Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Here now to assess the president's trip to Middle East today's developments the presidents of the threat directly to president Asad of Syria.
And -- likely responses.
To Syria and Iran as well as the most recent threats coming from North Korea.
Joining us now former pentagon official and Fox -- national security analysts KT McFarland and former US ambassador to the United Nations.
Fox News contributor John Bolton.
And -- -- what -- ask your first.
It's concerning the president's trip the they obviously good feelings between these two men which replaces what had been.
It best stay frosty safe if you've been frozen relationship.
Are your previous.
Well I don't think there's been a trip that presidential trip in recent years where the symbolism.
Publicly is more divorced from the private substance.
Both these men have a political.
Reason to want this trip to look like -- smooth they've both been reelected.
And they're obviously working hard to do that.
But in the private meetings -- some very tough talks that are gonna go on on Iran's nuclear weapons program.
And dealing with the Palestinians.
Do you believe -- -- are demonstrating that the United States and Israel are symbolic for you John says but.
Nonetheless importantly symbolically.
In public conveying a specific image and perception to the Iranians and the Russian.
I think two things happen in a press conference that you just talked about.
That indicate to me that I think -- -- some kind of an understanding.
And President Obama kept saying Israel has a right to defend itself by -- -- And Obama's -- several times Netanyahu repeated it -- now also said.
And for the first time.
It out and this is have been the most generous American president he is guaranteed that Israel will be supplied with really advanced weapons for ten years I think the deal is.
That they have agreed that Israel is gonna make its own decision by itself and go ahead and do whatever it feels it has to do the United States is -- -- Israel but probably not.
And that's fine but the problem is none of them are thinking about what happens today after -- The day after when Iran does retaliate -- Iran feels that it has to do something otherwise this regime won't survive.
And -- Israel -- start that fight but it doesn't finish or without us and then -- home.
Netanyahu -- so farce to say in addition to work KT is laid out before us here.
That this president went farther than any previous press and talking about Israel's right to two and defend itself.
And that's really quite a statement its symbolism perhaps in your view but it's quite a state I don't think so at all or -- them -- get the -- perhaps if I could do any better with you're with your lights.
And the second is following up on what think -- and and if it's not a partnership an animal alliance.
This is high risk proposition to suggest that the Israelis can do that -- -- -- against a power.
With the dimensions of Iraq.
Facing -- a regime of religious fanatics with nuclear.
-- weapons is pretty high stakes as well look.
If this goes back four decades of American president saying of course the Israelis have a right to defend themselves and they do and they do it without American.
A permission they did it in September 20071.
Against the express wishes of the Bush Administration.
They destroyed in North Korean nuclear reactor being built in Syria.
I think that that what we're seeing here is the continuing division.
Over the proximity of Iran to a weapons -- capability and I think Netanyahu made it pretty clear in the press conference today.
That the uranium enrichment side which is the long pole in anybody's -- -- -- nuclear weapons program is the point that he's most worried about.
-- -- You really believe that Israel will attack Iran without the support.
And promised support active support of the United States -- Don't they look they would prefer I'm actually I don't understand how I am saying here if if yes I I know they would prefer I would even -- -- -- and senate substantial preference.
That they cannot make that decision unilaterally without this military support of the United States guaranteed.
But I don't know what their decision is going to be but I -- don't know -- but -- -- -- -- faced with the prospect of a nuclear Iran yes I think it will -- they've done it twice before.
Makes you so mad about this we've -- this train wreck in slow -- happening for ten years we never wanted to get to the point it was a choice between bomb Iran.
-- -- around that the bomb.
Why are we not tried to crash the Iranian economy just sanctions the crash the Iranian economy.
Are we -- developing our own energy resources so that -- Iran's energy resources are far less important.
Even with energy independent.
On on our horizon it's within access -- going to see over the course of next year and the United States oil production reached the same level was imports.
By 20/20 will be energy independent as you suggest a crash program could achieve that reality much sooner.
Are you really saying that president Obama's -- the last four years Mediterranean policy.
Eddie has and -- -- But -- been some things they've done right these cyber attacks have been great but the real problem is that for the last hundred years the world is going to war over access to energy.
We have now been given.
The energy of a dream of a lifetime we now have energy independence within our grasp -- separate oil natural gas we should have a crash program develop at.
And then what happens we don't need to be in the middle of every civil war in the Middle East because we'll have our own.
And we have -- even address the issue here is central to our foreign policy of course he is.
Do the men and women who serve this nation and more.
They have been charged worth an extraordinary burden over the last two decades and it's about damn time our leaders started thinking about them.
Thank you both we appreciate very much ambassador John -- by -- thank you.
Filter by section