Live Q&As

Great to be with all of you today, and thanks much for tuning in. I'll get right to your questions...This one is a good one and I believe both Dempsey and Netanyahu can be right - that is, Iran may be a rational actor and also pose an existential threat to Israel. The dilemma is what side ot come down on in the short-term. And will the Iranian leadership view caving in one the nuclear issue a bigger threat to its survival than Israel's military strikes? The point is that Obama and Netanyahu agree it should never get to the point of Iran having a bomb - and where they disagree is over whether Iran is pursuing one yet.

Good question and, judging by the amicable pre-meeting photo op and remakrs, I don't see Netanyahu venting afterward. It's important to note that the two leaders have bickered in the past over the Palestinian peace issue (see last yera at this time) but on security/intelligence issues the two get along well. That's not to say Netanyahu won't leave the meeting discouraged, but showcasin ga public breech between the two on this issue does his cause (and his politics at home) little good.

Likely something Obama will be asking today. What I have heard, though, is that while Obama warned yesterday about bellicose "blustyer" and "the loose talk of war," having Israel appear ready to hit Iran militarily in some ways strengthens U.S. diplomatic efforts - both with Iran and with other nations that do no twant a war. That is, the U.S. diplomatic message in favor of sanctions has been "get on board or face a war." Iran may feel the same pressure. But administration officials do worry about self-fulfilling prophecies - threaten war, fall into one.

Well, this is at the herat of Obama's message this week - be patient, stop the "bluster," give diplomacy (sanctions and potential talks with Iran) a chance. That, at the moment, is his public push back against Israel's threats. But if U.S. intelligence at some point concludes that Iran is pursuing a bomb, then Obama will likely have a lot less leverage in stopping an attack, if he even wants to at that point.

This is where Obama is, though he doesn't state it quite as sharply as you do. International inspectors have found evidence of possible military intent - and were recently turned away from one site - but in general the U.S. is unconvinced that's Iran's goal. There;'s also the double-standard problem for Obama, who warns of a nuclera arms race in the region. Israel has an undeclared nuclear arsenal, but Obama has declined to ask the Israeli government to declare it and sign the non-proliferation treaty.

Obama's message of patience, in part, is the based on the fact that the Unietd States has more powerful bunker-busting bombs than Israel does. So the US can wait longer, as Iran puts more of its program underground. The question is: Will Netanyahu trust Obama enough to wait?

Yes, he has, as recently as lats week. THe question is: Do you believe him? There's a teent of Shiite Islam - the branch tha tfeels most persecuted through history - that says lying is permissible for self-protection (I'm paraphrasing, obviously, and hope not to be butchering it to badly.) So is this what's going on? The ayatollah's word is likely not going to be enough for Obama or Netanyahu.

Yes, Israel will help it, certainly. I think Obama is has been trying to address your concern, widely shared, in recent days, by saying that, yes, Israel feels most threatened by Iran's nuclear ambitions. But the United States has a very strong national security interest, as well, in preventing Iran from getting a bomb.  A nuclear arms race in the region, as Sunni governments, threatened by Shiite Iran, scramble to develop/but one, etc. His message is: This is not just about Israel.

It's not naive and actually very interesting. Many puzzle over this. One thing to keep in mind is the Islamic AND revolutionary spirit of Iran's government. So Iran's religious leaders rail against "Muslim land" being taken by the Jeiwsh state, etc. And revolutionaries, self-styled nad otherwise, like to be at the vanguard and so Iran has an interest in giving voice to the broader Muslim anger over the stae of Israel's creation, the post-1967 occupation, etc. Practically speaking it is also a way for Persian Iran to exrt some influence in the Arab Middle East (as it does also through proxies such as Hezbollah and, to a lesser degree, Hamas.) Some explanation, but likely not all of it.

Some weapons sales do come with rthese kidns of caveats, but I do not believe the bunker-busting bombs we have sold to Israel have those restraints. And,a s for the second part of your question, it is very hard to know what Iran would do in response. Would it want to contain  the fallout or exacerbate it? Would it really want to draw the United States directly into a conflict that would likely only end with the end of its government? I think Israel would certainly bear the brunt of the response, but U.S. military assets in the region could also be targeted. Just hard to say....

This is the kind of phrase that Obama and Netanyahu will likely drill down on and more clearly define for each other - or attempt to. I was based in Israel four years ago and, yes, the talk of a nuclear Iran was alive and spiekd at times with talk of imminent war. Back then Israeli officials were talking about a point of no return coming when Iranian scientsist had the knowledge of enriching uranium to weapons-grade, so that line has likely been crossed already. But this is what worries the Obama administration - these differing definitions of what amounts to imminent threat.

No, and you have heard Obama clearly endorse, and Netanyahu welcome, Israel's "sovereign right" to defend istelf....Obama can attempt to persuade by citing U.S. security interests, soldiers in harm's way, etc. But there's no legal right....That's all I have time for today, everyone, thanks very much for the excellent questions.