Baker on using military force against Iran:  "Iran is a huge force for instability, not just in the region, but in the world generally, and if they acquire a nuclear weapon, it could set off a major nuclear arms race in that very difficult part of the world. ...we don't underestimate the problem when I say what I'm about to say. I don't know that there is a military solution. Most of the people, knowledgeable people, I talk to say there is no satisfactory military solution, that a strike will delay but not prevent their acquiring a nuclear weapon.  That's not to say that you say, OK then, they should get it. But it's -- it's very questionable whether or a military solution exists.

"As a matter of fact, in the last administration, it's my understanding that the Israelis wanted to strike and they came to us and they asked for bunker-busting bombs and refueling -- in-flight refueling capabilities and over-flight rides and deconfliction codes and we said, no, we're not going to do that. That's not in our interest.

"Why isn't it in our interest? Because a strike that just -- that just delays will create untold -- nobody knows what the consequences of that would be, and one thing -- but one thing we do know is that would strengthen the hard-line regime in Iran at the very time that they're experiencing great domestic dissatisfaction. We ought to play on that domestic dissatisfaction.

"And you'll get differing assessments of how long it will be before Iran can -- can obtain a nuclear weapon, but even a former head of Mossad not long ago, a year or so ago, said it will be three or four years. So we'll not -- you know, you never take the military option off the table, but we ought not to be rushing into that.

Baker on deterrance: "...deterrents can be effective. It was effective for 40 years against the Soviet Union...I'm not at all sure it wouldn't be effective against these ayatollahs who may be -- may be flakey, but they -- but they like self preservation.  So, you know, we've got all this unused strategic nuclear capability, and I think we called them up and said it takes 30 seconds to re-aim those missiles at you. And, by the way, they're now re- aimed at you and if you so much as blink toward Israel or toward us or one of our allies, moderate Arab states, you know, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, the Gulf State, we're going to -- you'll be the subject. You wouldn't like it. It will be -- it will be bad news.

"...that would require us then to extend a nuclear umbrella to Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and the Gulf States, and I think we should do that. And -- I mean, I think that's something we ought to keep in our -- an arrow that we have in our quiver and we ought to keep it there.  Deterrents worked well against the Soviet Union. It -- I think it's wrong to simply reject out of hand that somehow deterrents wouldn't work here. So that's something I just wanted to add."

Baker on the Israeli-Palestinian status quo:  "...on the peace process, it's regrettable where we are. It's really too bad, in my view. What's really sad is that the Palestinian polity is now divided. How do you get a peace agreement when you -- when you don't have all the Palestinians at the table? I mean, I don't -- I don't know.

"Israel is in a difficult position because it's going to be very hard for her -- and more and more Israelis are realizing this -- very hard for her to retain her democratic character and her Jewish character as long as she continues to occupy those portions of the west bank that she occupies. And -- and so it's very much in her interest for her to achieve a secure -- secure peace with her Arab neighbors.  The only way you get a secure peace is to negotiate it. If you do it -- try to do it unilaterally, it's not going to be -- not going to be secure."

Baker on the Obama peace effort:  "[Obama's] tried, and I give him great credit for trying, because there's not going to be peace between Arabs and Israelis unless the United States is -- is hands on and trying to do its best to -- to encourage Israel to do what I think is in their long-term best interest, and that is get a negotiated, secure peace agreement with their Arab neighbors so that they don't face this conundrum about whether they can maintain their Jewish character and their democratic character.

"He's got a great negotiator and envoy in George Mitchell. George have been out there. You have to keep going. You have to keep after it. In the lead-up to the Madrid Peace Conference, I must have made -- I know I made at least eight trips to Syria just to get the Syrians to change 25 years of policy. ... if I'd quit after the first six trips, it wouldn't have happened. And so you just have to keep after it.

"The biggest hurdle right now is trying to get the -- the Palestinian polity united somehow, some sort of a unity government. The Egyptians are working hard on that, and -- and we should be very thankful, and I know we are, that they are working hard on it. Because it's pretty hard to negotiate peace when your -- when your negotiating partner is two different people, and that's where we are now.

"Now, what we did -- it's a little bit -- I mean, an analogy is what we did back in our day. We couldn't talk to the PLO. Today, we don't talk to Hamas, and neither do the Israelis, because they're a terrorist organization. We wouldn't talk to PLO and neither would the Israelis because they were a terrorist organization. So we found Palestinians from within the territories that we knew and the Israelis knew were taking their orders from Tunis, from the PLO. But it -- but it was a cutout and it was a construct and it worked."