i'm erin burnett, "outfront" tonight, iran. we begin with a new report on iran's nuclear program an 11-page release from the international atomic energy agency. the conclusions reveal the doubts and suspicions about what the iranian government the telling the world about its nuclear efforts. iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes including cancer treatment. we read the report and it does not say that iran is making a bomb, but it does say that iran is rapidly expanding its nuclear activity and we consulted experts today including scientists and forler wens inspect inspectors. they say iran has tripled its enrichment of uranium since last year. they also say tehran continues to block inspectors from getting inside a key nuclear facility. and the report says that 19 .8 kilograms of natural uranium metal is still unaccounted for. the u.s. responded today. it was a scathing response. there is confusion. there is something really important we want to point out and we'll get to that, but first, the iranian side of the story. just a short time ago, i spoke to a nuclear scientist and began by asking him about the ramped up production of enrich eed uranium. >> i'm proud to say we will continue without interruption. of course we have to make nuclear fuel for tehran's reactor since nobody give us the fuel and this reactor has to produce radioizer for hospital. millions of pashlts need this -- his support i'm proud to say is clean bill of health. exclusively peaceful nature of nuclear activities in iran. >> it doesn't appear to be that. it does say some activities may be ongoing and you've seen the headlines around the world. the report also says in the section on possible military dimensions to the iranian nuclear program this. and they cite their report from november 2011. they say that there's information available to the agency indicating that iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device. they say that that information has come from a variety of independent sources and is assessed by the agency to be overall credible. can you say categorically that iran is not developing or is not even planning to develop a nuclear weapon? >> i categorically reject any sort of allegation. i have been involved for almost the last ten years working with inspectors on this issue of allegations. in many cases, there have been allegations about military size. that we do not have any nuclear weapon program. any activities related to nuclear weapon programs. >> one other question. in section k of the report, it ree fers to missing uranium that the iaea says they have been trying to account for for quite some time. 19.8 kilograms. where is that? >> this is a very pity that such information in fact diverted public from the real scientific information. 20 kilogram is just totally ignorable. they just want to make a noise about something. >> this is crucial from a question of sovereignty for iran. even if iran has no intention of developing a nuclear weapon, do you believe that if iran made that choice, that that is its right its right to make that choice as a sovereign and independent nation? >> i'm sayinging that iran without nuclear power is as strong and power without. this is a tragic mistake for iran to go to nuclear weapon. not only because of religious commitment, but strategically, this is a mistake. without nuclear, we are very powerful. sanctions, which you know that sanctions have had no effect on our activities for nuclear energy because we are in fact self-sufficient in producing all components of centerfuge and only the sanctions are disturbing somehow the public. i assure you all nuclear activities are peaceful. peace all over the world. >> thank you very much again. >> the united states government responded to the report. and the national security counsel spokesperson said this. quote, when combined with its continued stone walling of international inspector, iran's actions demonstrate why iran has failed to convince the international community that its nuclear program is peaceful. now, this statement was tough. but it seems to contradict some recent iraqs from top officials. the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said quote, the iranian regime is not decided they will embark on the effort to webbize and today, "the los angeles times" wrote an article saying u.s. intelligence official last year believed that iran was not trying to build a nuclear bomb. what's going on here? our friend tonight, wesley clark. wonderful to see you, sir. >> thank you very much. >> what is your reaction to this iranian response to the report? the headlines are all talking about the surge in enrichment activity. the report says some of the thuk lehr activities may still be ongoing. what did you take away from what the am bass dor had to say? >> i think this is a standard operating procedure of governments who want to conceal these activities. as you is him, he's all in interest of peace, where's the missing uranium, why aren't inspectors permitted there 24 hours a day? if iran were worried about as it should be, about sanctions and other opgs still on the table and they weren't after a nuclear weapons program, surely they could make a stronger effort to convince the world of their innocence. this is part of a diplomatic stall. ipg what you're seeing in the intelligence reports and the iaea report shows they're moving towards the acquisition of the capacity to develop and field a nuclear weapon. they may not have it yet and when general dempsey says they haven't made that decision, he's looking at it. but our president is looking at all this information. he's doing the best he can to avoid taking us to another military conflict. he says all options are on the table and we think negotiations are still the way to go. the sanctions are having an impact on iran and let's hope that we can dissuade them from moving toward a nuclear weaponization. >> on the issue of sanction, even a year ago when i was there, they were affecting regular people for sure in so far as they were affecting the government's ability to fill subsidies for things like food. you heard the ambassador -- is that all just sort of bluster? >> well, sanctions have delayed the development of the nuclear program for years. they've had to create shadow corporations and big borrowed steal bits of technology and they've done it despite the sanctions, but it's been much shower. these sanctions are directed against the banking facilities of the iranian government. it's central bank and ability to operate in international kournsy markets with financial institutions and this strikes at their ability to export oil and that's their principle source of earnings before exchange and that is a vital interest and being impacted. >> i wanted to play something for you. last night, rudy giuliani was a guest on this program. here's what he said. >> can't say the word bomb them. we need a president who can say the words bomb them and actually can do it if he has to in order to protect us from iran becoming a nuclear power and most important importantly, they have to believe that our president will do that. >> some might say it's irresponsible to talk about bombing. >> i'm using their administration. they have this case in washington in which the iranian government paid money to have the saudi arabian ambassador killed. >> do you think he's correct or would that be irresponsible? >> well, i think when you escalate the rhetoric, that's not necessarily what's required at this point. but i do hope that the iranian leaders having seen shock and awe in baghdad in 2003, what we did in libya with just a small fraction of u.s. capability, understand there is a military option. it's there. i haven't seen it. i'm sure when general dempsey and our men and women prepare it, it's going to be devastating and they should understand that. but this is not the time to inflate public fears on a military option, so i wouldn't agree on that point. what's being conveyed to iran is being conveyed in a variety of fact channels to them and i'm sure they understand or having given the information to understand. i think we're on the right track because we don't want to have to use the military option until all alternatives for exhausted. that's been the lesson of the last decade. the lesson of iraq. don't prematurely jump on the military option because it's easy to get into a conflict, but not always easy to see the end of it. and even though there is a very strong capable military option to take out iran's infrastructure, you'd be left with a nation of 75 million people, which is a huge problem for the international community. you might be left with other regional problems, although i suspect that iranian's bluster is just that. that we could handle all of its regulatory threats, but never the less, you don't want to be left with the aftermath of this and you don't want a lot of innocent people to die. so if there are alternatives, we should ask our leadership to do everything possible to use those alternatives rather than resort to the final option. >> we spoke to a former weapons inspector today and he says iran doesn't have a civilian need for the uranium it's been enriching, which fits with your view. but he said if iran makes this decision, this whole issue f o when they make the decision, it's highlighted as strange by this point. that if they decide to go nuclear, they could be nuclear with weapons grade and rich uranium within six montss, bomb within 12. but the bottom line as someone who has done what you've done in the u.s. military, are we obsessed over the wrong issue? should they be allowed, that issue of sovereignty, to make their own choice? >> i don't think you could permit them to make their own choice because i don't think we want a nuclear arms race in this region. the region is central to the world's economy. it's very unstablg. look at what's going on in syria. which is more or less a proxy war against iran. if you look at this and think, oh, my goodness, what if each of these states have had nuclear weapons in in addition. this is a very important decision. it is not in iran's sovereign right to make this decision. that's why they're trying to deceive is world on it. what the real issue here is for the leadership is they're going to continue to creep up as close as they can without having to say or indicate or let people believe they have made a quote decision to make a nuclear weapon. they've reduced this time from years to six months. maybe 12. we don't know. the question will be how close can we allow it to come before we take action and that's this subject of i'm sure that the best minds in washington and probably in tel aviv as well on this issue. >> thank you very much. seven states have filed suit against the federal government on the president's contraception rule. the attorney general from texas. one of the men, comes "outfront." and the producer of amazing grace dead in uganda. one of his close friends. what factors led you to buy your explorer. definitely the ecoboost option. what's pretty amazing is that you can get the fuel economy of a car in an suv. that basically did it for us. and the technology... oh, my goodness, the technology is amazing. everything is touch. you can actually talk to the car and it talks back to you. what have your friends said about your explorer? can we drive it? can we borrow it? what's your answer? no. no way. uh uh. (laugh) tle emotional here? aren't you getting a little industrial? okay, there's enough energy right here in america. yeah, over 100 years worth. okay, so you mean you just ignore the environment. actually, it's cleaner. and, it provides jobs. and it helps our economy. okay, i'm listening. [announcer] at conoco phillips we're helping power america's economy with cleaner affordable natural gas... more jobs, less emissions, a good answer for everyone. so, by reducing the impact of production... and protecting our land and water... i might get a job once we graduate. forty years ago, he wasn't looking for financial advice. back then he had something more important to do. he wasn't focused on his future. but fortunately, somebody else was. at usaa we provide retirement planning for our military, veterans and their families. now more than ever, it's important to get financial advice from people who share your military values. for our free usaa retirement guide, call 877-242-usaa. what ? customers didn't like it. so why do banks do it ? hello ? hello ?! if your bank doesn't let you talk to a real person 24/7, you need an ally. hello ? ally bank. no nonsense. just people sense. ♪ ( whirring and crackling sounds ) man: assembly lines that fix themselves. the most innovative companies are doing things they never could before, by building on the cisco intelligent network. tonight, the issue of birth control split iting this countr down the middle. we have a new poll just out on president obama's rule which requires free birth control coverage for all workers even those employeed by religious institutions. the president announced a compromise by exsemss institutions from offering the coverage and making snurns companies pay. that's not bb enough for the critics. today, seven states filed a lawsuit saying the rules violate freedom of religion. one attorney is greg abb orkabb texas. polls show this issue is divided on whether birth control should be free. you feel you have the mandate to bring this kind of a suit forward at this point? >> first, those polls really wouldn't have any consequence about whether or not a religious liberty or institutional principle has been at risk. if polls mattered, it would mean they would base their stigs to strike down obamacare as a whole because more americans are against it than for it. to your point, the issue that we are filing the lawsuit about is one that protects religious freedom and doesn't have anything to do with regard to whether or not government can or should offer contraceptives. the government is perfectly fine in offering contraceptives to every woman in the entire country. the issue is not whether or not the government offers contraceptives. it's the pathway they have chosen to get there, which is tramabling the conscious and objectives of religious entities. going back to our general -- >> i want to make sure i understand. you say you don't have a problem with them having birth control offered, but if someone works for a religious affiliated institution, the insurance companies are paying, that you're still not okay with that because of where they work. that that is a violation of the religious institution's rights? >> well, there's all kinds of problems with that. for one, what the president said in his compromise is not what the rule and regulations say. the president saying something different than the final rule that is being imposed. >> so would you be all right if his compromise became the law? >> well, his -- the second thing is that his compromise still does require religious based organizations to provide contraceptives as well as abortion inducing drugs contrary to the religious faith. the third thing, if the government wants to ensure contraceptives are able to everyone, the government can in other legal ways such as through the tax and spend clause. they don't have to force this down the throats against religious organizations, their faith-based prince p principle. >> i'm still not totally certain how if the compromise would violate that because the insurance company not the religious institution. i understand your point that's not yet law, but i don't understand why that would be a problem. >> let me be clear. >> okay, make it clear, please. >> there are many hospitals for one right here in austin, texas, a catholic hospital, that is self-insured. that hospital is going to have to provide those services for free or come out of pocket and pay for them. those that are not self-insured are still going to bear the burden in providing the project. >> i understand the self-insurance point. seven attorneys are behind the lawsuit. they're all republican. is this political? >> it is not at all. there are 26 who sued the administration for the lawsuit itself. they happen to be republican because i think the trats are afraid to accept up and challenge the administration. this is about the constitution. it's the reason why we have won twice in two federal courts in our case so far and why the case is going to the u.s. support next month. the same will happen with this lawsuit. this is all about uptolding the united states constitution that is casting aside fundamental institutional principles in order to reach certain conditions. >> six of the seven involved are men. i didn't look at attorneys general across the country. but in this case, are you worried that creates an image problem? that it is men suing an issue that frankly applies to women? >> right, the issue we're concerned about is the constitutional issue of freedom of religion and women can have full access to contraceptives, health care x across the board in ways that the government can provide in legal way that doesn't trample the constitutional liberties of men and women in this country. and an american reality show producer was in uganda and he died. was found dead late last week on the balcony of his hotel room. police say he died of an apparent cocaine overdose. his wife told fox news it points to him being poisoned. a woman named catherine fuller was found unconscious next to rice. she's alive and recovering in a hospital, but is alive and not able to speak. was it a drug overdose or did someone poison rice? appreciate you coming in. what is your take on this story so far? this issue of a cocaine overdose. is this something that would fit with the man you knew? >> no, jeff rice was not a drug user. i worked with him as recently as december. for ten days, i never even saw h him get drunk. he's an absolutely professional and works hard all the time. great family man. two beautiful kids. a lovely wife. he's not a habitual drug user. not somebody i've ever seen do drugs. >> had you heard him talking about catherine fuller? did you know anything about her? >> i knew katie. she was his production coordinator. worked at his company. she was terrific. really energetic. very straight laced, very sweet girl, yeah. >> again, the question about cocaine involvement, is that something that would be inconsistent with katie, as you call her? >> i've worked with jeff now on two different shows, so i really don't want to speculate about katie. i didn't know her well, but she had worked for jeff for some time and jeff would never have somebody work for him that wasn't a true professional. >> and there's nothing strange in their relationship? >> not that i saw. as recently in december, i spent ten days with him in south africa. i said, jeff, i think it would be really cool if we had a shark e pert and in 24 hour, he could find me the best in the area to put on camera. he was really knowledgeable and really professional. he's the guy that we show you pictures of his kids not do drug. i've never even seen him drink too much. >> you do interact with a lot of local people, right? not sure what the full nature of the project he was on might have been, but there could have been something else i suppose that would have been involved. >> yeah, absolutely. i mean, what i'd like to see is an independent investigation. all week long, we've gotten these pieces of reports from government there and authorities and first, it's poison. then cocaine in his stomach. now, heroin's found. every day, it gets more ridiculous and extreme. i'm sure the authorities there are good at what they do, but i would like to see somebody come in and investigate this who has you know, who's completely objective. >> well thank