other people saying, we don't need anything more than that. you get other people saying, no, we want nuclear weapons because we want to spread the iranian revolution. we want to take over the islamic world, or at least dominate it. of course, one is much more dangerous than the other. the real key is going to be finding out in these negotiations what the iranians are actually willing to live with and whether it's something we're willing to live with. >> speaking of dangerous, we've just gotten word that the u.s. ambassador to the united nations, samantha powers, just said that assad has barely made a dent in his chemical weapons stockpile. that's a rather ominous statement, isn't it? >> yeah, although it's also a very true statement, as i think any of us outside of syria understand it. the syrians always had a very extensive stockpile of all kind of different chemical precursors which you can combine to make the chemical agents. they have all kinds of delivery systems. i think that's a very true statement. it goes back to the point i made