tv Panel Discussion on Foreign Affairs CSPAN August 11, 2014 11:34pm-12:24am EDT
leader of the world, a waiting line. it is russia and the people's republic of china and jihadist and the u.n.. even the e.u.. there are line of people who are waiting and one of them is going to take it. right now i would say putin has an inside track right now at this moment. it may be the jihadist, i don't know but we are at war and we had better realize that. we are at war against the jihadist. they declared war on us on 9/11 and killed our people and until we win we have the risk of losing. >> host: finally bruce herschensohn we talked about the mideast that the president recently diverted into saudi arabia on his trip to europe and stay you want to talk about the middle east situation as far as israel and saudi arabia and some
of those other countries to tie it into obama's -- "obama's globe." >> guest: i would love to do that. saudi arabia could have been our covert and overt friend of the coalition that would include the united states and israel and any number of sunni gulf states because they despise what's going on in iraq. they are not really pleased with iran and that she is anyway that they despise it and they don't want iraq to get the bomb. if they do, they will get the bomb and you can count on that and i can understand that. and so what is going on is the speech president obama gave on israel in which he started by saying the border should be based on the 1967 lines, do you recall that? he said that as with the border should be based on between israel and palestine talking about palestine as though it's a nation. do you realize what he is saying? he is saying before you win the
war in israel it would be like saying to david cameron saying to us, we want to go back to the 1775 lines. i hope you understand. yes, of course that is what we should do. we would be right now sitting in southern california. we would be sitting in northern mexico if we went back to the lines preceding the u.s. mexican war. too bad but that's how borders come about, by winners and losers. generally that's how they come about unless there are some geographical entity, mountains or rivers or whatever. they won a war. they won a war they sure did not want to have. do we have the time for me to tell you one quick incidence? is called an occupation and people say obama, president obama uses that word all the
time about an occupation. they are occupiers. how can any people be occupied when they never had the land to begin with and they didn't. it sounds to most people as does the 67 war was over west bank and gaza. it wasn't over either one of them. at that time jordan had already seized and taken the west bank and called it the west bank. that is how it got its name from jordan's invasion and seizure and in 1949. each authority had gaza. before that, the british have them. before the british, turkey have them. before turkey it was the crusades and before the crusades it was back in biblical times and i don't know what happened before that. but they never had it so how can someone be occupying their land? what do you mean their lands? there is no such thing as their
lands. palestine was always considered an area like we say scandinavia. there is no country called scandinavia but there are a number of countries we consider to be in it. palestine, that was considered as jewish as it was arab. it was when i was a kid. it was considered, that's all. one thing happened in that war that i think is worth knowing about. israel is very concerned that it was going to be, that it was going to be two fronts. it was going to be the western front which was egypt. nasser was sending his tanks across the sinai. they sealed up the bank in the south in syria in the north but they thought they could win a two-front war. they didn't think they could win a three front war against jordan in the east. so the prime minister at the time, prime minister eshkol talked to our ambassador and he
said we can't talk to hussein because we don't have diplomatic relations. could we use your offices or maybe the ambassador to jordan's offices, the u.s. ambassador to guarantee, israel guarantees he won't take anything that jordan considers its territory including their west bank. you can refer to the term west bank which no one would refer to as judaizing maria but anyway we won't even go in there if you could do that. this guy, our ambassador did what a good ambassador does, contacted the secretary of state and the secretary's day contacted president johnson. he wasn't going to have an investor do it. he was going to sing eugene rossdale to talk to king hussein. he talked him and he israel guarantees it won't touch one territory if you just sit on their hands. israel guarantees it.
he said president johnson wanted me to tell you that the united states guarantees it that israel won't do it. at that time in history king hussein was not as strong as he was in later life. he became a very strong guy. he was weak and he went to his other arab leaders including nasser president the president of egypt and they said nothing doing. i am sure they are more articulate than i am. they didn't say nothing doing man but they said no. the war started. israel attacked egypt and syria, just like that. they didn't touch jordan that first day that jordan sent in its tanks across the west bank into israel proper and they attacked jordan and that is how israel got what is called the west bank. >> host: we have been talking with pepperdine university
freedom fest conference in las vegas. it is 45 minutes. [applause] >> you're probably wondering what i had done wrong to have it dragged up before congress 75 times to testify. never been indicted. ladies and gentlemen it's a great pleasure to be here with you today. our topic of today is hot spots around the world. at the bahamas small version of freedom fest last january i gave a talk on ukraine and that is before the thing had heated up and rob that it would be a good idea for the trip to places around the world and what's likely to happen. we have no better panelists than the group we have today because we have got a gentleman who has immense experience men -- working in many areas of the world. i think you'll enjoy what they
have to say. to my far far right is david keene. david is now the opinion editor of the "washington times" which means he oversees all the editorials and all the commentary and "washington times" is in the process of really expanding. they are doing a national digital edition. i suggest that you all subscribe because that makes it easy for you to get my weekly column also plus all the others and is a great newspaper. it is growing unlike most other newspapers in the world. david is a good part of this change. you may remember david for many years was in the american conservative union. he was also president of the national rifle association.
i know a lot of you will be opposed to that but he has done great things all his life and has been in and out of government and had positions advising the president. then to my far, far right is herman pirchner. herman has been a long-term president of american foreign policy council and they do great work looking at all the time the hotspots around the world and trying to anticipate what's going to happen long before it does. you could sort of say they are different in the obama administration because they actually look ahead. herman is not to pick up the newspaper and be surprised by what's going to happen next in the world because he and his staff have been there, know it's going on and do great job of anticipating it and most recently he was on front in the
ukraine russia difficulties. they turn out a great publication so i suggest those of you who have a few dollars it might want to join the foreign policy council. i expect i'll be here or just inform policy. it's a way of keeping up to da date, very low overhead operation but they do great work on foreign policy and intelligence. and then to my immediate right is my old friend doug bandow when i knew back in the reagan administration when he was an assistant to the president and he's a senior fellow at the cato institute and doug has turned out i don't know how many books, endless articles on one of the world's most prolific authors and dealing a lot with foreign policy. we are going to do this with a little bit of the general session rather each of us specializing narrowly because we all have experience in various parts of the world and a lot of
it overlaps. as we were speaking earlier one characteristic now is the world has gotten smaller which is really true. the plane ride from durand to north korea's pretty short so the question is that the many stories of asia or wherever? we are going to start off with david keene because he is my boss at the "washington times." i have one more line to go. david is going to set the stage of this really great global struggle that's going on among political forces and then we will get into more the specifics. >> thank you richard. i'd like to begin by this great self-promotion that we are doing to suggest you need to subscribe
to the washington times because bandow writes for the times. that's the problem with being the editor, you are always being lobbied by these people in the pages are open to pirchner as well so it seems to be a no-brainer for the audience. actually, i think it's important that we are meeting on the subject today because the american people are confused as to what stands the united states ought to be in terms of foreign policy in their place in the world. they have gone through period in which our foreign policy has been dominated by folks who think that perhaps the world could be remade in the american image without much relationship or understanding. one can argue that the middle east, we are still struggling with the shadow of the great war which we are celebrating 100
years of its beginning and maybe celebration is the wrong word. i remember from the intimate papers of colonel house who was the advisor to woodrow wilson, he said at one point that he had a busy day because they had spent that morning retrying the map of the world. fortunately they managed to finish by noon and enjoyed a good lunch. that is the kind of attitude that dominates some of the folks who involve themselves in the foreign-policy debate even today and we pay the cost for that in terms of blood and treasure in wars and struggles that we don't need to be involved in. on the other hand, there are those in reaction to that who are saying that the united states cannot be involved at all and that the best policy for the united states is the policy we pursued in the early days of the republic which was to stay away
although even then early presidents dealt with barbary pirates and the rest when they interfered with their perceived right to trade in other parts of the world. there was never a complete separation of our foreign policy number economic interests. the question that the american people are struggling with is whether the interests of the united states, the legitimate interest that ought to be protected? goes to some extent to the question of whether you are for example the middle east is perhaps in an earlier age with the communist empire facing an existential threat to a threat from sources that are bent upon art instruction regardless or is it some other kind of a threat? do we have an obligation as bill kristol might argue to export democracy to the world and try to remake the world in our image? if we could do that would it
work? if we could do that should we do it? do we have a right to do at? on the other hand can we afford to withdraw from the world and ignore the kinds of problems that are developing? i would like to point out that moderate president, the two presidents who lost fewer americans than any other foreign wars were ronald reagan and dwight eisenhower neither one of which could be viewed as an isolationist and fairly neither one of which could be viewed as a neoconservative. both were known in part of the world with people you could only push so far so if the american presence was there and the basis of the reagan foreign policy was that if you were strong enough you didn't have to go to war. if you are strong enough people knew what the limits were and wouldn't go very far. you may remember reagan's comment with the libyans under moammar gadhafi shortly into his
presidency. he said he called his people and he said it's about time to teach the people that there there is a management over year. the problem the american people face is whether we do it now has a kind of management we have been had we perceived? as always in the case of foreign-policy there are questions link to specific problems. their sources and their meaning for us. i think that is why these hot points and hotspots at the will are so important to the discussion today. >> thank you. i will stay up here. >> would you? >> anything to get away from you. [laughter] >> we are all friends here but hermann why do you pick up where dave left off. >> we are relating to reality now. >> thanks for your comments
dave. i want to pick up on one question you raised and that was the question of islamism versus communism and historical problems for the u.s.. all of us up here on the stage were veterans of the cold war but i have to say in many ways the problem of islamist system is going to prove more difficult than the problem of communism. communism promised utopia on earth. the time came when you had 20 million dead in the soviet union. 80 million dead in china and no utopia. when wanat was seen by the sons and daughters of the leaders running those countries this idea that you could create paradise on earth fell apart. the idea fell apart and the capability to kill at mass went away. when it went away the fear went in when the fear went the soviet union collapsed. just imagine and anna says
internal -- eternal damnation you care to. everyone that follows bin laden thinks he's being rewarded. the idea still alive and as long as the ideas to life the idea that you may go to paradise by killing innocents, this problem of terrorism and problems associated with islamicists exist. it essentially dealing with the theological question the theological war within the islamic world and that's a war in which we have little sway. how can you be involved in theological discussions if you are not a muslim? it's a problem that's going to be with us a great amount of time. american foreign-policy council publishes something called almanac of islamism. it's a reference work on islamist movements worldwide.
the book itself, the hardcovers 1150 pages but there is an on line edition. and of course of looking at the great depth of this islamic problem, you understand what a long-standing struggle it's going to be to deal with islamist, islamism in many forms that exist worldwide. i want to switch now briefly to ukraine. it's the title of the anil. ukraine is playing out in the following fashion. we soon will have two cities in the eastern part of ukraine to mask and a half that will be surrounded by forces loyal to the ukrainian government. in the cities will be a couple thousand rebels that are largely taking orders from moscow
through russian military intelligence. maybe there will be a negotiated settlement where they will lead into russia. maybe there will be a fight. if there is a fight, militants from pro-russian forces are likely to try to make it as bloody as possible by positioning themselves in hospitals old-age homes and so forth. we will do that with the hope that things will become so disruptive that putin will be moved to move in russian forces. if he chooses to do that the ukraine army has no capability of standing. they could be in kiev in two or three days but if that happens it will be the foreshadowing of very tense and long-standing tenseness and relations between
russia and the west. it will be the beginning of what will be a long guerrilla war in ukraine. ukraine has some history of th that. anti-communist forces fought for many years after the close of world war ii against the soviet forces. my sources tell me that now sometimes thousands of ukrainians with some arms that will harass the russian army if it sits there. when you get to this point the consequences are little bit unpredictable. i'm probably eating my only time. >> we will get back to the hermann in more detail but if you could talk about the mideast aspects. >> i like the idea of whatever i want. we live today i've been up in a world in many ways created by a man who was the bosnian-serb terrorist who shot the arch duke
and his wife. so many questions we have are the final bits and pieces about war including the middle east in the balkans and many of these countries created out of that complex. there is good news in all this. there are a lot of hotspots that i will mention the number them. for the most part they are hotspots that don't really threaten the united states. this is not world war iii. the cold war with opponents with nuclear weapons and we train school children to get under the desk of missiles fell. we talked about soviet troops. now that is with us. colin powell when he was head of the joint chiefs commented at the time i'm running out of enemies. both of them were nasty curiou curious -- characters in terms of the more they can impose. i think we are looking at a future of chronic conflicts as well as a cute ones in terms of
islamic threats that are going to be their terrorism. it will be with us and they will threaten us not existential weight but they will be with us travelers and another ways. we have a world full of a lot of misses out there. we have missiles falling in israel, bombings in the gaza strip and israeli-palestinian peace process every time they make a go at it i roll my eyes and say this is the 300th or for hundreds time they have been trying. we look at egypt has new retracement of mubarak dictatorship so we get to choose between a vicious dictatorship or the muslim brotherhood. it's not much of a choice that i think any of us in this room would like. we look at syria that is written by the civil war were ever a government that none of us likes in on the other hand the other side includes such wonderful folks that went around crucifying christians and shooting schoolchildren if they were thought to blaspheme. those are our allies in the syrian civil war. .. lot of competence.
there is a negotiating process going on and a little hope it will turn out positive. i am not holding by breath and no one wants iran to have nuclear weapons but launching attacks on them should be avoided. the north koreans are busy and now mad because the new movie the interviewer is out there in which two actors want to assa i
>> chynna has sharp el bowls in the china sea. theamees want to us come, >> then we get to ukraine. and where clearly get a sense of the world war is being recreated there. it's a difficult situation but a the reality is no one wants to go to war over ukraine which means the russians the the capability to do what they want and put is bounded and wants to bring in ukrainians for reasons that were mentioned. look back to world war ii, putin the only area with a majority russian population. you bring in those areas, bring in 60% or more ukrainians, that's not likely to be very
table for you. so i suspect that will be a chronic problem for the future, and there's moldova, georgia, others in the same situation. so we're looking ahead then world will be a mess ask aflame. the good news for the u.s. it can stand back and assess each of these carefully. there's no reason to assume we have to jump into all of them or some of them. there's no clear way we want to get involved, it will vary them world today gives us more options than we had in a world that the soviet union which ronald reagan correctly termed the evil empire, and evil empire causes you to have to do things to, luckily there is no evil empire. we stand alone in the summit of military power and had options we didn't have during the cold war. >> one of our colleagues at the cato institute is -- andre had been putin's chief economic adviser up to 2004, and and
putin had been moving toward denationalization and free markets. then he been to reverse course and renationalized the oil companies, and andre and president putin ceased getting along, and so andre moved to the u.s. and joined the cato institute. from the kremlin to the cato institute. where he is much happier. but andre also -- he has recently returned from ukraine and goes back anding for to russia some, and so far he has been okay. we do worry about him. but his view is that putin wants to recreate the russian empire, not the ussr necessarily but the russian empire. and many of you probably have forgotten the russian empire, what year did it actually
create -- have the greatest land mass? anybody here remember? 1867. then they sold alaska to us. and then it some returning -- shrunk after that. alaska was a big piece. they dominated eastern europe and the sands stands and everytg today. andre's view is that putin will continue to nibble around the edges like he has in georgia, crimea, now the main part of ukraine, and i would like to get the views of my fellow panelists on andre's view. wal just work our way down. david? >> i think that's essentially correct. you can't fault a -- the leader of a country for acting in his country's self-interest. you can't really -- you can be upset because it may clash with your interests, but you can't
really fault him for doing that. if he is outmaneuvering you, he may better than your leaders at it but doesn't mean he is necessarily evil. i think, frankly -- this is without excusing anything that putin has done -- that part of what happened in ukraine is a result of two things. one, both sides began looking at the world through the eyes of the old cold war. ignoring the fact that what -- i don't no who said it but that countries don't have permanent friends, they have permanent interests, at a time when perhaps our interests were closer together than either side was willing to admit. secondly, we're in a world in which a lot of our policymakers don't know very much about history. we spent millions of dollars in ukraine promoting the idea that ukraine should move toward the european community and nato. ignoring the fact that -- i guess suggesting, well, putin won't mind giving up that warm
water port in crimea. the fact that russia always wanted buffer states because they fear invasion from the west. that won't bother them. we'll turn this into one of cower countries. not realizing that the russians for historic and other reasons wanted to keep ukraine as part of their orbit. not necessarily absorb ukraine but keep them as part of their orbit, 100 times more than we wanted to get it. as a result we added to the problem. earlier, -- this also goes to one of the foreign the breakdown of the russian-u.s. -- you remember the balkan crisis in which the united states decided that self-determination required an independent kosovo, which was part of serbia. that was a violation of a lot of different things, and the russians, who have always considered, if we go back and remembered world war i, have auld considered the southern slaves to be their protectors. they're the protectors of the
southern slaves. they were outraged at the fact we were going to allow part of a nation state that wasn't a nation to exercise a self-determination right and break off, and if you listen to the russians now they're saying, we have the right to do in ukraine, and maybe in latvia and estonia, what you did in the balkans because we have russians living there and you said those people shouldn't live among slaves, and so from a legal and historical standpoint, this whole thing is muddled, in part because of putin's amibitions, whether we regard them as legitimate or not, and in part because we helped muddle things up and de facto encouraged or at least forced him to act on those amibitions in ukraine. aim wrong about that? >> i agree with a lot of what you said about the balkans. when andre back russian foreign
minister he had a rather pro-west foreign policy, but he and others were discredited when nato was used offensively in the balkans because their argument against the hard liners had always been no need to fear the west. nato is strictly a defensive organization. let's go back to ukraine and other parts of the former soviet union that putin has designs on in 2001, russia passed a law in expansion of the territory of the russian federation. that's the law whose basis was idea to annex crimea. this is in line with the thinking of both -- the thinking of the nationalists about the creation of a greater slavic state, belarus, ukraine, northern kazakhstan. the idea was put forthmen years ago and -- forthmany years ago and others pith it up.
then you have man who was formerly russia's ambassador to nato, now deputy prime minister, he is russia's nationalist number one. already about 15 years ago, he wrote in a book, no matter how i'm realistic it seems today we must persevere coming out like germany, united after 40 years. russia's had long-term designs on these territories. the problem is, with ukraine as an unrequited love. ukrainians remember that two million people that were killed by the forced famine in the 1930s. >> more than that. >> well, two, three, four, but it's a lot of people that were killed. and many of them were kill in these eastern territories that are under contention now. the empty homes then were filled by russians that came from other parts of russia. if you go as far in russia's to the pacific island of -- you'll find many people with ukrainian
names. the cream of ukrainian intelligence ya were sent to the cams. that's not forgotten in ukraine. so russia recovered ukraine but ukraine is not ready to embrace russia. >> put a put is a nationalist -- putin is a nationalist -- people who speak russian tell me his rhetoric has grown more nationalistic in recent years. a lot of that is political. approval ratings had been down. crimea bumped him up. politicians like to get the war approval. what russia is today is a pre1914 great power. that is ideological contentiousness is gone. this is not some grand global competition with movers ideology. what he kerr about is border security and respect and baskans is one where are you screw with us, you toss our allies to the side, we get upset. you do it again to us in
ukraine, and there's an elected leader who is kind of pro-our side, you overthrow him, organize a street revolution, you want them to sign inwith you, you talk about nato. i think what he is -- he is ambitious and opportunistic and also prudent. so while perhaps he might like to have a russia that liked like russia of 1816, he won't get it. part of it is the old traditional russia, the rest is from hungary. so, again, the question of what he wants, i think a lot of it is opportunistic, the moment he thought he could get it, get crimea, and now you play the game and see what comes out, and if nothing else you finlandize ukraine. you cause trouble, the new leadership needs stability so it nurses it better pay attention to you because five years from now they can play this game again even if the don't roll in and have a civil war. just know that nato is off the
table. i think he is dangerous but dangerous in a very confined way. >> well, i think i'm a little more skeptic about mr. putin than maybe all of you. i had chaired the bulgarian transition team back in '90 to '93 and had been an adviser to the first noncommunist prime minister in russia. at the beginning of this year, i -- economic -- i write about energy and a number of other things, and i had done several articles about how europe was captive to soviet oil and gas. most of russia's hard currency or exports are oil and gas, most of it going to western europe, and particularly the southern -- western europe countries are almost totally hostage to gas coming through ukraine.
from my old contacts i had received a message about how certain members of the bulgarian parliament, basely the socialist party, the green party, and even the turkish party, were serving up payments to vote against fracking in bulgaria. northern bulgaria is loaded with oil and gas. contiguous to romania, bulgaria should be an oil and gas exporter, should not be totally dependent on russian gas. this reminded me very much of the old days that some of us -- i think all of us here knew the -- had been participant inside one way or another in the cold war and much of this became familiar. at the time i got this information, i was first trying to get some of the western european press to really run with it. and include some of the bigger newspapers, and i had the contacts, and people were
somewhat aware but people didn't want to go there. and what you have is sort of willing hostages in western europe. and finally, i did the column for the "washington times," and since that time you look the last two months, a lot of columns now, "the economist" magazine and others have run similar stories. to "the economist" story was almost word for word my store in the "washington times" but they were all afraid to break it. and this fear in western europe about exposing what is really going on, and even since that time, i've been given some grief by some old friends who didn't like the fact that i did this. and to me it's troublesome. this is a little bit personal because i've been more so in the -- >> there's no question that you're right about that, and the
antifracking effort in europe is reminiscent of old soviet propaganda campaigns because it's in their interests not to allow -- or to prevent it any way they can independence, not just in eastern european countries but the others that are more and more dependent upon their energy supplies that is trumped -- this goes maybe to doug's point, the reality of russia versus the soviet union, and maybe the difference isn't so great but a may end up in the same place and that is that putin and his friends have really sort of transformed post-cold war russia into a quasi-middle eastern trust state, which is totally energy to the west because that's how they support not only functioning of their government. i was in a meeting with russian oil officials ins' closed
meetings not too long ago and an american official said what would happen if the price of oil fell to $80 a barrel. and the russian said, that won't happen. if it did happen, they'd have to sell off the kremlin because they'd be good for 60 days. they need $100 and up oil just to survive because they don't have much else. they haven't developed the economy they could have developed had they followed the advice of your friends, who fled for cato at an earlier time. >> i'm not supposed to do this as moderator interject this much, because this is a passion of mine of what is happening and how europe has become willing hostages to russia. but this scenario, what we have all sort of talked about, what happens to the price of oil really falls, my guess is that someplace in the world a tanker will be sunk or a pipeline will be blown up, the price of oil
will spike but no russian fingerprints on it. let's just do a quick couple of minutes here but let's focus on -- i want to have time for q & a here -- where you think the next explosion will be on the globe? we talk about ukraine and russia. herman? >> there's an area dealing with china that gives he -- me great concern. the doctrine of the chinese government that no u.s. surveillance or military shouldn't should come within 200-miles of khost of china. and that of course is contrary to freedom of the seas. we have already had a number of incidents of boat rammings, of harassment of american ships by chinese ships, and the reason that it's as -- is of concern is
there's no give. either we give up our understanding of freedom of the sea, or we surrender or not. and china is not likely to change its doctrine. this creates an opportunity for something unpleasant at sea that may or may not be handled well. >> doug? >> i think there are a lot of possible ones. one is north korea -- the old man who died, kim jong-il, seemed to know exactly how far to push and rile up the south koreans and americans and knew win to stop. not at all clear his son, who is 31 and seems more radical -- he executed his uncle last year so no family love there. you could easily see a war there out of mistake as opposed to intention. i think the japanese-chinese tensions over the islands, both have been playing tough. the japanese have us as an ally
backing then um. i don't think the russians are confident we would protect. the. you see isis or isil into jordan-they claim the whole toronto that includes part0s lebanon, israel, jordan, syria, even parts of turkey. if they really tried to push though sorts of claims one could see a real mess there and longer term the question of the saudi monarch okay. their rulers are aged. they just appointed a deputy crown prince, which hey have never done. the leaguership is nervous. the family breaks in terms 0 the brothers and who the mothers were. they're potentially unstable as well and that would be very messy if they went down. >> david? >> i think that going back to what all of us have said about -- and the point that herman made earlier about the fanaticism of the middle east,
makes it less likely that the blowup is going to come in the -- with the chinese. i once wrote that taiwan has a great -- well, in many ways, situated like israel is, in a sea of enemies, that they are blessed because they have a rational enemy, and the chinese do not live in a fantasy world. they live in a whorled in which they -- a world in which they measure care carefully their opportunities and costs, and as long as -- it's not an accident these things took place at a time when the world is perceived the united states as being awol. it's an area where, as long as they know that this -- that the world works better if they get along with folks, they will always harbor those desires but won't do anything stupid that can't be said for the other part of the world. the only other place, the
communists, they now unearthed some of the messages and correspondents that khrushchev had during the cuban missile cries are crisis, and at the height of that castro sent a message to khrushchev he should just go ahead and launch and if that cost them cuba, that was fine. and khrushchev wrote, what is this nut we have over there? he is willing to sacrifice his entire country. the soviet communists were not crazy. they were evil, they were not cozy. the middle easterns are crazy. >> i agree with you on the chinese. their vary thought. and deliberate, but they -- >> they're going to be around for a long time. >> but they may push the question of the 200-mile simply because they think we'll cave. and that's a danger. >> that's right. >> the one big danger that has not been mentioned is that of pakistan. we talk a lot about iran getting the bomb. pakistan already has the bomb. and who can be 100% sure that
fundamental lists in that country have not infiltratedded the army, maybe even infiltrated the units guarding the nuclear stores. the prospect of an al qaeda-type group getting control of a nuclear weapon is very unsettling. >> on that cheery note, begin the q & a. we have a very few minutes for questions. given the shortage of time, those of you who have a question you can state in 15 seconds or less, i'll give you your first opportunities. then those with the 30-second question, and then we'll work up to those who have minute questions, and for those who have a four-hour statement, we'll see if we can get to that. okay. 15 second questions. this gentleman here. >> does iran get the nuclear bomb do you i believe it would use it against israel and -- [inaudible] >> i'm not aware of any of the leaders announcings they use nuclear weapons against israel.
everything i have seen about the leadership is pragmatic. they're billionaires squabbling for power. when they involved in a blood where war with iraq they sent other people out the leadership of tehran didn't show up on the battlefield. israeli security folks i talked to think that in fact it's irrational to the leadership. what they believe would be hard for the israeli prime minister not to act if they actually possession nuclear weapons. the good news for israel is they have 200 nuclear weapons. the question is does iran want to be wiped off the map. and i hasn't seen anything to suggest that, but there's lots of reasons to not want that leadership to have it. the frightening thing is there's already an islamist bomb in pakistan. >> can i add to that? >> sure. >> the real problem -- there's the problem what they can do under a -- with a nuclear threat that is credible, which gives them g