I'm John Batchel. I welcome my good colleague, Henry Sikolsky, Executive Director of Non-Proliferation Policy Education Center.

We come to the fact of the large war fleet and warplanes surrounding Iran.

The question now is, are the negotiations proceeding or have they failed?

The indication from the White House is that an attack could come on Iran

in any of these next hours or days. What is it that the White House is demanding? What is the

war about? Henry, a good evening to you. Proliferation is a word thrown around, and it has many

meanings. Why are we attacking Iran? What are we demanding? And how does that

connect to the rest of the world? Good evening to you. Good evening. It's always a pleasure to be on

your program. The short answer is we've got a lawyer's brief where you make as many arguments as you can and hope people

figure out on their own which one's right. But at the top of that lawyer's brief of reasons,

the president has said, I might attack a few places if they don't at least agree to get rid of their nuclear enrichment fuel-making program.

And that's at the top of the list.

But there are other things on the list as well.

We should get rid of the missiles that are threatening Israel.

They should give those up.

They should stop all proxy activity that causes terrorism to occur

in various places. They should perhaps give up and change the regime. That's also in the

mix because, well, they're treating their people poorly. So it's all out there. But, you know,

I think what you want when you wage war, because this is what it'll be, it's an act of war for

sure, is some legal basis for making these arguments? And I would venture that the easiest way

to make a legal case is Iran was found last June in violation of its nuclear nonproliferation

obligations to open their facilities to international atomic energy agency inspections.

...