give up left on war it's a side of war that not many think about in the midst of violence and devastation babies are still be born in their thousands new parents who run away from atrocities in their hometowns often end up in camps which like the basics of sanitation and security but with death all around they're choosing life rif notion r t from damascus. well the talks between the syrian government and the opposition will continue tomorrow and we'll of course be bring you full coverage of that for now it is people of elle's crosstalk i'll be back with more news for in just a hoffa now from now. or
committed to resolving the whole spectrum of issues that have separated washington around for decades can't israel and its congressional allies specifically the senate kill the deal and if for some miraculous reason all sides agree to keep to the agreement what can we expect next. to the interim agreement with iran i'm joined by my guest richard white's in washington he is a senior fellow and director of the center for political military analysis at the hudson institute and in new york we cross to urban abrahamian he is an author and a distinguished professor of history at the city university of new york all right gentlemen cross talk rules and effective means you can jump in anytime you want and i very much encourage it richard if i go to you first being true agreement with the international community in iran is in effect this week here there was a lot of discussion coming out of the u.s. senate to me there obviously lobbyist groups in washington that were putting casting aspersions that say on the interim agreement but it's in effect and the
i.a.e.a. is a said already that iran is committed to this it's already done what it's most of what it's committed to do in the initial phases how do you see this panning out. i think that the interim agreement well probably be implemented as specified all the parties have an incentive to do that. he does not appear to be any development that we four see that would cause the process to be disrupted there's of course always as we know in the whole history of this negotiation there always and still are a developments that can cause complications like the syria geneva talks but i think it's because there will be implemented the big challenge is whether the parties will be able to take advantage of the interim agreement and transform it into a more enduring settlement and there i'm less optimistic pretty optimistic about
the interim agreement and not very optimistic about the region a comprehensive deal ok event if i go to you in new york county you see this because it leaves at this point both sides iran in the international community with under this interim agreement seem committed what's the stumbling blocks going down as we go forward i mean it's a six month period so is it going to be smooth sailing or are going to be elements on both sides that want to derail this. i'm actually more optimistic than richard i think boat parked his boat the rouhani administration the bush and obama administration are actually determined to settle the nuclear issue is part of going to be their legacy of their administrations so they have their eyes fixed the fixed on the prize of getting this nuclear issue is resolved so they will go all the way they can to get it so there will be opposition from both sides the iranian rightwing will offer to obviously object but i think they're
marginalize they'll be obviously some opposition in congress but they'll be mostly grandstanding i think when it comes to the crunch most of the democratic congressman will not dare to read to go against their own democratic president and i call it the views of israel about this i think on the whole because the obama administration is very determined to get this through they will get it through richard i read your piece on the in these talks in the interim agreement i found it really quite fascinating and i must admit you went into a lot of technical details is it really more political will on both sides unless the technical issues or do you find them more germane and again it gets down to what the west perceives as transparency coming out of to iran. well i think that the the technical details are important because they down on the political
dialogue and vice versa if there are political complications it's going to be more strenuous the demand in the technical i mean there are just some key issues that are need to be resolved and there's no easy answer to them i mean how much and richmond if any and probably be some can iran conduct what kind of verification how extensive the koreans seem to be and so on and i concur with your previous speaker that they bomb ministration irani ministration would like to achieve an agreement but the problem is i think they still invision in a different and stayed there and we also have to deal with all the other parties we saw the french proved. basically i was going to disrupt their that's really the wrong term but basically they they complicated the initial negotiations because of some concern about the one the plutonium reactor rack and i could see that
happening in other cases with the british the french and others objecting to certain features so it's at least multiple i don't got here from the very complicated richard if i can say with you i mean that you bring up really good points there and would you think that they will be brought up because you're absolutely right if you go on both sides if you want to find a reason not to talk and not to agree both sides have a whole panoply of things that they can throw out there do you think that's going to happen. well if they don't others will so the if there's no discussion about for example the iraq reactor which the west wants to be discontinued because it can be used to make bombs directly it's plutonium producing reactor whereas the iranian ministration says they see this as an essential component in their nuclear structure and if there's even that's really a fundamental disagreement and so if they do they have to has to be addressed
somewhere in the comprehensive agreement and if the even if the u.s. and the iranians which i don't believe would cry and keep it out other parties will try and bring it in either those at the negotiating table or outside commentators senators and so on if i go back to you in new york one of the interesting things and it's a big picture thing that i think a lot of people don't really focus in on the united states and iran are actually speaking to each other again after so many decades i mean can you see that the process of negotiating can actually start lowering these tensions here they're not going to find complete agreement on everything we both know that all three of us know about but the very fact that they're negotiating is that have an extra effect on these talks here. yes and i think i mean we should keep an eye it's really between iran and united states the others are. a side issue a show you can bring in saudi arabia the gulf states and so on but they're not
crucial to the negotiations as long as u.s. and iran are willing to can negotiate and come to an agreement the others can make noises and i think in fact the french could call west cause problems but the british and germans are of course the russians and the chinese are more than eager to get some sort of agreement i think those technical issues again are minor once there is the seizure and their determination to come to an agreement then those technical issues could be aren't so i don't think the plutonium issue is really serious because even that plan doesn't actually produce could do produce weaponized or weaponized saying you raney and it's more to do to have to go through another process which iran doesn't yet have so i these things are i think the issues that could be complicate the issues only if you want to. sabotage to
negotiations and both sides at the moment are more than eager to actually come to an agreement richard it seems that i'm again going back to the paper you wrote which was quite fascinating is it at the end of the day is the west going to allow . iran to enrich uranium i mean under the nonproliferation treaty it has that right to do that but this seems to be really the crux of it and no one you know we're going to go through the next six months is that question going to be addressed because obviously the iranians will say they have the right to do it and they will walk away most likely from a negotiating table if they're denied it. i think what you're going to see is the west will not explicitly of knowledge that iran has the right to enrich their name or am i mean the n.p.t. and other agreements they don't say you have a right they don't say you don't have a right they do it's just not something that's it's not described in those terms.
but iran has the capacity to enrich uranium and it's not clear how you can get them to dismantle that. difference is the is going to be really scale and that's where the technicalities come in the geneva agreement says that they the they're going to agree on a what kind of richmond can occur in accord with iran's practical needs and at the moment it doesn't need any enriched uranium because it only has one nuclear reactor and the russians have a very helpfully range deliver that fuel and then take it back so it can't be used to make it turn to bomb and so the west might say well you can have you know do have some enrich uranium for you know if you need it just in case there's an interruption supplies or so on the iranians say well we've got all these plans we want to build you know ten reactors next decade and do all this and that's what we need to have a very extensive. program and then that's where the problems are going to be they
have different visions of the end state of where rand will be and what's capable of what's permissible. since as you know we had said a bit it's obvious that if you have a very comprehensive richmond capacity very extensive civilian commercial nuclear industry that is not too difficult to use to start producing the material you need for a nuclear weapon the fissile material in there enrich uranium to a very higher state and one renaissance so far or separate plutonium. which is what the r.e.x.x. reactor might present as a problem all right gentlemen i'm going to jump in here we're going to go to a short break and after that short break we'll continue our discussion on the state authority. believe me.
i know. tanya. well tell me how you are my little grandson. i don't like i don't like. being cut us. except as an ecovillage that the spiritual side is destructive. i tried to convince her to try to preach that it was a sect but it's dangerous and she had to leave it was a story she had lost her mind. you know you see we'll come back i know it was and i will wait even if it means i must wait until my dying
day. as a new physician i swear to abide by the hippocratic oath. to the best of my ability and judgment. i will prescribe for the good of my patients. i will not give deadly doses to anybody. or advise others to do so. i will never do harm to the. doctors of the dogs. last. photo on june sixteenth one thousand forty one we had
a graduation party at school and the war broke out. last. the shops were always full of goods. in september leningrad was blocked. one day mom went and saw that all the shelves were empty. in november they bombed the die of steel warehouses it was the main storage place for all the food in the city people would be eating the earth because it had small traces of sugar in it i tried to eat it as well but i couldn't. look at this incredibly heavy bombing. it was a direct hit on that very shelter and everyone was buried under me. all of them would.
please. welcome back to cross talk we're all things are considered i'm peter lavelle to remind you we're discussing the interim agreement with iran. ok i'm going to go back to you in new york in the first part of the program we ended on talking about iran's rights and and i think that this is you know this is the crux of the matter here whatever demands and needs they have for nuclear energy is anyone's guess but at the end of the day they have they believe they have the right to have that kind of energy capacity and this is what is going to get down to
i mean we have intelligence report after another one after another there is no intentionality to build a bomb i mean lots of intelligence community say but for domestic consumption for political reasons at home ran can't give that up they just simply can't. well i mean my understanding of the producer preparation treaty is that once you saw and you have the right to actually do some enrichment not to the point of actually weaponized thing and when iran says it has the right to enrich that's what they're arguing and that's doesn't contradict the obama administration if you obama has constantly said that he has no objection to iran having a nuclear program he objects to any nuclear program that would become a nuclear weapons program so that's where i think there is good grounds for having a settlement how much enrichment can be done at what level these are i think
technical issues that could be settled it wants both sides are actually willing to come to an agreement and you know years ago you iran was willing to come to sort of settlement it was the bush administration that vetoed it and the same peapod now at the two year making decisions in iran rouhani are in fact arguing the same thing they did two years ago and the u.s. position has changed and u.s. is now willing to actually come to an agreement richard is this a window of opportunity because we do have a new administration in iran and i think it's already been mentioned on this program that obama would like some kind of foreign policy achievement in its second term because he didn't do too well to date so far you know how does this play into it because a lot of that you know when you think about ten years ago when all of the sanctions started coming on there was no enrichment now there's a lot of enrichment going on in iran and now we're at the table is this an opportunity in your mind. it may be an opportunity we're
still i mean we're still i think that the ministration of this thing is it could be and so we're going to try and see if we can make this into an opportunity it's still a bit uncertain i mean there are some uncertainty over for example how much power president and his team has versus the. supreme leader if there's going to be a difference in the revolutionary guards and and so on and so i also would not accept without a little challenge to your earlier statement about there is no evidence that iran has any intention to seek a nuclear weapon and there's there's evidence that some rain ians and the past at least ok thought about that ok fair enough there are enough. in the right in the future you could see some new iranians think about that that's the problem ok ok i agree before two thousand and two there is evidence that yes there were thinking about it. even if i go back to you in new york i want to look at some of the other players here because it was the senate though it looked like it was you know in
revolt or when a number of us senators were backing a bill that could impose more sanctions here i mean it's this is extremely unhelpful to an administration it's trying to do something big and very different than and i think we all would agree for the agreement a permanent agreement came into play it would be good for the united states would be good for the world and be good for the average iranian as well but what about these other players here are they going to keep a low for the next few months are we going to see more trouble. wow there i think there are people obviously very much who reflect the israeli point of view and they're going to continue objecting but when it comes to the crunch that it's hard for them to the stand up against the u.s. president president who says this is in the u.s. interests to do this continent agreement and just and then to argue no it's not it's in israel's interests not to have an agreement at the american public is not
going to accept that i think the the most congressman realize that they might make noises but they are contrary to sabotage this thing and you have to keep in mind another issue is that if the u.s. president agrees to a deal which iran excepts and the senate that says says no what is the rest of the wall going to do is the rest of the world going to listen to the senators are they going to listen to the u.s. president i think the whole sanctions system will on ravel if there is an agreement and even if the senate doesn't approve of it it's interesting richard the unraveling of sanctions and any you know in there's so many different ways you can look at this needs negotiations of course a rand would like to see the end of those saying sions and there are those voices in washington that say once you start going down that path it's a slippery slope once you are start undoing saying sions it turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy. i agree with that we've already see same
some of the sanctions begin to unravel we know there's these rumors about this russian oil rand the chinese appear to be more interested i mean what is happening lots five or six years under both the bush administration that the treasury and state department go around intel or countries you've got to stop doing that their brand if you do you want access to the us financial system and so on and it's been very effective and the momentum has been driving to tighter and tighter sanctions now i think that's reverse and i agree with it with our colleague that if if there was a deal announced in the senate blocked it that would just encourage further countries to with to end their sanctions so you're going to see sanctions relief and i think that's something though it has one minor positive fact in that the there's been some discussion about whether if we reach a deal the senate will really approve the withdraw ending of sanctions by the u.s. and so on i think that's the iranian shouldn't be thinking that they should be
thinking about how useful it would be if they could come to an agreement to limit their nuclear program and not have the u.s. treasury in the state department go around all these countries and say don't deal with iran or just not just stay home because i think that will give them a lot more benefit than they can ever realistically hope to get from dealing with the u.s. economically in new york how can this change the region this is this is big stuff i mean i'm i look at your face look at richard's face we're all children of the cold war and you know we've been living with this very difficult relationship with the run for decades now this is a real window of opportunity how could it change the region and i'm thinking about israel and i'm thinking of saudi arabia i we've mentioned them before but they do not like this idea and they're going to push and they will continue to push. yes i don't i mean i think the nuclear issue is the most important issue because it's so dangerous and you know it could do to these lead to the u.s.
iran war but if it's resolved it doesn't mean that basically the whole scene is going to change there will be still a lot of friction between the u.s. and iran their historical reasons for it their course u.s. run line says in the region so it's not going to be a brave new world just because the nuclear issue is resolved but i think the nuclear issue is so important that it should be resolved before other issues or even addressed so i don't i don't see is somehow a return to the good old days of the shah being policy would whoever is in the white house those days are gone but the nuclear issue is such a dangerous and it's in the interests of both to us and iran to the road need to resolve that richard doesn't it if they were determined to go on ministration go ahead richard jump in go ahead yeah it is a position
a bomb inspirational they phrase it a little differently it's if you can't trust iran to agree to comply with its nuclear obligations you can't really trust them for anything syria afghanistan ever and so therefore we have to settle the nuclear issue before we can achieve extensive cooperation these other areas although i think you're going to see a little de facto cooperation maybe in afghanistan well i'm glad you brought it up richard because we're running out of time richard i want to stay with you what's your reaction to the united states having the united nations disinvite to iran to the talks and on syria in geneva i mean this is getting to what you're saying trust well. your head right now and it's not i mean the way that it's come out of the u.n. is that the iranians said they would agree to do something and then they didn't and that's why they're being disinvited i mean u.s. pressure played a part i have to think there was just some miscommunication. somewhere along the line either president general bon thought the bomb a stray shell was going to be the one thing and misinterpreted that or he thought
our the syrian opposition didn't make clear their own kind of calm or there was some confusion over what they thought the iranians said they were going to do and so on so i wouldn't i think the russian government was correct in saying this is a disappointing development but it's not a tragic or fundamental one i think i really agree with the russians on this analysis that this appears to have been. an error perhaps to the weekend like in timing or something but it's not something that would this is necessary that affect the outcome of the negotiation ok in new york you want to get thirty seconds here to react to this story. i agree that i don't think it's going to do it because. the rouhani administration is very eager to get a resolution to the nuclear issue so that for them the syrian issue is second but going to the point about trust and if you contrast iran on the nuclear you contrast the very the fact is most governments don't trust other governments and while after
all why so the obama administration eavesdropping on merkel could be more from north all right that's a different john big gentleman they did a great job because he thinks of my guests today in washington and in new york and thanks to our viewers for watching us here at r.t. see you next time and remember crosstalk. a pledge it was a compliment very hard to make a pledge against a long career as
a plumber that he ever had sex with her make their lives let's play. lists lists lists little legislative. lists lists about. the. the united states is a very good example here because in the early years they they had a pretty strong genuine democracy a dad by now i would argue has degenerated into a system where money and power mattered much more than britain did the deputy of
the majority of the founding fathers of the united states would constantly say that they were not trying to instill democracy that taught them obviously was horrible they wanted tops we instituted a republic and they purposely designed the institutions to as they put it excludes the majority of from participation. religion jimmy said here's a guy who committed pedophilia with over four hundred children and he's taken to the court taken the old bailey and his defenses if you prosecute me i'm going to go to switzerland that's what i just fear say if you prosecute me and our scads and scores of hundreds of incidents of fraud we threaten to leave the country and the government says oh drew we would need to. prove.
clashes engulf central kiev as ukrainian police barricades and on a fourth day of anti-government protests two people have died so far. the crisis is being fueled by nationalists and radicals keen to grab the opportunity to push for revolution. also this hour syria's government and opposition sit face to face for the first time since the start of the conflict the beginning of anticipated peace talks in switzerland have exposed the parties of very different views of the future . this is international law.