Transcripts For CSPAN Escalating Violence In Iraq 20140726

So the Iraqi Government no longer controls all of its territory, and the conflict is taking on new dimensions with the kurdish government in the north and announcing a referendum to pursue independence and it has deployed its own forces to secure two large oilfields in kirkuk. The startling advance of isis across iraq has prompted many regional and Global Players to reassess their policies in the middle east, so this is a big time of flux among the outside players, as well, and that is why we wanted to have this very discussion. Certainly, the United States, key gulf states, iran, syria share certain selected interest in defeating isis in the overall stability of iraq, but it is quite clear, too, that this commonality will have very significant limits, and we will see if it can even enable selected collaboration on very discrete tasks associated with this great challenge. We heard u. S. And iranian officials recently signaling a guarded willingness to cooperate to avoid an intensification and expansion of this conflict in iraq, and we have seen, even within the past to show weeks, the Deputy Foreign minister of iran beginning a tour of the gulf to discuss possible solutions for the crisis. Is in iraq. But here in particular, we look a more as indicative of endemic challenge, and that is the continuing rise in power of a broad range of nonstate actors in key regions across the world. We are seeing the headlines this morning in Eastern Ukraine as yet another example of this trend. So the trend really bears out this factor of individual empowerment that the National Intelligence Council Global trade report highlighted a couple of years ago some of which is certainly a central focus of my centers own strategic foresight initiative. The fact that a group in a remote part of the world is able to deny sovereignty to two nation estates and claim part of each as its own with no immediate challenge is that one very, very concerning development, but there will be a range of others that will surprise all of us, i think, equally over the next several years. Back to the specific issue of the coalition among the countries i have talked about, it obviously presents enormous political, economic, diplomatic, and other challenges, so we are here today to discuss the viability of potential partnerships and what these partnerships might mean for for regional, security, and for geopolitics. This event builds on a lot of work underway at the Hariri Center and the scope cross center here at the Atlantic Council, and we are trying to understand the rise of nonstate actors, the associated challenges and threats, and some cases the opportunities, but in all cases, the impact on the original order, as well as the global order. I would like to stop talking now and introduce ambassador faily. First, please note that this is on the record we are tweeting heavily already. Aciraq. The key account here that is theting is acscowcroft, twitteroft center account. He was iraqs of a sitter to japan. Before that, he was investor of the Iraqi Ministry of foreign extensiveth experience in the Information Technology sector, and even in our small meeting, i got a lot of hints from him about managing my email inbox and a number of other things that make me want to hire him as a consultant. He has vast experience in that sector, which will obviously prove helpful in a number of ways for his duties here. He previously held Senior Management positions in Major American Companies and a broad range of other accomplishments. I think with that, i will thank him once again for coming, and i look forward to your remarks. I will let you guess my age now. [laughter] of all, good morning, everybody. Your excellency, thank you for the opportunity, and i think this is my first event at the Atlantic Council being on the other side, so it is interesting the vast workk, that the scope croft center has done. Thank you for the opportunity today. I also would like to thank you for focusing on this important issue. , if you dol use isil not mind, as that is my preferred name for it. Before i go any further, i want to thank the American People for the great sacrifices that you have made to help the iraqi people free ourselves from the brutal term of saddam and put us on the path of democracy. Our democratic half has often been rocky and uphill. But we have persist we have persevered. The iraqi a nation is now at a difficult and dangerous point as we confront terrorism that is transnational in nature. I cannot understate the gravity of the current situation. Threatces an existential , the likes of which we and our neighbors in the region have not seen before. That the United States did not abandon the iraqi people during the darkest days of the war, and we are hopeful that you will not abandon us now. As we struggle against the very same forces of violent extremists that now have so much with so Ambitious Goals in their on thend the extent be middle east and on to the rest of the world. As we meet this morning, the iraqi people are under direct an unholy alliance of al qaedainspired jihadists and diehard saddam loyalists. Country, to what some would have you believe, this is not a sunni rebellion against a shiite government. Insurgencyallout led by isil extremist who are committed to creating a terrorist safe haven in the heart of the middle east that stretches from the mediterranean theon the syrian side to iraqi province of diyala. This much is clear, isil targets everybody and anybody, whether muslims or christians, sunni imams or model shia. With the recent establishment of , isilroclaimed halafa has declared that its objective is to fight people everywhere, religiously, regionally, globally. The Current Crisis can only be quelled with a comprehensive strategy that includes military action and also political, economical, humanitarian, and democratic diplomatic efforts by all parties concerned. Isil is the enemy of the iraqi people, our neighbors, the United States, and United States allies. And we must make a common effort to defeat them. This is a Dangerous New Development in the middle east that requires a new doctor to combat terrorism. On the military front, with its indiscriminate destructiveness, creating its own eventual defeat. Experience. From however, until then, ethnic cleansing and systematic destruction of unique altars and heritage will suffer irreversibly. Hasccupied muslim, isil destroyed shia mosques, sunni shrines, and more. Just last week, they issued an ultimatum, ordering residents to convert to isil, deviant versions of islam. If they do not comply, the ultimatum that clears then they will literally face the sword. Along with iraqi christian minorities, thousands of other minority communities have been forced to flee their homes, often leaving all their belongings behind. A recent report by human rights works said isil has systematically killed and shia andchristians, making them an example is crude crusaders and heretics. Notwithstanding major setback on forcesitary front, iraqi have been reenergized. In part by the country is most senior religious person who urginga fatua ablebodied iraqis to join Iraqi Security forces and defend their homeland. Thousands upon thousands of iraqis, young and old, shia and sunni, are answering the call to fight back against isil. Such a fatua has not been made by any grand ayatollah since the early 1920s. He rarely speaks out about government issues, and when he does, he is a force of national unity. More. Mocracy and a mosque intack on at for samarra, he spoke unity among shia and sunni. Now he is working with other religious leaders to quell the sectarian tension, tension the ties between the sunni and shia communities everywhere in iraq. This is a critical time we are all facing. This is truly the time to remind all iraqis that our enemy is not those who worship in different ways. Our enemy is those who are attacking us all. Alluse isil is are getting iraqis, their beliefs, their culture, and their physical existence, whether they are sunni, shia, or any of our diverse nations or any of our unique cultures and groups on a we are seeking to unite all iraqis against these extremists and fanatics. Even in times of crisis, the democratic process does not as it should,idly but ultimately, the Representative Government and the rule of law do offer ways to ensure everyone has a voice and no one feels excluded. Following the free elections in which approximately 60 of the people of iraq participated, the process of forming a new government is moving forward. , in process is underway line with constitutional framework and must not be undermined. Speaker ofn of the parliament and his two deputies last week was a significant breakthrough and showed that iraqi political leaders can put their differences behind them and come together for the sake of our country unity during this time. Iraqi council of representatives is expected to elect a new president who is likely to be a kurd. There is every possibility that the new government will be formed within the stability constitutional timeline. , in to remind you all recent history, this process took nine months and six months. This time, we are about only six weeks. Violence has created not only a security and political crisis, but also a humanitarian crisis. Gloriesle while isil in murder and mayhem, the iraqi people are trying to ease the suffering of those who have found themselves in the terrorists lines of fire. 600,000st month, some 650,000 people have been forced to flee their homes in mosul. In total, an estimated 1. 2 million displaced iraqis across the country, 1. 2 million. The extremists are using violence to vandalize what had been one of the worlds fastestgrowing economies. Thaterrorists understand the economical opportunities denies them support and that increasing joblessness and hopelessness offers them a pool of potential recruits. If isil succeeds in expanding the current conflict to southern provinces, the potential impact on the International Oil markets will be disastrous. Conflict, ourrent Oil Production had increased by 50 since 2005. We were expected to emerge as the worlds secondlargest energy supporter by 2030. This had been a critical factor in keeping Global Economy markets stable, despite increased tensions in iran. Why theone more reason World Community has a stake in afeating isil and in securing stable and prosperous iraq. Make no mistake, the current conflict in iraq is not only a threat to iraq alone. Isil and the very elect and violent players threatens the entire region and the entire world. Here, the United States also has a stake in turning turning the tide against the transnational terrorist. We welcome president obama prossor yes decision to president obamas decision to send the advisor to iraq. However, speaking as a friend and admirer of the United States, there seems to me to be an additional option to consider at this difficult that urgent moment. U. S. Counterterrorism coordination should be expanded to include air strikes. That would serve to protect iraqi borders against the further influx of terrorists from syria. Second, you should offer air support targeting terrorist inps and supply convoys remote areas. Us to in order to enable effectively conduct Counterterrorism Operations in urban areas that have been occupied by isil terrorists am a we need a precision u. S. Airstrike. The effort i just outlined is not new military concepts for the United States or for iraq. Working together before him a we implemented a similar strategy that defeated al qaeda back in 2005 onward. During these difficult days, iraq as trojan the United States as its preferred Strategic Partner iraq has chosen the United States as its preferred Strategic Partner. Our relationship is one we do not have with any other country. Our government has purchased ofe than 10 billion worth necessary military equipment from the United States, and we y billionsng to bu more, and we are this with our own funds. Still, there are some confusions about american intentions. There are some in iraq who are skeptical about the administrations response to the crisis in iraq. The administration wants us to believe that they are providing ited support to help now to us now. And they are using the prospect of u. S. Air support and other military assistance to encourage political reforms in baghdad. However, i have to tell you that not everyone in baghdad believes this. We have skeptics who believe who do not believe this is who believe this is a u. S. Strategy for doing very little, that the intention of washington is to create preconditions that we probably cannot satisfied, and then move the gulf coast if necessary to ensure that we do not satisfy them. Such suspicions are highly corrosive to americans relations with iraq and its people. Do not believe that meaningful u. S. Assistance is forthcoming, then they will have they will not have enough incentives to adopt and stand by the political reforms that the United States is urging us. The u. S. Administration needs to refute these suspicious by making clear that the united thees will, in fact, give democratically have an elected government of iraq air support and other essential military assistance. Game changes that can turn the tide against isil. If iraq political leaders make significant headway in formation of the new government. In a nutshell, clarity is crucial. Now more than ever, the United States needs to be careful not to send mixed signals about its intentions. These mixed signals will create a vacuum that will be filled by others. The ground ison developing rapidly. It threatens the territorial integrity of iraq with attentional regional implications. Much has been said about the regional effects of the spillover of the violence from iraq, but a spillover from to its neighbors in jordan, saudi arabia, and elsewhere would have unsurmountable consequences. Consequences that do not bear thinking about. Let us all deal with the isil ofl now before no amount catch up with the u. S. And allies can address the isil trail of devastation and chaos. Time is not on our side, nor for our neighbors or the United States. Further delay benefits only the terrorists. But Decisive Action against common threats. Our common interest and secure iraq, striving to build an inclusive democracy after decades of divisiveness. United states and iraq are forever tied together because of authorized and treasures expanded by both of our countries of the last decade in our common fight against terrorism and extremist him. Now that the iraqi Political Forces are going toward solution, we hope our American Allies on move forward with a robust Security Assistance package during our time of need. Together, we can defeat the transnational terrorism who are our common enemy and build a isure and stable iraq, which our common goal. Thank you, america, for everything that we have done together and everything that we will do together. If we act decisively at this crucial moment, then years from now our children and grandchildren will read about terrorism in the air and their history books and peace and prosperity in daily newspapers. This is our goal, and i know this is yours, as well. Let me thank the Atlantic Council again for giving me the opportunity today. Thank you, again. [applause] ambassador, mr. For some really not just start, stark, but also heartfelt remarks. They are appreciated and they address many important issues we will be addressing. Let me injured is my other three panelists. You have their biography so i will not spend a lot of time on them. I will introduce them in the order in which they will be speaking. First to the ambassador to the immediate left is Michael Singh, managing director of the washington institute, and he was a white house official from 2005 two 2008 where he spent a lot of his time and response abilities coordinating u. S. Helices toward the region stretching from morocco to iran with an emphasis theran nuclear activity, israeli conflict, syria, and other minor duties such as those. That was clearly a joke in light of what is going on today. To his left, we have senior fellow at the rafik hariri ,enter here, frederic hof appointed to the special adviser for transition in syria by president obama on march 28, 2012. He previously was special coordinator for regional you hear that the affairs at the u. S. Department state office of the special envoy for middle east peace and has decades of experience in the region. If you do not follow fred hofs views on syria, then you are not really following syria, in my opinion. At the end of the panel, but not the least important at all, is thel saab, senior fellow in Brent Scowcroft center here, and he covers a range of issues regarding the middle east with a particular focus on defense policy posture and Industrial Base issues in the arabian gulf. He has more than 12 years of research and analysis and Management Experience in middle east affairs. Availablegraphies are in the handout. With that, i would like to turn to Michael Singh for his views on the issues that we have been broaching. Great, thank you, barry. Real, let me say it is a honor to be here at the Atlantic Council. I have tremendous admiration for what has been built here, and i consider myself a friend of the arctic council. It is honored to the on the panel with the abbasid or and with fred and bilal who are among the most respected analysts in these issues in washington. I will say that i have my phone here i am not live tweeting my own comments, but i have my notes on my phone, so excuse me. Try to to generate speak briefly about the u. S. And iran in iraq and the prospects for cooperation, because it has been a hot topic as this crisis has unfolded. One thing that you will hear a lot about the u. S. In iran and iraq is that we have the same interests or that we have overlapping interest in iraq. I do not think this is correct, and i will explain why. First and foremost, most fundamentally, i think there is confusion over what is an interest, what is the difference between an interest and a position . I think that we in iran, the United States and iran, has had similar positions on ice is i am going to say isis because it is easier for me to say. We are in similar positions. Were both opposed to isis, but does that flow from a commonality of interest . I would say no. I will use an example to illustrate how i see the difference between positions and interest. It has nothing to do with the middle east. It is about nafta. If you have taken negotiation 101, you will recognize this example. North American Free trade agreement was opposed by both labor units and environment groups. They had the same position, they were against it. Why they were each against it was certainly not for the same reasons. Environmentalists, obviously, environmental concerns. Labor unions because of their own certain concerns. I think we can see is simpler day, the simpler dichotomy between the u. S. And iran and iraq. We talk about overlapping interest that the u. S. And iran have in iraq, and people will say that iran is opposed to sunni extremist groups. I am not sure that this is really right, that this is really an interest of iran per se. Why do i say that . Because we have seen plenty of support going from iraq to sunni extremist groups in the past, including from time to time in iraq itself. But the most telling example of this would be iranian support for hamas. The conflict right now in gaza, for example, is made possible by the fact that iran ships weapons to hamas, as well as the Palestinian Islamic jihad, both of which are sunni it stream is groups. We have also seen iranian support for sunni extremist groups in places like lebanon, alia, as well as even for qaeda and the taliban in a more limited way, which you would think would be enemies of iran and our innocence, but iran has rounded in hits interest to provide limited amounts of support to those groups from time to time. When it comes to this issue for the United States, the u. S. Opposing isis am a it is about many things, but one thing is about counterterrorism, our general counterterror does opposition to terrorism as a tool and tactic and to those groups who use that tool. Theres obviously a lot of reasons for that. I do not see that same interest flowing out of iran. One other reason that the United States opposes isis is because we support the sovereignty and stability of iraq. This is the other offsite a common interest between the u. S. And iran in iraq, the stability of iraq. Again, ask yourself is top interest in iraq . Remember, countries have hierarchies of interest. I do nothing we have seen iran behave in a way that suggests that the stability of iraq is iran a possible stop interest or even necessarily one of its top interests. When the u. S. Was involved in any work in trying to help iraqis build a stable and sovereign democracy, iran was completely unhelpful. Iran was the chief agent for promoting instability in iraq in an effort to drive u. S. Forces out of iraq, which was an interest of irans which shrank any assurance about the stability of iraq, even when it became clear that the united withdrawing was forces with iraq after president obama was elected. What we see from iran is not a diminution of their support for extremists and militants, but it increase in it. As u. S. Troops were leaving, we saw an increase in iranian support for those extremist groups. For what reason, youll have to ask the iranians, but perhaps the u. S. Forces. There have been other times in the iraniraq history were the stability of iraq was not irans foremost concern. I think what we see instead from tehran is that what they most want to see in a iraq is a government which is friendly or sort of disposed towards iran, whatever that happens to mean. I do not think they have any particular interest in tomography or pluralism or on all the things we have talk about and that the ambassador talked about wanting to see in iraq. The american approach is very different. Inhave a genuine interest seeing democracy and iraq and seeing pluralism, and not the domination of one sector group over another but to see those groups come together in a democracy. Again, i do not think that is necessarily what you are in mind. You know, to continue on this point a bit but not to delve too much into this topic, because my cope analysts will do that thomas some might raise a ulfstion, what about g interests in iraq and how they say, ito this let me do not see a perfect alignment between american and gulf interests and iraq. The u. S. Has been frustrated in the past by the refusal of gulf states to embrace iraq over the oft decade or more as a sort fellow to help iraq on the path towards democracy. At the same time, i think we see a fundamentally different approach from gulf governments than with iran. Beenulf governments have willing tos for the overall Regional Security architecture, which the United States has undergirded because they believed that u. S. Led Security Architecture has been in their interest and has been good for the region. This is one of the big dangers of the u. S. Retreating and no longer supporting the Security Architecture, that you see then those disparate interests of each country playing out in different, more dangerous, and more destabilizing ways. That is one thing the u. S. Needs to keep in mind, that once we retreat, other things will try to fill that vacuum which are not in our interests. U. S. Iranthe topic of cooperation, even if you posit that maybe i am wrong and maybe there are these common interests, would we still want to see u. S. Iran cooperation . I think the answer is no. First, think about the efficacy of iranian involvement in iraq. From a ronsar experience in syria, which i believe ambassador hof will address, that iran has the ability to defeat a group like isis in iraq in a way that stabilizes the country. They certainly have not been able to do so in syria. In syria, you see the Assad Government has managed to avoid collapse and avoid being overthrown, which perhaps is in defiance of expectations of a given that we have heard for a long time that collapse is inevitable. But it has not been able to recapture some territory or extend its authority overall in syria, which is what we want to see the government in baghdad do, certainly. If we saw the same outcome in iraq that we have seen in syria where iran has been very involved, we see that as an abysmal failure of u. S. Policy. Iran would that pursue in iraq would be similar to what they have done in syria. Again, that is not something we would like to see in iraq. More involvement by hezbollah and other iranian proxies, the activation in arming and funding of shia militias, as opposed to National Institutions like the Iraqi Security forces, as broad as they may be. Seen assadshave forces with iranian help wage war against civilians. That is certainly not something we want to see inside iraq. And you also, i think, see u. S. Iran cooperation in iraq a lot of unhappiness amongst u. S. Partners in the gulf. Morew bilal will talk about that, but we are already facings debt skeptical allies in the gulf. That is, located, and there are a lot of other policy issues for the United States. Finally on this, why i think that u. S. Iran cooperation in iraq would be a negative thing, there is a moral dimension to this issue. There is a moral complication to cooperating with a force like irans revolutionary guards, which are the iranian sort of force would has responsibility in iranian assistance for iraq. A group that has been designated by the Treasury Department as supporting terrorism. We designated iran as a state sponsor of terror, and this is a group which has been responsible for a tremendous number of deaths of american servicemen in iraq and terrorist acts around the world. It is simply not, i think, in the United States nature to cooperate with such a group, even if it is in pursuit of common goals. I am going to essentially rapid of their and simply say i do not think looking to iran will give us any answers in iraq. I think we need to, frankly, look forward in iraq. We honestly have a long history in iraq, a controversial history, that i think if were going to help iraq to stabilize and help iraq along the path it would like to take, we need a forwardlooking policy. We cannot be consumed in the debates of the past, debates about who is responsible. We have to look forward and have a forwardlooking policy. Thank you. I might ask you a quick question, and then we will go on to ambassador hof and bilal saab. You present a very compelling case for why u. S. Iranian cooperation is not necessarily desirable and will not be productive for a number of reasons. But i wonder, if things proceed in the direction that ambassador discussed and if we think this is going to go on for quite a while, even if it extends roughly four months and there is a u. S. Iranian deal or a p5 plus one deal on the nuclear program, i mean, what happens if u. S. Forces and Iranian Forces are on the same battlefield looking for the same ends . I would understand and certainly agree with almost all of your points on why we should not plan such corporation, but we could very well end up being tactically on the same space. Or should the u. S. Make it a condition . We are building a few of hypotheticals, but should big u. S. Make it a condition of their active military involvement that there would not be any engagement on the same side with Iranian Forces in iraq . Obviously ais hypothetical scenario, but it is an important one. Because if we do provide more assistance to iraq, which i think we should, frankly, and i be sooner that should rather than later in coming. We could find ourselves sort of playing in the same theater as the iranians. Look, my concern is a different concern. In fact, for iran, keeping the United States out of iraq, keeping the United States from any kind of reengagement militarily in iraq, will be an interest which trumps their orerest in the feeding isis stabilizing iraq, and we will find ourselves more at odds with the revolutionary gods in guards in iraq. I think we should try to prevent that by sending messages through the channels that we have two iran about what our intentions are and what we are trying to do and what consequences iran should expect it a find themselves running afoul of that. I do not the that requires tactical battlefield cooperation or that sort of thing, in part, because iran operates fundamentally differently than the United States does. I do not think there would be any sort of natural overlap. Thank you very much. Ambassador hof, give us your latest insights on how syria plays into this and the broader thoughts on the entire situation. Thanks. Perhaps it would be useful if i give sort of an overview of the prospect of some kind of practical cooperation between the United States and the assad regime with respect to the isis threat in syria. I, too, will use isis as the word. This issue has come into considerable prominence recently as a result of an oped that appeared in the Washington Post written by three very accomplished americans who implied that the United States ways toin fact, seek cooperate with the assad regime to confront what they described as the greater evil of isis. Made by thispoint trio of former distinguished the blue mats was that it diplomats was that it makes no sense for the United States to confront the assad regime and. Sis simultaneously the president of the United States and the secretary of state, at least until now, have taken a different position entirely. They have considered Bashar Alassad to be part of the andlem in the isis context certainly not part of the solution. Theersonal view is that president and the secretary of state are correct on this. , this is not just a matter of the assad regime having spent the better part of a decade burying al qaedatype personnel mayhem. Q to create it is not just a matter of the regime having emptied its prisons of violent islamist the syrianjust as uprising was beginning. And it is not just a matter of the regimes sectarian program of mass homicide drawing foreign fighters into syria. One can, if one wishes, simply dismiss all of this as ancient history and say it is no longer relevant given the current threat. Operational fact of the matter, however, is that the regime and isis in syria, with the exception of some recent clashes around some oil fields, are focusing their military efforts almost 100 not against ae another, but against target they have in common, a target they wish to eliminate, that being the nationalist opposition to the assad regime in syria. This opposition is therefore forced to fight and defend on two Reince Thomas against the regime on two fronts, against the regime and against isis. A socke work with the crowd seems to be implying, therefore, is the following let this nationalist opposition support, so asof to hasten what they believe to be the inevitable conflict between the regime and isis. Would such a course of action serve american interests . In my view, the answer is no. Set aside the scandalous and humiliating spectacle of working with a regime on which the United States has facilitated the accumulation of literally tons of archival material that will eventually form the basis for International Prosecutions having to do with passive for crimes and crimes against humanity. Set aside the betrayal of those areas who have advertised great verification of some kind of meaningful assistance from the United States and its allies. Sacrifice of credibility and reputation that is being asks of the president of the United States here. Set all of that aside. What exactly would it mean to work with the assad regime in a practical sense . Is there a role here to the american taxpayer to play . Iran and russia have secured the assad regime in western syria. If the assad regime elects at some point to fight isis in nd russiarely iran a can be prime candidates to bear that burden. Now, look, in world war ii, the United States did, indeed, collaborate with a mass murderer to defeat hitler, but no one questioned the sacrifice of the soviet peoples infighting and defeating the greater threat posed by not see germany by nazi germany. If Bashar Alassad decides at some point to confront isis, i think we can bet on one thing he will seek a free ride. Already, the casualties his forces have suffered in this conflict in syria have caused a great deal of resentment in certain parts of the country. If either by commission or we cause the nationalist opposition to lose militarily, in my view, we will still have no dog in the hunt in confrontation. My sense is that both sides, the regime and isis, well for their own reasons try to avoid an allout showdown. Consolidatent to ance ofbaric govern syrianpopulated areas under its control, and iran, which is the one party must responsible for the survival of the assad regime , iran is quite content to have the assad regime firmly in the where it western syria can be of use to iran in the context of hezbollah. Now, clashes will likely take , and ultimately, there may be a showdown between the assad regime and the monstrosity it has helped to create. Our best course is to move now, helpingew, with nationalist fighters inside syria now and to build a large and powerful Syrian Stabilization force outside of the country. Saying toclude by work with the assad regime is not merely to work with the devil. It is to work with the devil who, on a good day, on a good day, will meet you 10 of the way before trying to walk back on that 10 . Ask russia. Ask iran. If this comes down to a sod versus isis assad in syria, in my view, it is there problem. If we, the United States, judge that and isis presence in syria or iraq constitutes a threat to the american homeland, we can my view,hat threat, in without the costly and ultimately ineffective. Ssistance of the assad regime thanks. Let me ask you to clarify your large and powerful Syrian Stabilization force, number one, and number of two, what if the u. S. Took the recommendation of ambassador faily and played a military role in iraq, how would that affect what you are talking about in syria . I am hoping now that the administration has made the decision to go to congress with an initial request for 500 million to assist the armed opposition, i am hoping that what the administration has in mind is an effort that would go along two lines. First, obviously, the necessity of getting arms, equipment, money into syria nationalist forces currently carrying the fight against both the regime and isis on two fronts. That beyond that, it seems to me that there really needs to be, this is something that cannot be put together in 20 minutes, figuratively speaking, but there needs to be created outside of syria in places like jordan, turkey, elsewhere, a large, powerful Stabilization Force consisting led by syrians, capable ultimately of entering the country and restoring law and order everywhere. Or haps in cooperation with some existing forces on the ground, perhaps not. This clearly has to be a force that would do enforcement in nature that with shoot to kill capability. Your second point . If the u. S. Does take action in iraq i think the United States has a bit of a dilemma right now in iraq. There are some attractive targets, some attractive isis targets in iraq. I imagine that a good deal of target acquisition has been taking place. It is a bit of a chicken and egg dilemma for the United States right now. If we were to engage those targets effectively in iraq, would affect would this actually have on the formation of a broad representative Iraqi Government . Would it encourage that evolution or would it stop it in its tracks . I think, clearly, there are arguments to be made on both sides, but it is a real issue. Way for theble United States to avoid this engage isist be to targets in syria. Engagement could obviously, basically hitting syria, whereas in that engagement could have a positive effect on the tactical situation in iraq without necessarily getting directly into this chicken and egg dilemma. It would also have, conceivably, for syrianve impacts nationalist fighters. You know, getting arms, isipment, into these folks not the easiest logistical operation in the world. Yet, time is of the essence. If the United States chooses to militarily in the near future, what i am may being is that syria a more appropriate place to do it. Thank you, fred. Bilal, you have been very patient. Please weigh in on these issues. Thinks. He won arab gulf country with the biggest stake in what happens in iraq and whose Strategic Interests are affected the most by what happens in iraq is saudi arabia. I will focus more on saudi arabia, but i am happy to talk canhe other gulf gulf country string the q a. Iran and saudi arabia are struggling to determine the best way to move forward in iraq. It is a delicate balancing act in iraq. Et me start with iran the iranian rhetoric has been pretty strong on iraq, but i think that the response has been pretty limited. So it is kind of a disconnect between the two. Here is isis threatening to destroy holy shiite shrines in that and you would expect the iranians would send hundreds, if not thousands, of their own troops and militias to iraq, possibly even hezbollah since they have done a pretty good job in syria, but none of that has happened. Dave sent in arms to help the iraqi army. Shut down amuch website to go fight in iraq alongside religions in a rock o, kind of surprising. The response has been kind of reserved. More to protect their strategic interest in iraq. I think the iranian leadership knows there will be dire consequences should they act more forcefully in iraq. And a moreattrition, intense rivalry with saudi arabia that the iranians might not need right now. They are also talking to washington. There is something brewing in relationship. They do not want to go hard after isis in iraq and putting washington in a difficult position with regard to its partners also. Some lawmakers will object to the idea of cooperating with washington. Matter, weple who havent heard much about what many are saying. We know that they have no problem talking to and cooperating with washington and iraq. Let me turn over to saudi arabia, which really is a fascinating story. A little bit puzzled by policy and thinking in iraq and across the middle east. For those who think that riyadh is after isis do not understand what isis is or dont understand the threat that groups like isis pose to the saudi kingdom. Let me refresh your memory. After the fall in 2003 of kandahar, u. S. Intelligence agencies were surprised but the depth and the spread of the infrastructure in the kingdom. That was an ugly surprise. After the u. S. Invasion of iraq, there was a massive insurgency by osama bin laden. That was one of his key goals, the third front. It was battle at all stakes, monarchy, which he thought was a corrupt monarchy. This was not easy to crush. It was a pretty major uprising. I am not really talking about gun battles in remote areas. This was happening across the country. I study this very carefully. Some pretty major cities in saudi arabia. The country was on fire. It took a long time to crush the uprising. It was pretty much widespread. Saudi arabia does not want to see that happen again. Extent of isisvirtual presence in the kingdom is not what aq had in the early 2000. I know that, too. The concern here is not isis but the rise of radicalization across the region and what might happen inside the kingdom as a result of that. Saudi arabia sees opportunity in what isis is doing in iraq. It sees opportunity. Andortunity to weaken iran iraq and to strengthen its bargaining hand visavis the iranians. Have pretty much all i today. It is a highly risky approach. But that is the only strategy they have in iraq. David ignatius got it partially right as far as the sunni tribes, which i call the x factor. Attacking maliki. It is saudi arabia that is using maliki. Er to attack why give up the bargaining hand today . A new Prime Minister in baghdad and the sunnis back to government in baghdad. Is it in saudi arabias immediate interest to cooperate with iran to defeat isis . Maybe. Defeated, riyadh has no cause of play. Riyadh has done some pretty dumb things over the past few years. One thing you want to will shoot itself in the foot in iraq. If saudi arabia wants isis defeated, only have to do this testing sunni tribes to finish it off. There is much more than isis happening in iraq today. All of those are at the forefront of a we know is now a sunni rebellion. Isis happens to be in the forefront of it in the most brutal force. Some pretty important facts i want everybody to remember. Only 20 of most soul is controlled by isis. I welcome the ambassador to challenge that fact. The mosque was pretty much empty. What if isis becomes stronger and gets closer to the kingdom . Is near the saudi border. Saudi arabias concern is not isis, per se. It is what radicalization as a whole could cause inside the kingdom. Kind of a ticking time bomb. The longer it survives, the more difficult it is to deal with the consequences. Here is my conclusion. There is a balance of terror between the iranians and the saudis. The only thing that can break it is compromise. I do want to press you on one point. How concern should we pay that steps of isismany next would be a threat to some territory or assets in the kingdom of saudi arabia . How concerned are the saudis about that as well . You give the impression that they are looking toward other things. Experts were surprised by isis year. In iraq this or shall werprise not be concerned about that . Have beenains in iraq explained by analysts. They received a lot of support from the sunni tribes. It was a reflection of the weakness of the other side. I think the country that should be most concerned about territorial gains should be jordan and lebanon, not exactly saudi arabia. The very nature of isis explains why saudi arabia should not be that concerned about what isis could do. Factor is the masterminds of this phenomenon. And the sunni tribes that if provided the Fertile Ground for this organization to operate in iraq. I think the saudis has some influence over some tribes. Reassuresof influence some in the kingdom that this is a manageable threat for now. I would be surprised otherwise. We will open it up to questions now. I might ask the ambassador the first question. Get your thoughts ready and i will call on you. Do you have any thoughts on what was said . And i had a question for you, sir. , candy u. S. Avoid what was characterized in the press, a, by general petraeus, avoid being the air force for the shia sect against the sunnis and against isis . How can we avoid that geometric political issue while still achieving some of our common interests . With the election we just had a sunni from the province. All other positions we have been talking about, such as the Defense Ministry or other ministries may go to suny arab. There are checks and balances moving forward. You will have key positions who can make sure this is not a single narrative or others. From the structure aspect of it. Aspects is what you it isi not a sunni part of it but not the whole story. 2 in mosul because they did not hand over their mosque to them is a sign. Blowing up mosquess, literally, is not a sign of a narrative but much more dangerous. I am a movie fan. Will we have is a mutation. In mutation of the various elements. Isming into a time it beyond recognition. It cannot be controlled. It is not a switchon, switchoff situation. Will not work for either parties. The Strategic Interests are a threat in relation to i am afraid the southeast is not immune. The jordanians are also not immune. The lebanese had areas addressed and we have got used to the violence. To the southeast, if what you are saying is right, i do not think it is advisable for anybody [indiscernible] nobody can control [indiscernible] new narrative a to be created to deal with this. It is a decade episode. A mother has to have a decade longterm mentality in mind to say we need to address this sectarian narrative. And im afraid the shia will not be in a strong position to bargain with the current situation. Why be so fearful of inaction . Thanks very much. This lady in the second row. Please identify yourself. Thank you so much. It was a great talk so far. I have a question for the ambassador. I was hoping you could provide some clarity on something. The u. S. Says there is a delivery of apaches ready to go and iraq needs to issue payment. They say the ball is in iraqs court. I want to know is there any delay in doing so . Ok. The whole issue in regard to apaches has become unfortunately [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [indiscernible] it was struck with congress and the white house. That delay has had an impact on us. We have the request for a long time until recently. And unfortunately if it is approved now, the parts pilots are not in place. It has created various questions back home. The questions i talked about regarding the u. S. Commitment to concernflecting syrias back home as to the commitment to the democracy of iraq. F16ses apaches and u. S. E the whole institutions are not backing that. It still will not come in time. The pilots are not there. Next question. Yes. Hi. On with the national coalition. The modern opposition in syria has been fighting isis for a long time. Do you first see the Iraqi Government working with the syrian operation against isis in the future . Have tried to keep away from the syrian internal issues for a long time, to the dismay of a lot of people. We knew this issue would not be resolved overnight. The Syrian Regime strains are much more than people tried to advance them. Little try to keep [indiscernible]as much as we kept away from the kurdish situation in turkey. In bahrain. Blem we have said we will not get in our neighbors internal affairs. I am not encouraging that. In a day when borders are rather porous, and in some ways has led to the breadth of the problem we are facing today. Were discussing syria, iraq, jordan and lebanon. The days we can say this is only an internal affair are long past. With whom do we side against whom . There international issues. It is not that beggars cannot be cheesy. Choosy. Where do you draw the line in getting involved in other issues . Havethe last 10 years, we bent backwards to accommodate all our neighbors in relation to issues. We know all of them are fragile. We knew if we wanted to get involved in internal affairs of our neighbors, that would really have an impact. We have the funds and the ideology, but we kept away from it. We hope this is a key lesson for others. We haveq [indiscernible] democracy and transparency and they should respect that. A comment briefly on the iraq syria dynamic. The United States has had a difficult request of the Iraqi Government, of whatever government emerges in iraq and that is for iraq to deny irans space airspace and ground to transfer weaponry to the assad regime in syria, and for ability toy iran the raise militias in iraq and transport young iraqi men to syria to fight on behalf of the assad regime. Inhink we all understand Political Science why it is so difficult for iraq to say yes to this. I think any Iraqi Government can expect that the United States will continue to press on this front. He wasnt sure regarding that, why arabians are not involved. Iny have offered this help relation to security and others and they said no. They have offered with militia and we have said no. We have the same situation in syria. Which i to keep away our young ones from going to syria. We have said no to the iranians. As to ourestions relationship with the United States. Our military, our army and y we needg else wh to go to the iranians and break International Sanctions . In a sense we would try to play the mature player. A vacuum is being created. That is the reality of it. Thanks very much. This gentleman in the second row. I was listening i think the kurdish issue ignored the advance of isis. Border,ish share a long 1100 climate or, more than 600 miles with isis. Soldiers, the kurdish they could have [indiscernible], the most safest and secure area in iraq for all these years. The kurdish soldiers went to kirkuk, the 00 oilrich area. Over the oilrich area . Do you have a question . Million quarters of a of refugees in kurdish area, a small area. The Kurdish People for seven country,raq is a rich 150 billion a year. [indiscernible] for the United States to ask the government to release the budget of immediately bordering isis, we will be in trouble. We are one of the best allies of the United States. What is your question . Could you ask the government to ask the government about the budget for the last seven months, for the Kurdish People . The key relationship between thedad, prior to unfortunate situation we are in now. That is part of the ongoing government formation, clearing the cases would be one of the issues that will be dealt with. It would not be done in isolation or as a transaction situation. It would be a package to understand. The krg has taken more refugees than anybody else. They have a quarter of a million syrian refugees. They have an extra half a million. They have done great jobs. The red cross and others are working with them. We have issues to address. It is a serious issue, displacement. Additional questions . Yes. I would like to ask ambassador faily, do you still consider iraq an arab country . Can younswer is yes, imagine any situation in which the arab league could play a useful role in this crisis . We remember how the worst years of fighting in the lebanese civil war were stabilize by the Arab Deterrent force, largely syrian. It did not reduce the level of violence. Do you think there is anything in that kind of extra a rocky intervention Iraqi Intervention to be useful for you . About asking a kurd whether that is part of an arab nation. I am a kurd myself. We are a member of the arab league. Shied away officials from the part of iraq. Memberse been diehard of the arab league. Our foreign minister has tremendous issues with our arab government. He has always push for iraq to be more engaged in the arab league. [indiscernible] how effective, that is a good question. We have felt that arab league has played a positive role in democracy of iraq. But individual countries have been picky as to when they want to deal with support in the democracy of iraq. That is an issue. The arab has to address. People have said why the position in libya was different then the position elsewhere, and that is a good question. We are seeking support. We have said you need to stand with the democracy and the integrity of iraq mutationhe new isil will not be confined to the borders of iraq. No one is immune from it. Let me add one small point. What you have and iraq is not 10 years american engagement and iraq. It may prolong for a while. What you have is a threat to the whole region. It needs to be looked at objectively so that people are not about the vision. Is not a pure internal issue. We are reviewing that. Regional and more geopolitical implications, primarily with the situation next to the mediterranean and next to europe. Thats what needs to be looked at. I want to say it is hard to imagine right now a Regional Response to was happening in iraq because of the fragmentation we see in the region. 2011the arab uprising in you saw the previous architecture in the middle east collapse. At the center was the United States. Connected to it were some strong mubarakies, people like who are no longer there because of the revolution that gripped the region. That a have seen is vacuum has been created into which there is no one else who can step into the vacuum. I think there is no Regional Power that has proven capable of stepping into that vacuum. I do think it is going to need to be the United States to fill that vacuum. I do not think there is a purely regional substitute for that. I think this is an example in iraq. The United States needs a new sick. He a new strategy. Our new role may not be the same role that it has to be the essential role. We have allies who can contribute if we provide that leadership. A longterm objective needs to be more regional integration, not just on the Security Side but on the economic side. Compare the activity in the police to what it is in asia. You have a tremendous amount of activity in asia which is utterly lacking in the middle east. You think about the new strategy in the middle east. They need to be other integration elements built around it. Today, the arab league whether we like it or not, is saudi arabia. It used to be egypt and saudi arabia, but egypt is out of the picture. The circumstances under which the force would materialize would happen under the framework of something that you mentioned in one of your columns, david. Will i ever witnessed the summit at that time . I think of the leadership in reality is just not ready for that. It is unfortunate, but in my opinion the one thing that will barack k say save iraq is an understanding of the compromise between the saudis and the iranians. I am not saying that they should reconcile or that i am naive to the depths of the differences between the countries, but a pragmatic, realistic management of the relationship, the sterilization of the relationship, making sure that certain red lines are not crossed, that happened throughout the cold war. This is exactly what they need today to extinguish many of the fires that are happening across the region. Unfortunately, something much worse needs to happen for them to realize that this is the time to talk more seriously. If this gets much worse and spills over . Is there any sense in terms of the regional approach of the gcc, perhaps led by the United States playing some role if this gets worse . I am always very cautious to talk about them as a whole. You have known that for some time i have been arguing the differences within that group have been differences have been significant as well as well. There are some people who want nothing to do with the gcc in that group. Therefore any cohesive or collective response coming from them, for me, is kind of a myth. It will be individual approaches from certain countries and, given the relative weight of saudi arabia, saudi arabia will be speaking the loudest and have the most influence over what that part of the world will do, whether in a rack or other places. So, gcc as a whole is kind of a tough analytical concept for me to understand, frankly. I am sorry that we are out of time. I wish i could go on quite a bit longer. I know that i had at least a dozen more questions. Please join me in thanking our fantastic panelists today. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2014] and some of the latest in the situation in gaza from the associated rest after israel was tody to his hand ready extend the current ceasefire, hamas rejected the extension toppedhe death toll 1000. Israel and hamas have been fighting for 19 days, and this ceasefire was the longest break in the bombing for both sides. More than 160,000 palestinians are being sheltered at unita nations schools. Israel has lost 40 soldiers and two civilians in the fighting. Well keep you updated on the situation as it changes. In north africa, the u. S. Temporarily closing its embassy in libya after violence by militia groups. Embassy staff has been driven across the border under heavy military guard. The fighting between rival groups as some of the worst since the fall of Moammar Gadhafi three years ago, and most International Flights had been canceled in and out of tripoli, and the United Nations has also pulled diplomatic staff. The chairman of the House Armed Services committee released a statement today. It reads will hear directly from secretary of state john kerry about the issues hes been dealing with in the middle east. He will be at the center for american progress. You can watch his comments live at 1 30 eastern time. The middle east policy council held a discussion about the recent fighting between israel and the palestinians. A former Defense Department official says u. S. Foreignpolicy in the region is at a deadend. The discussion is about two and a half hours. Is is about 2. 5 hours. President obama did say that the united dates would use force unilaterally if our core interests were threatened, but he emphasized a counterterrorism strategy which would rely upon supporting and training and working with Security Partners and announced a 5 billion program to support Security Partners in the middle east. Having identified terrorism as the most direct threat to the United States. , having identified terrorism as the most direct threat to the ides states. United states. Isis movester that, down the tigris river and the Iraqi Security forces retreated. Of how muchuestion we can depend upon a strategy like that in iraq or afghanistan, where we will be leaving soon. He said that syria would be a major focus of the strategy and we have had a difficult time finding Security Partners there because it is a fragmented opposition. It is hard to find moderates. Our panelists will discuss that today. Another point that he emphasized in the speech was the commitment to uphold an International Order through support for interNational Institutions and international law. He spoke about the multilateral sanctions against iran and the diplomacy with iran in that context. We know that the negotiations with iran were scheduled to conclude yesterday. They did not. They were extended for four months. Everybody feels that some progress was made. Enough was made to go forward and continue trying