before christmas, i was in a panel in brussels with the ambassador who is the iranian representative to the iaea and there was one thing that the two of us agreed. this is that we are probably the only persons in the world who have read all those reports. because they all so different to read. let's go back to the iranian nuclear program. the concern about it for a number of reasons, and maybe the biggest reason is that iran conducted this clandestine enrichment two decades without fulfilling its reporting requirements to the iaea. and moreover, actually irandy verted nuclear matter which it never reported. this is a classical diversion of nuclear material. it also accepted nuclear material from the safeguards and went and did some additional experiments for this. here is lesson number one. that it is called a spade a spade, called black a black, but you never heard that the iaea say that nuclear material was d diverted. the reason was when it came into the light of the international community the reason for that was that the agency didn't call it diversion and noncompliance, because

i'm going to -- i'm actually going to brussels next week to meet with my nato people. on the agenda is unified actions. we have to be candid with each other about what they can reasonably expect us to provide, what they need to provide in terms of isr, the analysis, fusion of intelligence and operations, and investments that they need to make in order to close some gaps that heretofore they've relied almost exclusively on us to provide. so i actually see this as a positive thing. >>> general, what do you think are the greatest risks if the united states intervenes? >> in syria? >> yes. >> first of all, you know, on occasion i've been portrayed as saying this would just be too hard so let's not do it. i want to assure you that's not the case. if asked to do something, we absolutely have the capability. but in terms of my concerns and how they would translate into military advice, is i have to be very clear about the military objectives that i was being asked to achieve, and i would have to be -- i'd have to be clear about how those military objectives were contributing

. >> in brussels today, secretary of state hillary clinton calling for another round of sanctions. what has been imposed in the past and is there any sense that a new round of sanctions would be any more effective? >> sanctions are certainly weaken the regime, affects the regime in many ways in its ability to import, in its ability to export its product, but it is also true that sanctions on their owner not going to succeed in toppling the regime without any other action. this is a regime, in arab we have a saying he who is drowning will not be afraid to get wet. sanctions are not going on their own to affect the regime's willingness to shoot its own people in order to survive. >> what is life like inside syria, and do the average syrians fully understand what's been happening in villages and towns like homs? >> i would say the majority of the syrian population is against the assad regime but that's not to say that there aren't some minorities that still support it for one reason or the other. the business community does not want to lose its economic interests and so far you know m

i was at a nato meeting in brussels and the -- i read in the paper that the belgium parliament passed a law that allowed any one in the u.s. military to be prosecuted in foreign courts. and i thought my goodness, that means we can't have military people go to belgium where nato is. if -- if any rogue prosecutor can decide he wants to enhance his public image he can file a lawsuit which he did against general franks as i recall, and so i called in the defense minister of belgium and not being a diplomat i was not very diplomatic. and i explained that nato didn't have to be in belgium. and that we didn't have to be in belgium. and within a matter of weeks the legislation was defeated, nullified, withdrawn, and it stopped. but it happens all over the world. and my view is, it's a danger particularly not just for us but for the world. think of the contribution our military made in the tsunami in india. indonesia years back. think about the earthquake that took place in pakistan. our people did a superb humanitarian job. any time the u.n. or international organization has to deal with the

well, if i understand you correctly, you're suggesting to the rest of europe, particularly berlin and brussels, to close both their eyes in case they miss the deficit targets because you think it will be dangerous and it would be bad for those economies to pursue some additional fiscal belt-tightening? do i understand you correctly? also, because, basically, if they miss those targets they will also miss the rules, or break the rules, of the upcoming fiscal combine. >> as i underscored, there is a risk involved in focusing too much in balances. the fiscal balances not adjusted for the cycle. but that we have to keep in mind that the balanced budget rule that based on the fiscal compact has to be implemented in your area country is the defined in structural terms. so the fact that more and more countries in europe should focus on achieving targets on structural bashgszis, i think i acknowledged in the european union. regarding a specific target, i underscored a strong uncertainty regarding gdp growth in these countries. but i think that particularly for 2013, focusing on targets rather than see