places he knows well. is that the drums of war we hear? certainly from some corners. how does the iran-israel showdown end? i've got a great panel. i'll also bring you an amazing story. free and fair electrics in china. i'll explain. first, here's my take. president obama has been trying to cool down the war fever that suddenly gripped washington earlier this month. prime minister benjamin netanyahu's visit and the flurry of statemen surrounding it have created a dangerous dynamic. it is easy to see how things move toward war. it is difficult to see how they don't. the pressure is building on iran, but there are no serious discussions of negotiated solutions. israel has already discounted the proposed new talks. republican candidates will denounce any deal no matter how presencive the inspections. either iran suddenly and completely surrenders or israel will strike. and bebe netanyahu knows that the window presented by the u.s. political season is closing. if he were to strike between now and november, he would be assured of unqualified support from washington. after november the american response becomes less predictable no matter who is elected president. the clock is ticking. before we set out on a path to another middle eastern war, let's remember some facts. first, iran does not have nuclear weapons. the evidence is ambiguous, genuinely unclear, as to whether it has decided to make them. what if iran did manage to develop a couple of crude nukes several years from now? president obama says a nuclear raun would set off an arms race in the middle east, but a nuclear north korea has not led the two countries directly threatened, south korea and japan to go nuclear. egypt did not go nuclear. after all, egypt has gone to war three times with israel. by contrast, it has not been in a conflict with iran for centuries so why would it go nuclear in response to iran when it didn't in response to israel? obama explained that a nuclear iran would be a problem like india and pakistan with their nuclear weapons, but india and pakistan went to war three times in 30 years before they had nuclear weapons. since they went nuclear, they have actually been restrained and have not fought a full scale war in 40 years. it's actually a case that shows the stabilizing, not destabilizing effects of nuclear deterren deterrents. if deterrents don't work in the middle east, why does it have a large nuclear arsenal, if not to deter its enemies? iran's weapons could fall in the hands of terrorists, says the president. but would a country that has labored for decades to pursue a nuclear program suffer huge sanctions and costs to do so then turn around and give it away when general martin dempsey explained last month on this show that he viewed iran as a rationale actor, he drew protest. dempsey was making a good point. a rationale actor is not a reasonable actor or one who has the same goals or values that you or i do. a rationale actor in economics or international relations is someone concerned about his survival and prosperity. the one thing we know about iran's leaders is that they are concerned about their survival. the question right now is not whether iran can be rationale, but whether the u.s. and israel can accurately reason through the costs of a preventive war and its huge consequences and weigh those against the modest and temporary benefits of a military strike. for more on this, you can read my column in this week's "time magazine. "i let's get started. everything old is new again. many of the trouble spots vehiclesing american foreign policy today, iran, russia, china, were just as problematic if not more so in the 1970s. that is, of course, when henry kissinger was secretary of state. i wanted to get his unique perspective on events today. welcome, henry. >> always a pleasure to be here. >> let's start by talking about iran because if we are to avoid a war with iran, and maybe that's a good thing or bad, if we were to avoid it, is t seems we have to have some negotiated solution, and i'm wondering as somebody who had to negotiate with the chinese at the time when the height of mao's craziness, he was running revolutionary guerrilla movements against the united states around the globe. he negotiatesed with the soviets and negotiated with the vietnamese at the height of the war. how do we get there? do you think there is a path forward that can get us to some kind of negotiated solution in iran? >> i'm not against the principle of negotiation. in fact, i have practiced it when i had an opportunity. the question with iran is not whether we should negotiate, but nearly three-fold. there needs to be a time limit in which there is negotiation that takes place. the second can be a defined objective that really meets the need and third, can conceive that iran will as a result of all of this join an international -- in which they are a substantially responsible member. those are the three aspects that seem to be crucial. >> when you look at the situation with iran right now, do you think that the situation is so dire that israel would need to strike militarily in the next few months or even a year or year and a half? >> i think -- i am very uneasy with the so-called intelligence report that say we don't know whether they are actually working on nuclear weapons. i think we should start from the premise that they are undergoing all this in order to achieve a military capability. i don't think that is a disputable point. iran is more isolated than it has ever been. so i can can see why the israelis would think that if they strike now, iran will not have a great deal of international support. >> you were always very good as a negotiator at understanding that the other side had to get something as well as our side getting what we wanted. how do you do that in the context of iran now with all the domestic politics around it? do you see what i mean? of course, they have to make >> we are back with the only man that has been secretary of state and advisor at the same time. making sure there was no rivalry between these two positions. henry, you have met with vladimir putin probably more often than any senior american, including any senior american official. you have had something like 20 odd one-on-one meetings with him. who do you think of vladimir putin? if you look at your memoirs, one of the things that always strikes me is portraits of people. is he a thug? is he a modernizer? is he a pro-western, anti-western? >> i want the audience to understand that when i meet with putin, i always -- in any administration -- inform the white house first and i convey the substance of the conversation, and mr. putin knows this. >> i think that may be one of the reasons he is -- >> could well be. i don't think he is anti-western. he is, above all, a russian patriot who feels humiliated by the experience of the 1990s, which were in the most formative period of his career. he is not anti-western. when i first met him, he was very anxious to have a kind of strategic partnership with the united states. he is very resentful of what he interprets as intervention in russian domestic affairs and even more, of course, in what he may interpret and does interpret as many american tendencies to support his political opponents in order to encourage his overthrow, so -- but i believe that a dialogue is possible and on specific issues committee turn out to be a constructive partner. >> okay. so i have to ask you about the republican party and its foreign policy and its candidates because if you listen to candidates on the campaign trail now on issues like russia, on iran, on israel, they're taking very strident positions, very tough in ways that frankly i think make it difficult for the united states to pursue a bipartisan foreign policy. this is not a few nen no, ma'am nonfor you, the republican party in 1976, the reagan road to power criticizing you. that was one of his -- one of the most spirited attacks you would make on campaign trails and in the convention. do you think that the republicans right now are putting forward just campaign rhetoric, or do they actually believe what they're saying? >> well, i don't normally like to discuss political things on television or publicly. i will support the republicans, but that doesn't mean advocating something on china which are the opposite of what nixon and i had done, but even before he came into office, he asked me to send messages that he would stick to the commitments and as president he conducted a foreign policy that i totally supported, so i -- >> so you are saying what they say on the campaign trail doesn't mean -- >> i accept the republican candidates, the ones i know personally, that they will examine the issues from the point of view of americans having responsibility for the security of the country and the future of the world. and then i think they will come to conclusions around which a non-partisan and bipartisan consensus has evolved over the decades and that, of course, there are specific points on which they may be -- they have to be taken seriously, but on the mainland of the foreign policy, as i described it here, i think there will be a consensus. not on every tactical point, and so i'm quite confident, even though some of the things that are being said i would not have drafted. >> you think it's just campaign rhetoric? >> i don't think it's campaign rhetoric. i think when you are a candidate the emotions of the moment and the emotions of yoo you are advisors have one set of impacts. when you are in the oval office and you know that you are part of a history and that the lives of millions of people are affected, you take a more comprehensive look, and the point is not whether they agree with me, but on certain issues serious people on both parties have studied them for many decades, and while there is always a margin for change, there is rarely a margin for total reversal, and so in that sense i have every expectation that whoever emerges from the presidency will operate on that basis. on either side. >> henry kissinger, the one thing we didn't get to was china, and we're going to save that for another show. always a pleasure to have you on. >> good to be here. >> up next, what in the world sf real, clean elections in china. no? it's not a dream. i will explain. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 let's talk about fees. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 there are atm fees. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 account service fees. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 and the most dreaded fees of all, hidden fees. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 at charles schwab, you won't pay fees on top of fees. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 no monthly account service fees. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 no hidden fees. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 and we rebate every atm fee. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 so talk to chuck tdd# 1-800-345-2550 because when it comes to talking, there is no fee. imagine if you could always see life [music] in the best light. every time of day. outdoors, or in. transitions® lenses automatically filter just the right amount of light. so you see everything the way it is meant to be seen. maybe even a little better. experience life well lit, ask for transitions adaptive lenses. and then treats day after day... well, shoot, that's like checking on your burgers after they're burnt! [ male announcer ] treat your frequent heartburn by blocking the acid with prilosec otc. and don't get heartburn in the first place! [ male announcer ] one pill a day. 24 hours. zero heartburn. [ eves ] years ago, i hurt my shoulder drag racing. that's when i decided to take it easy, so i took up hang gliding. [ female announcer ] a grandpa who refuses to grow up. [ eves ] the pain was bad, but the thought of not being a hang glider pilot was worse. [ female announcer ] that's when eves turned to sutter health's palo alto medical foundation. [ eves ] the doctors that i dealt with, they got it, that this old guy wanted to return as a hang glider pilot. they got me flying again. [ female announcer ] palo alto medical foundation, and sutter health -- our story is you. now for our "what in the world" segment. you rarely hear the words chooirn and elections in the same breath. you see, unlike the u.s., france, and egypt, all of which do have elections coming up, china has a leadership transition this year. a planned event where handpicked individuals are promoted up, but there were real electrics in china last week. of the people and by the people. a democratic vote with real ballots, real candidates, and real clean results. welcome to this small fishing village in southeast china just a few hundred miles from hong kong. the story began a few months ago when the villagers of waukon protested against a land grab. these are not so uncommon in china. corrupt officials often snatch privately held agricultural plots and then sell them to developers for high prices. protests are not uncommon either. it is said that tens of thousands of demonstrations just like this one here have taken place in china every year. two-thirds of those are because of land disputes. what made this different? for one, the people didn't give up. they were remarkably organized and holding noisy mass rallies and they drove out the local leaders who were compolice it in the landscapes. what's unique is the response. the provincial government led by this man, party secretary, conceded to the villagers' demands. on his call the province returned some of the disputed farmland, released detained activists and allowed the villagers to hold their own elections. all that led to these scenes last week. 6,000 villagers voting in an organized fashion. the media both local and western were allowed full access, and the main winners were the same protesters who led the rebellion. so democracy is possible in china. this village is now being capped as a model for chinese villagers. the theory goes that this will sweep the country and create more uprisings making it harder for the government to crack down. that, in turn, will lead to a larger democratic movement at the highest levels of government. i'm want so sure that's going to happen any time soon in china. for every village, there is a tibet. china's leaders know how to brand esh an iron fist just as they know how to use a velvet glove. the key here is to understand the way china functions. villagers, where rebellions are most likely, fall under the rule of provincial leaders. these leaders are immensely powerful and with great levels of autonomy, so they make their own independent decisions on a kiss by case basis, but the idea that central command in beijing would allow broader national moves towards democracy is probably a fallicy. try protesting a teen men square in central beijing, and you'll see for yourself. there is one larger potential trend here. watch china's leadership transition later this year very closely. the top posts seem to be decided. if reform-minded provincial leaders make the nine-member bureau standing committee the group that actually runs china, then perhaps there may be a shift towards some loosening of controls. so this village is a hartening story, but remember one thing. change in today's china is rarely bottom-up and sweeping in nature. if there's going to be change for now, it's going to be incremental, and it will come from the top down. we'll be right back. up next, will israel attack iran, and where does washington fit in? i have an all-star panel. right back. the other office devices? they don't get me. they're all like, "hey, brother, doesn't it bother you that no one notices you?" and i'm like, "doesn't it bother you you're not reliable?" and they say, "shut up!" and i'm like, "you shut up." in business, it's all about reliability. 'cause these guys aren't just hitting "print." they're hitting "dream." so that's what i do. i print dreams, baby. [whispering] big dreams. today is gonna be an important day for us. you ready? we wanna be our brother's keeper. what's number two we wanna do? bring it up to 90 decatherms. how bout ya, joe? let's go ahead and bring it online. attention on site, attention on site. now starting unit nine. some of the world's cleanest gas turbines are now powering some of america's biggest cities. siemens. answers. i'm candy crowley in washington. fareed zakaria "gps" returns in a moment, but first, a check of the top stories. this is video from the scene where a u.s. soldier opened fire on civilians in afghanistan's kandahar province. the afghan government says the soldier shot and killed at least 16 people. a nato spokesman expressed deep regret and called the incident appalling. the spokesman said the shootings were not a part of any military operation and that an investigation is underway. the soldier is in custody. the u.n. special envoy to syria, kofi annan, held a second round of talks today with syria's president about a deadly crackdown on anti-government protesters. annan met with bashir assad yesterday. 16 people have been killed in syria today. another win for republican presidential candidate rick santorum. the pennsylvania senator won the kansas caucuses racking up twice as many votes as mitt romney who won caucuses in guam and the northern mariy a.m. island. hawaii and american samoa have caucuses. those are your top stories. now back to fareed zakaria "gps." israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu gave president obama a gift in washington this week. it was a copy of the book of esther which tells the tale of a benevolent king who saved the jewish people from an enemy who wished to destroy them. a persian enemy. not very slgts. where does the conflict end? i have an excellent banal to buck that much more where daniel levy, brett stevens, of course, the foreign affairs columnist for the "wall street journal", rula jab ril is an israeli-arab journalist who has worked as an anchor woman, and elliott abrams was national security advisor in george w. bush's administration. so elliott, tell us what you think netanyahu took back from his visit to washington? what do you think -- how did he read the mood and what did he tell his cabinet when he went back? >> i think he would have read the desire on the part of the president that he not bomb iran, but i don't think things changed much during the visit. he knew that it was the president's view. certainly in the public discourse, the president did not offer him much more than he had previously done in terms of what the united states would do about iran. a slight toughening of the american rhetoric, but not enough, i would think, to change the fundamental israeli view that they're probably going to need to take care of themselves. >> you don't think that by saying containment is nott our policy, that was a big shift. that was a kind of unequivocal explanation that, you know, we are going to try to prevent this from happening. >> i thought that was further than either your administration or obama had gone. >> obama in 2009 used the p-word, prevent, and even in the state of the union message he was pretty tough. to say now, yes, it's good that he said containment is not an option, but when you say things like it's unacceptable or it is my policy to prevent, that still falls short of saying this will not happen, and saying it to the ayatollahs as well. this will never happen. >> well, there are some subtlies here. first, there's an issue of timing. what the president really wanted from the prime minister was don't bomb between now and the first tuesday in november. i think there was an aspect of the political calculation. there's also a strategic nuance that's very important between israel and the united states. for israel an iranian nuclear break-out capability is tanta mount to a nuclear capability. that's to say if they have part of their nuclear program here and another part here and another part there and can rapidly assemble it, that is -- that gives them a de facto nuclear