Transcripts For CSPAN Middle East Policy 20140726

We will discuss that today. What terms should be in the final agreement . What would United States have to consider doing if we do not get a solution we consider excess factory satisfactory . He talkedck that when about International Order and international institutions, he did not mention the israelipalestinian issue. His support for john kerrys peacemaking instead, we have a third escalation of the conflict in the last five years. We know how they go and we know how the and. They produce casualties. That is a situation we will try exploretoday today. The panelists are ready to do this. I will introduce them briefly. They will speak in which the order they are listed. I asked each of them to come to the podium because we have Television Cameras here. Speaking to the microphone. I hope i have been doing that. Way, each of these speakers has a biography that would take all day to read. You will find them on the back of your invitation. I am only going to give you the highlights. Our first speaker is a senior for middlehe Center Eastern policy at the brookings institution. Before that, he was the director of the center. And, he also has been at the council of foreign relations. He had a career as an analyst at the cia and is a very wellknown author. He has a recent book out. It is about the Iranian Nuclear program. Paul, and speaker is nonresident senior fellow at the center for Security Studies at georgetown. A nonresident senior fellow at the center for 21st century security at the brookings institution. A contributing editor to the national interest. I recommend that you look up his articles there. And, if former cia analyst. A former cia analyst. The third speaker is the director of middle Eastern Studies at the Marine Corps University and a senior fellow at the program of the middle east research institute. Our for speaker is the chairman of projects international. The former assistant secretary of defense for the National Security affairs. A former United States ambassador to saudi arabia. President of the middle east policy council. With that, i conclude and turn the mic over to kenneth. [applause] good afternoon. Thank you for inviting me up here today. When the Obama Administration took office, i had the occasion of talking with different members of the administration on their policy. The interaction has gone on ever since. What i consistently heard from the resident and his the was thets Team Proposition that the United States had overinvested in the middle east. That was their perspective on u. S. Policy through the region. The u. S. Had needlessly squandered resources time, energy on the region. When i press them on this, i heard back a threepoint argument. Middle easts that experts and many other people beyond that had greatly exaggerated the importance of the middle east and have graphically greatly exaggerated the capacity for things to go wrong. We do not needt to be there as much as we analysts believe. They go beyond that and argue that the United States is a major source of the problems. Not only could the u. S. Afford it would be better for the region if we have less to do with them. Thatwould go on to argue it was not that important. Even if at things happened there, it would not affect american interests. For all of these reasons, they felt it was possible and for the United States to pay less attention and devote fewer resources to the middle east. Instead, benefit to other things, asia and the american economy. Waspresident believed that what the American People had elected him to deal with first and foremost. At the time, i questioned many of these assumptions. We can see the underlying the obama of administrations approach to the middle east in this a sick philosophy and sentiment in this basic philosophy and sentiment towards the region. Run intocy has significant problems. Certainly, the first set of assumptions, that the middle east can go to hell and the ted states was necessary that has been proven demonstrably false. The reason the region has gone to hell. I say this as someone who is not fond of george w. Bushs approach to the middle east. 2014, ithought that, in would be looking at a middle east that could be worse than the middle east of 2006. And yet, that is what i see. Iraq in syria arent civil war. Olivia is in olivia is in civil libya is an civil war. Lebanon is experiencing problems. The arab spring is dead. Egypt has returned to a dictatorship temporarily. Any number of problems across the region. It is a deeply troubled region. Not to mention, the point that was made about having yet another is reallypalestinian more. Lestinian war. Why dont think that everything the Obama Administration has argued is wrong, i think that the United States has made mistakes. The george w. Bush administration has more than its fair share of those mistakes. MadeUnited States has it mistakes. The weight of the evidence is that the United States has helped the problems in the region more than we have h urt them. Especially when you consider the handling of iraq and other issues. The Obama Administration recognizes this and how they have been handling the middle east. We have seen a significant change in the Obama Administration approach to the middle east with the selection of john kerry as the secretary of state, our foreign minister. His decision to pursue a new Peace Process between arabs and israelis. That effort seems to have failed aptly. Badly. He was willing to do so and me administration had wanted nothing to do with it. It is the first indication that the administration was beginning to question some of those assumptions and was recognizing that the region is not heading in a good direction. Even threatening the last and premise, that the problems in the middle east are not problematic for the United States. We have seen other course corrections. Allot 500n to million for unknown purposes represents a dramatic departure on syria. The recent efforts since the l to become more andve in iraqi politics tried to pull it out of the civil war that it is to sending into. Into. Escending those of the right decisions. I wish they had come earlier. I talked about the fact that i had a strong sense that the fared states had swung too towards unilateralism and the militarization of middle east policy. Terrorism overwhelm Everything Else in the region. The Obama Administration had pushed the pendulum too far in the other way, fords disengaging and walking away from the region. They believe that whatever happened there would not hurt us. The administration is recognizing that that early position has become unsustainable. They are tacking back in the other direction. What i take away from that is that we need to do better. We do. A number of those cases, while i dislike the way the Obama Administration handle them, in some cases, i am largely in agreement. The iraq policy was an unmitigated disaster and caused the civil war in iraq. Osul, theyfall of m have been following the right policy. Aq represents what we have to think about moving forward and what the Obama Administration failed to recognize in the first 45 years. East, the old aphorism that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure is the best model for the United States to take. There are any number of occasions when the United States could have had an impact on iraq that would have allowed them to avoid the current impasse with much less commitment of resources, time, energy, and effort. Areay have to sink in if we going to help them pull out of a civil war. We miss opportunities was syria and libya. Missed opportunities in egypt after the fall of mubarak. Had we made a greater effort with the government, we might have helped morsi avoid some of his worst mistakes and headed o thate military coup overthrew him and replaced him with a dictatorship. Around the region, we can find instances of this. Embracing back to the central focus that the middle east needs help in the United States. The more that we are engaged on a regular basis and in the regular processes of diplomacy, public diplomacy, military willtance, the better we be able to head off the grid problems of the region to prevent the crises we are facing in the region. The more influence and leverage we will have when the inevitable crisis does break out. Want toforward, i comment on a few things. I am glad to focus on whatever things you are interested in postop i want to say a few things about a couple of the issues out there. The first is the arab spring. The arab spring is not what any would behad hoped it or what most arabs had hoped it would be. That. Are good reasons for there are a lot of reasons for that. The desire for change on the part of a great many arabs has not gone away. It is frightened by fear of what happened in syria, yemen, libya, and elsewhere. Protests have not gone away. The chances are that they will reappear and resurface at some point in the not so distant future. We need to be thinking about what form they will take and how negativeead off the manifestations of that pressure. Goes back to the idea that i and a number of others were advocating for, the idea of reform instead of revolution. I would suggest that we take a look at the ambassadors stamping grounds in saudi arabia. Experience, the saudi system negotiated the arab spring without the same unrest that we saw in other countries. I rumor speaking to saudis and saudis and saying, we dont need to do what the egyptians did because we have of h and and not abdullar not mubarak. The useful role that we can play is helping the governments of the region that have not fallen into civil war and help them begin programs of reform that let off the pressure and diffuse the anger that led to the movements of 2011. The last point was iran. I am hopeful that we will get a deal. That would be the best outcome iranians, and our allies in the region. With theto be tempered realities that we face. It is going to be difficult. We need to start thinking about what we will do if we do not get a deal and if we do get a deal. They are equally important. I am struck how many people around town are focused on what is next. There will be an important debate to be had. Many do not get that deal, will take it as a sign that the irradiance are determined to get ians are determined to get Nuclear Weapons. They may be right. From my perspective, war is not a good option will stop war good option. War could be the worst option. Thee do not what in place policy mechanisms and pathways that we might follow when that time comes upon us, i fear that we will have no other good alternatives and will find ourselves push into and other middle east war that we do not need. I do not think obama got it right. Towards dish far engagement. That does not mean that war with iran is the right way to center it. Thank you. I should have said that there are cars on your seats. Cards on your seats. My staff will collect them. Please. Paul, thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. E title of this event is, obamas foreignpolicy vision and the future of the middle east. The vision thing, as the elder george bush referred to it, is overrated. Us like to deal with this as a way to encapsulate and get our conceptual hands around policy. Usthing that would satisfy would, by definition, be too simple and simplistic to be the basis for sound and successful u. S. Foreignpolicy. The challenges out there are two complex and the interests at multifaceted to boil things down to a single vision and a Bumper Sticker kind of way. U. S. Foreignpolicy in the hoc. E east is more ad as focused on voiding losses than scoring gains. Foreignpolicy strategy does not tend to get high marks for not doing certain things. As opposed to doing certain things with a positive vision. I would suggest that not doing certain things or not screwing inis as least as important protecting u. S. Interests in that region. Model, and outs of prevention. Of prevention. Oath,est the hippocratic first, do no harm. Self, self ask your what particular things, where the u. S. Had control, has had the biggest impact . Distractions from interest. Legacy problems we are dealing with today. I would put squarely on the top of the list on the negative side , the launch of the iraq war in 2003. Not doing certain things and not doing harm is an important part of judging a form policy, even though it is not get high marks from the vision people. Mr. Obamas speech did not get high marks and probably did not deserve it. Criteria the one staff that the president took was a bad one. He equated realism with isolationism will stop it was wrong will stop the rest was consistent with what i would consider a realistic view. With isolationism. It was wrong. The rest was consistent with what i would consider a realistic view. He talked about distinguishing our core interest from other interest. He made the point that that distinction is important in weighing what measures and means we should use to pursue those interests. Thelso made very clear point that not every problem has a military solution. I think that this particular point is where we see the mr. Pest distance between obama and his vocal critics in washington. Probablythat mr. Obama privately regrets the mess in role of military force there. I may be wrong. That is just a guess. Thepresident acknowledged many tradeoffs between different u. S. Objectives, even when dealing with a middle east country. As good anpt, example as any. We have interests in democratization and human rights. He also said that we have Strategic Military interests. On. An go on and he did not mention the egyptian role in the current tragedy that we are reading about over the last week. He is correct that there are conflicting objectives and it cannot be boiled down to a vision. He made a good case for collective action, the need to rely on what other countries and not just the u. S. Do in this region, even when pursuing u. S. Interests. This is a major difference between him and some of his chief critics. They believe that if there is a problem out there, the u. S. Can and should be the one to solve it. The president did not explicitly address but i think we should determiningria for who operation or lack of corporation with states in the region. We have a tendency to divide the allies and adversaries. A rigid division. We take that as the sole guide for determining who we are going to walk rate with and who we are going to oppose. The label gets slapped on some if that is a substitute for careful thinking about what the government is doing that we may conflict with. We look at those who are traditionally labeled as adversaries and consider any influence that they may have as bad without taking the trouble to ask ourselves how they will use the influence and to what purpose. That may or may not be consistent with or in c onflict with our interest. There are conflicting and diversion interests around the region. There are others that are labeled adversaries. The most effective form policy, i would suggest, is a flexible one that is not change to a set of fixed relationships. It leaves our policymakers and diplomats to do business where ever it serves interests. Mr. Obama, in his west point speech, voice conventional that seem innocuous enough. Some may trap him into acting against his own principles or pressure on him to act in ways that are contrary to his own principles. Asidentified terrorism contrary to u. S. Interests. The counterterrorists initiative that he announced is a worthwhile recognition of the principle that i knowledge earlier. Bet other countries do can at least as effective as what we advancing ourn interests. Speaking as an old hand, i can tell you that on the issue of terrorism, the u. S. Must rely on the actions of others closer to the front lines as on any other issue. The enshrinement of terrorism as the prime threat with a natural focus on the ogre of the day, isis, increase pressure to act aq with those who believe that every problem has a military solution. We see some of the same things with syria. There, the ogre is on the same side as those we would be assisting. Obamarorism, mr. Mentioned a very sound set of criteria to determine when to pull the trigger on a drone strike. It still comes down to the individual decisions. There probably is, i would guess, with this administration as much as the last one, you can count the number of strikes we have had, a bias to pulling the aigger more often than careful consideration of criteria that would dictate because of pressures to do something about terrorism. A few closing thoughts. The approach to u. S. Policy in s region the longterm vision, we may miss t like straightlining. Two particulary things that would be most likely change fundamentally what we are looking at in the middle east and change it for the better. One is unlikely. The political courage in washington will not be mustered. The first one is the curse to do something about the israelipalestinian conflict and get the story off of the tragic course. The tragedy has been emphasized by the events in the last week more than anything i can say. That requires a conscience and political courage. Likely. R thing is more it is one that 10 finish his thoughts on, completing the nuclear deal with iran. Besides being the best way to preclude any Iranian Nuclear weapon, it would open the door to a more normal relationship with iran and unshackle an important aspect of u. S. Diplomacy in the middle east. It would enable us to do business with anyone labeled as an avid syria or ally when it serves our interests. The fact is, they are Major Players in places of high concern to us, even when we wish they were not. There are other places where they are a major player and their interests are parallel to ours. Iraq anding of afghanistan as areas where neither we nor the Islamic Republic have an interest in endless conflict and instability on their borders. Finally, the world in which we had more normal relations with edging closer to it would bring us closer to a system where we had more flexibility and leverage in dealing with anyone else in the region who was troublesome. Thank you very much. [applause] doctor . Thank you very much. Veat. T to put a copa for the United States government. I will be speaking with my fbi had on and not my marine corps hat on. I agree with some of the main points. Was one ofn of iraq the greatest strategic mistakes in our countrys history and i still maintain that. Maybe i am an idealist. Maybe i go to the middle east too often. I will be there in three days. I understand the fact that we should look at ad hoc avoiding ithe rocks. You pick an area in this world and that includes subsaharan place thatre is no has a place that the middle east has. This is not new. You talk about the psyche of the arabs. Is it a muslim problem . Students of middle east studies study it last century, literally. Unless we address those in some form or fashion, we go from crisis to crisis and it becomes a Crisis Management rather than trying to find a way as a reliable partner. Not that the United States can fix everything. I am a former marine. We think that we can fix everything. We cannot. E are a partner we have interest there for the poor sealable future, foreseeable future, despite fracking and all that. A little bit of consistency is important. You talk to colleagues in the get,n and the world that i putting a policy for to confuse them, we are doing a for tacit fantastic job. Friend and foe are confused. Where the leadership of our is no longer unilateral. The United States was a sole power after the cold war will stop there are rising powers. In that environment, if you do not have a reliable partner as the strongest power in the world , you have a state where i think the middle east will have to havingocks rather than smooth sailing and protect ability. Predictability. If you talk about the foreign you may sayama that i am very ideological i and at inconsistencies making the situation worse with the promotion of democracy. This is not new. You look at the numbers. 2009, thecal year United States put more money on democracy then the entire decade of 19912001. Look at the outcome. Look of the input and the outcome. Put this in a mathematical format and you would say that this is an amazing loss. The other aspect is, are we looking for partners beyond these ad hoc friends and foes . Iran is both. Are we looking for something that is more stable . Is it possible . Yes. Look at latin america and what is happening. They are not all friendly. In a process that is much better to deal with them we have in the middle east. Im not saying that democracy is a panacea of all this. Inconsistencies that we have had with democracy going back to cairo in 2009 and the speech in what has happened abterwards, the air uprisings, with the exception of tunisia, things have gotten worse. You look at the the New York Times had an editorial that said egypt, exhibit a. Morsi athe ouster of restoration of democracy. If we are looking at the basic ideas of this new generation coming in in afghanistan or in morocco where are they going to look at . And thealmost cold war we always stated that we had supported regimes because of security or against communism. After 9 11, and terrorism. Against terrorism. We have negated these allies. We have to have a balance of hoc, and have a vision. You have to have a balance. I agree. It has to be a balance policy. You look at the past few years and that was a missing issue. You sit down and talk to the military side or the civilian side. I am not even talking about the grassroots. There are a lot of regions there. I have gotten used to that. There are fundamental issues that they look at and they look at where you stand on this issue. Remove every single president after a year in office and called him a terrorist, the world would be without leaders. Im not saying he was a good president. The events that went down there was in the face of a democratic movement. I will use the remaining time, if i could, onto countries. Afghanistan. I agree that the agreement with iran, and im speaking of my own behalf, is a wonderful thing. Agreement where they stop trying to preach your Nuclear Weapons. E Nuclear Weapons is a great thing. It is wonderful. Nobody is against that. The question i want to ask is something we forget. Ranians were pursuing nuclear potential. If anybody thinks they were not, i would argue against that. They were. They were telling us that they were. They werere not, doing a great job of tony outside world that they were trying to get a weapon system. They were mortgaging their country and coming close to having themselves be targeted by us or a regional state. At the same time, they went through all of this. Why . Iranians did and still do even after the speech in september where obama said that the United States is not interested in regime change by and large, and clean the including the ayatollah, believe that the number one objective is regime change and not behavior change. I become worried. They believe, fundamentally, that having or pursuing weapons of mass destructions and Nuclear Weapons, specifically, will alter american activity towards you. , one of the four countries that the United States state department recognizes as state sponsors of terrorism. Read the state Department Human rights report on them. They sit down with the six top leaders of the world, for top topcracies, four democracies. Why are they there . Because theyre nice . No. They cheated. They get to keep their regime that kills more people today than began shouted. Ahmadinejad did. Why they weres delaying it. Ouhani . Mr. R he is a regime savior. Discuss that and the q a. There for one reason. The regime was hurting. There was a structural problem. The ahmadinejad. It was easy to dislike him. The aspect is im not saying iran is going to invade anybody. I do not think they are going to invade anybody. I was just in israel and told that to my israeli friends in public. This is what somebody said before. In november this year, we had an agreement. Then what . Why questionis, mark why . Mad. Dy who does it is if a country is building weapons that are only usable for the delivery of a specific type of warhead, why have them . We have to balance this. The second thing is that people with nucleariran weapons creates a domino effect. If they get an amazing deal, that will push a lot of countries in the region. They will attempt there after because of the policy towards them. Always points towards libya. He says, look, you for. A gave you something. You gave them everything. They killed you like a dog. I will add a line of syria. I believe the typical weapons he gave him the lifeline. In the way he may have saved their easy the regime by using chemical weapons. If we dont take leadership, i do not believe them iran being attacked. Because of inexpedient agreement that could the nice for what ever, because of that, we have to make sure we have n agreement. Solid and that does not portray us as somebody who takes whatever comes in because it is expedient. I have onetan, sentence. It is the longest war we have ever fought in our history. 80 countries have tried to democratize this country. There was an election in april that was applauded and we thought things were going and little bit further in a good way. The elections were pretty open fingers were cut. Won the votes and we went back to square one. A fraudulentme was election. Secretary kerry did a miracle to have it. Agreed on the mechanics of how to count the votes. There was an agreement. There was an expedients issue. The details are missing. For the last 10 years or so, we have built potemkin villages. They look good and have no foundation. They look good for picture taking. If youre not careful, sometimes these walls fall on intended people and on things that are bigger. Thank you very much. [applause] i think those were interesting and stimulating. The United States set out to reconfigure the middle east and our position in its is in shambles. Much of what has happened seems irreversible. Might be done but probably wont be. To begin, if were at all honest, we must admit it is a deplorable state of affairs in the middle east, egypt, iraq, israel, jordan, lebanon, serbian , syria, the gulf and arabian peninsula, afghanistan. It is a product not only of the dynamic turnovers region but also of the lapse of in our capacity to think and act strategicically. We have answered the end of the bi polar cold war order with a mixture of denial, strategic incoherence and inconsistency. False american asumps and objectives have helped create the current mess in the middle east. It is not news to anybody that american politics is uncivil and dysfunctional. We have a Foreign Policy elite that has its head up its media bubble. Prefers narratives to evidencebased analysis. Confuses sanctions and military postureing with diplomacy. And imagines that the best way to deal with hateful foreigners is to use airborn robots to kill them, their friends and their families. We have leaders who cant lead and a legislature that cant legislate. In short, we have a government that cant make relevant decisions, fund their implement akseation and lift allies to support them or see them through. Until we get our act together at home, these looking for American Leadership abroad will be disappointed. At west point, president obama accurately pointed out that our military has no fear. He then added that u. S. Military action cannot be the only or primary come meant to our leadership in every instance. Just because we have the best hammer does not mean that every problem is a nail. True enough. Has justified the use of force. Our hammer blows in the middle east were intended to showcase our power. Instead, they convincingly demonstrated its limitations. These interventions worsened, not improved the regions stability, politics and prospects. Our unmatched military prowess has not enabled us to impose our will in west as i yarks eastern africa. Solving political problems in all of these regions has been no better the question then is what alternatives do to the military hammer and related instruments does the u. S. Presidency now have . Normally the answer would be the political screwdriver of diplomacy. For other mean s of influence like subseconddegreies. There is a reason that the depts of state is the smallest and department of state and s the smallest and weakest department of our government. The United States seldom resorts to diplomacy in resolving major differences with other states. Gladiators trump diplomats any time in terms of the spectacle they provide. Even if they dont work, coercive measures like sanctions and bomb arrange much more immediately satisfying emotional than the long slog of diplomacy. Then too, we are broke. Our military commanders have Walking Around money. Our diplomats do not. And the amateurism innernt the spoil system further reduces the effectiveness of our diplomacy. Jet propelled seast pants drop bies with foreign leaders by secretaries of state have proven to be no substitute for strategy or the cultivation of influence with those leaders. It is hard to think of any american project in the middle east that is not at a dead end. This included our policies toward israel and palestine, democracy promotion, egypt, islamist terrorism, stability in caressnt iran and the gulf. Let me quickly run through that list. In april, our fourdecade long attempt to broker a secure jewish state in the middle east puttered to a disgraceful end. The final phase turnover peace rocess, instead of of mediating, the United States negotiated with israel, not with the palestinians about selfdetermination. The u. S. Efforts brothering for peace for israel is not just dead, but so putrid, it is not sufficient to show at a wake. Israel did not believe in it so it killed it, may it rest in peace. Israel used the process as a distraction while it created on the ground in the form of illegal settlements. Related policies have made israels peaceful coexistence with the palestinians and arab neighbors impossible. The United States created the moral hazard that enabled izz trial put itself in this ultimately untenable position. 40 years aimed at achieving regional and International Acceptance for israel produced the very opposite. Increasing International Isolation and a program for the jewish state. We will now cover israels back as the saying goes as the United Nations has its ongoing maltreatment and intermittant muggings of its captive arab population complete its international ostracism. Well pay a heavy political price for this. Globally in the middle east. Nd very likely in escalating terrorism abroad and at home. It may inspire a sense of honor but it more closely resembles assisted suicide than a strategy for survival of israel and our information to the middle east. Americans like to have a moral foundation for Foreign Policy. For all of our policies. In the middle east and not just with respect to israel. The geology has proven too complex to allow such a foundation. To our professed desire promote democracy. In practice, the United States has made a real effort of temperaturetizing countries it democktizing countrys it has invaded or those that it espises like iran. When democratic elections yield governments to which our allies object, as in algeria, palestine and egypt, washington contrives their overthrow and replacement by congenial despots. If democracy the message, democracy is not now its prophet. It has appeased israel and our friends in the arab gulf but greatly tarnished our claims to seriousness about our values. It has produced no democracies, but it has pulled down several before they had a chance to take root. Egypt is a days in point. After raising hope s of a democratic era of awakening and electing an incomp at the present time islamist government, egypt is now an economically sinking military dictatorship distinguished from iran theistheis only tyrannies. There is not much we can do bout this. Americas arab Gulf Partners are committed to military dictatorship and suppression of islamism in egypt. It is hard to think of a place where there is a starker continue addition between american ideals, commitments to client states and interests in precluding the spread of terrorism than in contemporary egypt. It is attempting to conclude if were going to be hardheaded realist, we should just skip the offputting hypocrisy about democracy and human rights and get on with it. That seems to be what we intend. How else is one to interpret the president s professional for multiple partnerships with the regions Security Forces to suppress islamist terrorism. Odays egypt is the Regional Cooperation in such repression. We have another model in mind . It is not apparent. Leaving in outlet for peaceful descent, israel is encouraging part of its majority toward violent politics. It is true, of course that, egypt is not the only incubator for such enemies of america. Americans went abroad in search of monsters to destroy. We sfound them and bred more. Some have already followed us home. Others are no doubt on their way. Thats why we have an expanding garrison state in this country. Our counterterrorism programs meanwhile are everywhere nurturing a passion for revenge against United States. We gave a big boost to the spread of islamist terrorism hen we envaded iraq. Our stated purpose was to deny weapons of mass destruction that idnt exist to prorses terrorists who were not there. We then thoukt we might as well onduct the hitandrun democratization. Not only did that not work, it set off a religious war that ultimately gave birth to the jihaddist if an that straddles the border. What we did in iraq as a result of breaking it into three pieces, now in practice, we seem to be working on the rest of the event. Israel is gnawing away at what remain s of palestine. The Transnational Coalition of jihaddists is vive secting syria and iraq. With our help, syria is burning, charring lepp lebanon and scorching jordan as it does. The kurds are making their escape from the existing state structures. The Syrian Government loathes it. We fear, or hope if it is defeated, it could be replaced by more frightful people. Bombing cant prevent this. We propose to arm the force of mythical syrian moderates. We expect this latest coalition of the billing to fight the Syrian Government and its pponents by of while note play refraining from making common cause with the latter. Sounds like a plan for passifying capitol hill if not syria. If our object sieve to keep syria in flames, it is a plausible plan. Perhaps that is what we really want. It is a grain on iran which we have identified as our main enemy in the region. Destabilizing syria arguably teased the pressure on iran. Irans sleersd said they dont want because it would be sinful. Our frequent threats to bomb iran seem to be a clever test of its leaders moral integrity. If we give them every reason we can think of for them to build a nuclear deterrent, will they still not do it . Judging from fridays news, this experiment will go on for at least another four months. This brings me to a key point in policy difficulty. We have repeatedly told people in the middle east that they must either be with us or against us. They remain annoyingly unreliable in this record. Irans ayatollahs are against us in syria, lebanon and bahrain but with us in afghanistan and iraq. He assad regime in hezbollah oppose us in syria and lebanon but are on our side in iraq. The jihadis are with us in syria but against us in iraq and elsewhere. Israels government is with us on iran but against us in blocking palestinian selfdetermination and favoring it for the occurreds. Kurds. Saudi arabia is against us in iraq. They were for us in egypt. It is against jihaddistan in the fertile caressnt but nobody can figure out where it stands elsewhere. How can you have a coherent policy in the middle east when the people there o so inconsistent . I think it is is that outsiders cant manage the middle east and shouldnt try. It is time to let the countries in the region accept responsibility for what they do rather than act in such a way as to free them to behave irresponsibly. It is time to recognize that the United States cant solve the israel palestine issue. Can no longer protect israel from the International Legal and political consequence s of its morally deviant behavior and has nothing to gain and a great deal to lose by continuing to be identified by that behavior and we pay for gaza. Israel make it own decisions without regard to american interests, values or advice. I think it would make better decisions if it were not shielded from their consequence or if it had to pay for them itself. America should cut the um bill cuss and let israel be israel. It is time the United States stop assigning to the rule of law of human rights in the middle east. We support their anythingation in egypt. Nd negation in egypt. Clearly u. S. Policy is almost entirely about interest. Not values. If if that is the case, lets not violate our laws by dishonestly claiming that is there have been in misuses of american weaponry by israel nooned coups in egypt. We should not have thrause equire us to be if the real interest in the United States and syria relate to iran and its conflict of interest with israel and saudi arabia as well as to our new cold war with russia, lets admit that and behave accordingly. This would mean acting the farcical of the geneva conflict on syria. That excluded key parties. Not a serious effort to bring peace. Only if we include all of the parties engaged in proxy wars in syria including can we hope to end the mass murder there. I would say the same thing is true of the situation in gaza. It cannot be included in all parties including talking to hamas. It is true in syria, not just for humanitarian reasons, compelling as those are, ending for both syria and iraq is the key. We should not be uping the ante in syria by pumping in more weapons, many which are likely to end up in jihadi hands. We should try to end fighting there and focusesing on eventing the merge ens of an expanding terrorist bastion that will serve as a homeland for the rowing number of enraged muslims. The jihaddistan calling itself the Islamic State is a menace to both iran and saudi arabia. As well as to us. Distasteful as they might find it to work with each other, iran and saudi arabia have a common interest to discover. The new state was born of political rivalry between jihad and tehran and it can bonl contain tpwhared cooperation. Depending on how u. S. iran relations develop, america might be able to help them do this. But if the United States and iran remain enemies, the obvious alternative for the United States would be to accept the inevitability of an expanded dominated state that will replace much of the current political geography of the region, to work with saudi arabia, to tame extremist tend sis within such a state and to yoke it to balance iran. Any and all of these approaches would demand a level of diplomatic sophistication, imagination and skill that the United States has not displayed in recent years. The more likely outcome of our current blend of baffled hesitancy, diplomatic innocent tude and militarism is ineptitude and militarism. A political exflotion egypt, if disintegration of iraq, jordan, lebanon and syria along with palestine and the diversion of a considerable part of the resource s of these countries to terrorism in the region and against american homeland. We can and should do better than this. [applause] i would like to thank speakers and ask if there are any questions . I would like to start with a couple of questions. Remarkably in the stack of thereons ive been given, is no question about iraq. So maybe we could start there. You spoke about missed opportunities. What do you think we could have done if anything in iraq to get a better outcome than the one we have now . For example, do you think a greater effort would have left americans there to strain iraqi Security Forces and paul, maybe you can comment. I hope we get a cross talk here among all the panelists. Everyone can respond to these questions, but paul, you questioned the labels we put on people when we call people partners or call people foes. Is the Nouri Almaliki regime really a reliable partner for the United States . Im going answer your question in a way you hasnt intended. I think the mistakes that we ade are too many to mention. I have been turned off by the blame game thats currently going on in washington. I think the Obama Administrations iraq policy ask dreadful and i think the bush administrations policy was dreadful. Both of them contributed to the current state of affairs in significant ways. Each time i find a mistake that obama made there is an antiseed theant bush made and every time there was a good move that one made you can trace it to the move the other made. Unfortunately the latter are far fewer than the former. There are great lessons in iraq. Where i would like to see us focusing more energy on the questions what lessons we should be learning opposed to who was mistaken and who should be blamed for the current impasse. I think one of the greatest lessons was that whenever we take on a problem, anywhere in the world, but certainly in the middle east, whenever we plan for the best, we get the worst. And when we plan for the worst, we often do better than that. Sometimes we even get the best. The 1991 gulf war comes to mind as an instance where you had a very conservative small sea of leadership. The plan for all contingencies did quite well. Obviously it was not a perfect well. There was Unfinished Business perfect war. There was Unfinished Business there as well. This is one of the issues that ive seen time and again with american approaches to the middle east, which is what ive consistently seen from american policy makers is a sense that the middle east is just too hard. It is a mess. We dont understand it. What can we do to just push it on to the back burner and mover to Something Else we understand and might be able to solve. Of course the middle east doesnt go away. It aint las vegas. Whapts there doesnt stay there. What happens there doesnt stay there. I would like to see us making more of an effort. Not necessarily across the board. I dont agree with paul or ambassador freeman. I think there are issues that it is best we keep our noses out of. Where the issues matter and where they affect our interests, i think one of the greatest mistakes we have made is to try to put a bandaid on things and walk away. The problems of the the Prime Minister is an excellent example of what i was talking about war. Making policy according to our customary division between good guys and bad guys. So how players are inconveniently do not fit into the two bins of being for us or against us. Us. Mr. Maliki is for himself and doing his best to try to have a third term as Prime Minister. Of course thats what most palestinians aim for, to stay into power. One might add if one had the larger interest of iraq at heart, he could as a very statesman like thing step down in favor of someone else. He has a very narrow view of what democracy, if you can still call it that, entails, which shia and the majority and the shiite rule and im the ruler to have shiites. There is no question that his very narrow view of how it ought to work has badly antagonized the great majority of the sunni iraqi arabs. It is not just isis that has been able to score those gains in the west. It has been because turnover much broader disillusionment with the regime. In all of those senses he is not a very good partner at all, which isnt to say we should continue the business with him. He sf he continues as Prime Minister, we will have to do business with him. What we have to keep foremost in mind is that the United States does not have an interest in taking sides or being seen to take sides in sectarian disputes and conflicts in this region. I think even if those disputes werent sectarian, that would be a case. There is a convenient narrative now in washington if maliki could be disposed u of, things would get better in iraq. We have heard that before in south vietnam. What we have learned from our own malpractice in that area, to use to go back to the hippocratic oath, which is not a bad bit of advice. Perhaps as lincoln said changing horses in midstream is not wise. It is more likely to cause more problems than it is to solve. That is not the solution for iraq if indeed there is a solution for iraq, if indeed there is an iraq because it turns out that in our eagerness for regime change, we manage regime removal but no change. It turns out that in trying to change the regime, we destroyed the state in iraq. And it seems at the moment, as i said that the kurds are busy making their way for the exit. Secretary kerry i think correctly stood for the territorial integrity of iraq and advised against that. Prime minister netanyahu made it clear he thinks they ought to leave and would be happy to see iraq broken up and i think the kurds are going to do what they want to do and i dont think they are going to listen to us or the israelis or anybody else. We have a problem. We now have something that has many of the at butze of the state that is attributes of the state that is run by extremists. I think that is the main issue. It is also the case that the shia, not withstanding mr. Malikises a operations to lead them all, are divide and they may end up being two states among the shia rather than just one if iraq indeed goes the way it seems to be going, which is toward partition, and that, by the way, i will say is not an impossible outcome in afghanistan either, after our departure. So i think we need to be a bit cautious. Final observation, what we can learn from the gulf war and the iraq war, gulf war to liberate kuwait and the war to subgeographicate iraq is something very simple. We should not intervene without a war termination strategy. How are you going to end it . It is not enough to get up on air Aircraft Carrier and proclaim mission accomplished. Wars dont end until defeat is admitted. E proposed no terms to saddam. He therefore cheated and retreated. He had no commitment to it. We had nobody left in baghdad to surrender. After we took place. We need before we start intervening in places like syria nd libya and iraq, we should think whats the end game . How does it end . We should always be asking the question, and then what . And we dont ask that question. That gets us into trouble. Just very briefly, for us, iraq is a very open wound. There are a lot of marines and other Service Members who have me out and when they look at today h, the ways the andsee what they did to secure it. There is a lot of questions. That will catch up with us as a nation. Ill say sthrs a lot of talk there is a lot of talk about the state. Im trying to use my academic side. I dont know. Maybe somebody here, because of the state of n the middle east is changing fundamentally. When i say we, i dont mean the u. S. Alone. Europeans, the west, looks at everything the state as a holy grail, you should touch it but everything works within that state concept because our o ional system is based upon state as failure. That is shifting under our noses fundamentally. Im not saying because of the Islamic State or whatever they want to call it. That is a manifestation. Even within the states that we lot t, i can go on the a of them. These states. We still treat them as if they have the same attributes that we believe exist or that we normally work through. I think one way to look at this part of world is to try to sometimes our models if the Model Looks Like the model, lets not change reality. Lets change the model sometimes. I think that is an idea that it is a longterm again. It is not immediate. To think about the concept of state and it works and how it is actually shifting. The concept of state in some european states is diminishing. We have to at least academically try to start thinking about that. I think that would behoove us to be prepared when the state looks like things that we have no idea what they are. Then we call them failed states. They may not be failed. They may work very well. Not within the system we have in place, but they may work very well. Im just saying that things are going to shift. Thank you. Ok. Let me follow up with really in the same vein as the last question. If there is something that we could have done in syria to avert the situation as it exists now. Again, a missed opportunity is something you spoke about ken. Should we have insisted on a safe zone or a nofly zone and more importantly, what can we do now . In your Foreign Affairs article, you spoke about training moderate opposition to the asad regime. I believe chaz was saying he doesnt think that is a possibility. Can you elaborate on that and again, other comments please . Sure. Thank you, tom. First, ill start off by saying that for several years i was quite ambivalent about what we should be doing in syria because on the one hand, what was going on in syria is a tragedy. And i am one of these humanitarian interventionists. I believe that the United States International Community can intervene to save lives, we should. It pained me deeply to see what was going on in syria. By the same toning, the United States doesnt have any token, the United States doesnt have any interests in syria. This is going to be a very big problem. This is going to be a very big deal. And it is not clear that it is necessary for us to do so. It is not clear that it is worth doing so. The issue i was watching is the question spillover. Would the Syrian Civil War affect other parts of the middle east in the same way that it starts to affect our interests. I think we got our answer on june 10 where the spillover became so bad it helped to reignite civil war in iraq. Im not suggesting that the problems in iraq were caused by syria. Quite the contrary. Anyone who knows what ive been writing over the years, this problem is entirely internal to iraq. There is no game saying the simple fact that the group abandon iraq, moved to syria, jest it aed in syria and brought iraq to its current impasse. That leads me to conclude that yes, the time has come, the United States should be taking a more active role in syria. I actually have a piece in the new Foreign Affairs that lays out in much greater detail what ive been talking about there. What i have in mind in just a nutshell, but really will have to wait until the Foreign Affairs piece comes out because it is a long argument and it requires a lot of historical detail to explain it is in effect what we distant with the owites in the bosnia civil what brought us to dayton was the corrosion military that was able to defeat the serbs. This is the problem that we have in syria now. The jihaddists and the regime that have the greatest military capacity. They will continue to fight. We will not want to support either of them. So the question arises as we did in croatia to a certain extent and in iraq 20072009, and actually in vietnam from 19681972, could we build a conventional nonpartisan Syrian Military . One that is capable of defeating both the regime and the jihaddists . I think the evidence available is yes, we could. I think that the problems that everyone has identified are important problems, but they are also not irremedyable. In fact, we have dealt with them in the past and have done so effectively without boots on the ground. It would require advisors and more money than we are currently spending. More than 500 million is more than adequate to get this program well off the ground underway. Im not sure what they are doing with the 500 million. I know the pentagon has been pushing for it for quite sometime. It is something that would require greater commitment than what we have been doing so far. It is also the only option out there that actually offers a way of solving the problems in syria. Sbeast freeman spoke of a diplomatic solution. The only way get a diplomatic solution is the change the calculus on the battle field. Until that happens, nothing our diplomats do is going to make any difference. The question is do we want to support one of the two loathsome groups or build a new force that we could get behind and help bring it to an end . We have done that before. I think we can do it again in syria. While it is not a great option, it is the least bad. Yes. Realists would say we dont have National Interests in syria. When obama spoke about it he said our National Interests in syria is how it impacts syrias neighbors, our partners. Chaz, i dont think it is useful frankly to go over what could have been done when it wasnt done. It is a little bit like raking the benghazi murder of our ambassador. What are we going to learn from that . Absolutely nothing. I would say since the question has been raised, two things is we did that brought us to this path were first to say right at only must ssad not go but will go. It told the opposition the super power will make sure that this bad leader is deposed. Assad overreact himself looking at the arab uprisings and what happened to mube rack and unisia and what happened and yemen and iran and so on. He looked at this and panicked and he determined to nip the whole thing in the bud and he used force. That escalated the thing very quickly. Especially because there were people very happy to supply weapons to counter him. We made the mistake of believing had been se mubarak overthrown that assad would go. In terms of sectarian interests, ethnic interests, balances within the sunni community, secular versus religious, were and y more complicated assads winning. I would say the first thing is stop taking sides in syria. Try to lower the level of the fighting. Reduce the flow of arms. Talk to the iranians, the russians. Talk to the saudis. Ask ourselves to lower the level of the filing, not raise it. This is i guess the second principle in a way, which is dont add fuel to the fire. What we are proposing to do since there are no effective moderate forces in syria is scour the bars and brothels in the world, beat their teaspoons into swords and send them over the border for training to use reforged teaspoons. I dont think this is going to work. Operations of this kind are not worth the paper that the plan is written on. What are u. S. Interests . Israel. Israel is going to be vastly worst off as the jihadi area along its border than it has been with the atrocious dictatorship, a very cautious a ernment of assad turkey, nato member to whom we are commilted by treaty and whose interests have to be taken into account. I would say the main interest now, just as iraq has broken up, syria has broken up. The kurds have left. They are no longer under central control. Syria has broken into at least two other major parts, more than that, actually. And im not sure, just to go back to amins point that syria ever was a state in the western sense of the word and certainly the creations are all falling apart under the impact of what has happened. Perhaps what is required to reate a state is centralized patronage. If you are in baghdad and you e hanged out large es to kurds, to Pay Attention to you, if you leave them alone to make their separate negotiations with the turks, they dont. If you are in damascus and handing out largess, you the sole sort then people Pay Attention to you. We have the example of lebanon, which is a very weak state where the largess is not controlled by the government but by various factions, hebs being the main one. That seems to be the model that is emerging, which is one of statelets, states within states maybe within the region. In any event, i think we should be very, very cautious. 160,000 syrians have died. Does that count for nothing . Nobody has mentioned it. You know, this is there are 10 million syrians displaced. 5 million syrian kids who are not getting an education. There are 9yearold girls being sold into marriage because their parents cant save them any other way. Doesnt that count for something . I think it should, especially because dealing with it is key to dealing with what the main problem is, which is the growth of islamist extremism and its establishment of the territorial secure area in which a lot further action and the change in name in isis from iraq and syria to the Islamic State was an indication of a global ambition of the four objectives that group sets hitting us here is right up at the top. We should be concerned. I dont think that states going last. I think it will fall on its own weight and abuses. I think we should learn something from containment in that regard. George canon, 19461947 argued if we contain soviet union, it would eventually fall of its own defect. Isis, whatever it calls itself, will do the same. But i dont think we can imagine that the current state structures are goingings to to be there much longer. It is not secure. Not a secure assumption. The world right now, it matters when policy is affecting the crisis. Some of us doo feel it. That is not the most important point unfortunately. Its a reality but it doesnt go through. I would highlight turkey, but beyond that, i think something that we need to look at syria, there is a difference, just recently, last week, i think there was a conference with the mayors of dutch and belgian cities. There is a lot of people who carry the same pass ports that ofdo, some of them were born mixed european background, they are american but not as many as europeans. I know there is there is a lot of preventative measures but there is a new dimension we didnt have where they put most of them looked came from the region. Here you have a dimension that these europeans are very worried about thattheworry of syria coming back, whether or not this continues or not. If it continues, they go back and forth. If it doesnt continue, they actually come back, export, if you would, this ideology or at least the destructiveness thereof of the streets of whatever country they came. Glong the modern world keck be solated. We can be isolated. I dont know what russia is now. Look whats happening in ukraine. There is a collective approach. Turkey is very much affected. Other countries in the region or europe that may have to take up a bit more of the slack. That is where the leadership comes in. Just on a very security aspect of it how to collectively bring them beyond beyond the meeting, whatever, geneva, it happens, to have something doable. Not a dream. You cant dream solutions. I think we have to be a bit more realistic. Thank you. Im not a member of the humanitarian industrial complex. And i think this has to be approached very, very realistically. I think ken correctly said that what happens on the ground is the you might determinant ultimate determinant of almost everything. I think we have the ability to affect that but we dont have the political strategy for using the way we affect it. I think we need to concur with the neighbors and be prepared to act internationally. Not to defer to particular syrian factions. Two quick points. One relevant to the mythical nature of the moderate syria opposition. The fact is people in fighters move around. Ordinance they use moves around, often the alegion thans any one fighter has to any one group changes rapidly according to who is paying him, giving him food and so on. So the vetting aid sounds nice theory but in practice is impossible. The other point concerns the backward looking at where all of these things began. I would just remind us that this feared group now calling itself he Islamic State began in iraq as al qaeda in iraq and did not exist before we unleashed the forces that we did when we went in and started the war in 2003. The idea of moderate insurgency is a contradiction in terms. If they are moderates, they are not going to rebel. If they rebel, they are not oing to be moderate. Yesterday the negotiations with iran concluded without an agreement. And theyve been extended for another four months. It surprises me again that theres not a question here bout this. So i will ask, what kind of terms have been agreed upon so far, what kinds of terms are necessary over the next four months and what do we do if we succeed and what do we do if we fail . If we fail, ken, could you talk about deterrents and con cainment as options and containment as options and what will the role of the saudis be in the region under those circumstances . And if we succeed, how much opportunity is there for us to work with iran in various venues such as geneva over the syria question and how will other partners who have been our partners for a long time and who are concerned about our policies react to this new role that iran might have . Anyone . I think the extension has something to do with the fact that we have an election november 4. Perhaps im too cynical to bring that up. But we will have a changed circumstance presumably as a result of that election and either more or less flexibility. It has always been hard for me to imagine whatever agreement might be reached with iran surviving the israel lobby and the congress. So there is a connection whether we like it or not. That is the first observation. The second is that what seems to be at issue here is the quantity, the velocity of enrichment, not thester fuges so much. Centrifuges. What they do is the bone of contention with iran wanting to increase its enrichment activity to fuel the reactor that the russians are supposed to fuel. But which iran doesnt trust hem to fuel. Iran wanting it to be five years and maybe seven and wanting a much longer term. Ill just make one general observation. Tom, when you open the session, you refer to multilateral sanctions against iran. There are some u. N. Authorized sanctions. But almost all the sanctions are in fact unilaterally concerted between the United States and our european allies. They are enforced by swift,s which the clearinghouse for dollars that operates in i think belgium. And they reflect our sovereign control of the dollar. Of that control, particularly in the case of iran to disrupt the oil trade for india, china, korea, and other major consumers of iranian oil has been mighty annoying to those countries. And it has driven them to begin to consider ways of avoiding clearance through swift and new york. The new york banking system. Brazil, week, the russia, china, south africa, agreed on the establishment of a new Development Bank to parallel the world bank. A new currency reserve to parallel the i. M. F. Along with this, they are all agreeing on new currency clearance procedures which avoid the dollar. So i would draw two conclusions from this. One, i think were cooking our own goose by abusing our currency, treating it as a solely National Currency when it is the interNational Currency and that gives us a great deal of power in the world. We are dismantling that power. Second, we cannot assume that in the future five, 10 years from now, iran will not be able to circumvent any sanctions that is ugs and hat has arisen over c. I. A. Spying, n. S. A. Spying and the issue of ukraine. Unknowns here. With a lot of we need to be cautious. May inal observation, iran or may not have the Nuclear Weapons program. Our intelligence people say that it doesnt. Its clearly building the capability like japan has to go nuclear. I dont think that is stoppable. So the question is how to deal with it. If we try to stop it, well end up not stopping it and we will end up with a greater risks of Iranian Nuclear breakout than we would under an agreement that is monitoring internationally. I very much hope there will be an agreement but im not optimistic. Let me comment more directly on the negotiations themselves which he mentioned with regard to the november time frame and how Congress Works into that has been mentioned before the idea that the lame duck session after an election but before a possible republican majority in the senate might be the best time. There is no question that congsal opposition influenced by lobbies were all familiar with is probably the biggest problem that the Obama Administration faces even more so than the tough negotiating of the iranians in carrying this through to conclusion. Issueeless its a simpler dealing with a lot of technical issues. In the preliminary agreement that was reached last november, the prospect of needing an extension was built right into the agreement. Its not some big surprise. There has been a lot of progress made by all reports, although we dont get direct indications from the negotiators about specific terms which itself is a good sign. If we had more leaks that would be a bad sign. In terms of the overall shape of an agreement, i think we got an excellent idea with the preliminary agreement that was reached last november because that is an outline for the complete agreement where the key provisions are number one enhanced vigorous more frequent inspection and monitoring and under a final agreement it would be even more complete and enhanced. That in my view is probably the single biggest reason to get the agreement so we know exactly what they are doing with their declared programs. Serious restrictions on the amount and extent and degree of ukraine yum enrichment. And in that respect, if you remember mr. Netanyahu cartoon bomb at the general assembly. Thats an excellent prop because what the joint plan of action did was as my friend joe puts it drained the bomb. What the iranians have done and what they have confirmed they have done is live up to their agreement of taking the 20 enriched uranium and i did lut it and they made the furtherer commitment of speeding up the using of the objection exide to make fuel plates for their reactor which puts it farther out of reach with regard to proliferation concern. There have also been formulas that have addressed the reactor which appears to involve redesign which makes it far less of an effective plutonium producer. We have the outline there. The fact we have that outline and its more than just an outline, its an agreement thats been observed by both side over these last six months is a bit of a further challenge for the Obama Administration in selling a final agreement because to put it bluntly we got the better side of the deal last november. We got the key provisions that drains the bomb and in return the iranians got minor sanctions relief, airplane parts, kemchals, trade in gold and a small fraction, access to a very small fraction of their frozen assets overseas. Tall big sanctions with regard to banking and oil are still nonmouseplace and as presumed Treasury Department briefer put it when they were briefing the reporters friday night put it we will come down like aton of bricks as they have always come down as aton of bricks on anyone who deems it possible to violate the sanctions. Iran is still hurting economically. Where the challenge comes in, to the extent more concessions need to be made, were going to need to make more because they have already made the big one, we have not made the big one in terms of sanctions relief. One last comment in terms of how congress fits into this which is why it might not be a matter of how we fine tune it and we tend lame duck period. I expect the administration and its partners will still be holding out for a fairly extended transitional period in which the sanctions would be relieved only gradually. And that the Administration Even without the congressional opposition would be looking for a formula for sanctions relief in which turnover first year or two over the first year or two the president could take through executive action. And it would only be later on as the agreement is upheld, if it is upheld by the iranians as well as our side that the greater sanctions relief would come into effect and at some Point Congress is going to have to act but it doesnt have to be in the first few months. I agree with everything that paul said. I want to address the other question if i could, what if my pess mitch is unjustified and we do get an agreement, what could we do with iran . One issue we have to deal with in the future is afghanistan. We will not be there forever and iran will always have a border with afghanistan. In the past we were able to work with iran quite effectively to keep the lid on in afghanistan. I think were going to have to doodown that again. I think there is a i think if we have an improved relationship with iran and we exploit that, we can help to dampen the sectarian war in the middle east by helping to broker a better relationship between them. In a sense that relationship has become so bad in part because of our perceived enablement ofry had, we are the backer security gaurn or the, that allows them to do things they might not otherwise risk as israel does and i think we could play a more constructive role if we had a relationship with iran that enabled us to do that. It might also help to find some resolution to the civil strife where we have an important naval headquarters and a long standing relationship that we want to preserve. But i think we would find other issues as well. E major thing probably is if the jihaddist that now exist does not collapse of it own defects, were going to need irans help to deal with it. Russia will do nig in its power to keep iran simmering, not boiling because its too close. If you look t at map of iran its the only country that has access to the caucuses and thats a major ramification in the hydro carbon in the world. If iran were to come into the norm si, u. S. Or other western states can revamp their pipeline which exist but need a lot of repair. They wall have to go through the check point and go straight there and gulf of the arabian sea out. That breaks russias monly over gas east and west. There will be a north south way. I do not believe under any circumstances mr. Putin will allow that. Whatever we think about iran we have to think about this aspect that is very important. I dont think russia will play games. They know how to play this game and they have played it for a long time. Thats one aspect we have to look at. Number two is south arabia. Somehow we russia will satisfy half of ukraine. They say we let this go. At that point saudi arabia is one of the most important aspect rses, not the amount of oil we get but the exclusive power to control the markets. There is no other country in the world that can balance the market of oil and gas should there be a crisis or if there is a Natural Disaster or any other disaster. They are the only country that the market. This allows saudi arabia to get away with a lot of thing they are. Everybody talks about 24 of reserves. It is how the market is manipulated. And this is incredible. That doesnt matter whether we have fracking or not. There are only two countries in the world that can change that. If you remember the good old days we go to iraq one idea was iraq comes in and a nice guy comes in and they sell it off and democracy will take over. One reason was to break this impass of one country Controlling Oil and gas market. The second country and the most important country after saudi arabia is iran. Normal iran coming into the market breaks that monopoly. This will make these two countries at odds. If we want to think about future, im not saying its impossible. Im an optimist. The question we have to look at is if you want to go forward, these are the big things, the Nuclear Issue is very complicated. But the day after russia is very important and saud day rabe i cant. The United States has destroyed iraq as a balancer for iran leaving our forces as the only means of balancing iran hence we are stuck in the gulf. That is a very uncomfortable position not only for us but for our gulf arab friends. I could see in the future precisely because of the historic hostility or tension between russia and iran and perhaps adding in the oil factor that if we didnt have the syrian issue as an irritant, russia would be a big factor in e gulf arab strategy for balancing iran. Thats the first point. Second point is iran and saudi arabia have always been at odds in opec on price. The reason is iran has a finite supply of oil. It has by the way since the revolution grossly mismanaged its reservoirs, its oil reservoirs, damaged them, its potential to stimulate production is limited. Saudi arabia has always wanted to strike a balance that is high enough to finances welfare system that it provides on one hand and not so high as to kill. Mand for oil im optimistic it will continue. There is another country that is disturbing the Global Oil Market and that is the United States to very used fracking good effect. I think that is probably a very limited phenomenon, maybe 10 to 15 years. But at the moment at least its an important factor in the Global Oil Market. Saudi arabia has huge potential in these areas too. Were talking about a very Different Energy world looking down the road than the one weve been acustomed to. Leaving this question of oil aside, the Saudi Arabians and their neighbors view irans agenda in the region as anemkl to theirs and theyve been expressing concern about our policies and in fact are concerned in pursuit of a Nuclear Agreement with iran we are going to acquiesce in the region. Is there something we can do to ease that concern for them anticipating possible success with iran in these talks . And secondly, their role will be quite important if there is no because we have to go to containment because we are already basing forces and we have to convince them we are willing to use them . The last point has me the least concerned. If we dont have an agreement, the gulf states are going to be frightened of iran and want us there. There are other aspects worth talking about. We need to recognize that even if we fail to get an agreement with iran, it doesnt mean that the negotiations have to stop. They may take a very different form though. It may take an indirect form or informal form. They can be both cooperative and antagonistic if necessary. We need to recognize our goals arent going to end and were going to have to pursue them in a different fashion. There is a reason iran came to these talks in the first place. We dont quite know what it is but i would tally up four different rationals for iran to get involved in talks with us the way they hadnt wanted to previously. They are first a result of all the sanctions and a fear the sanctions were causing internal unrest and they were sapping irans strength, sapping its power. Second i think it was a fear of the chinese in particular but to alesser extent some other countries, the indians joining the sanctions. Its worth remembering in 2010 before the passage of resolution 1929 the chinese went to the iranians and said the americans are giving you everything you need. You should accept their offer. And when the iranians didnt, the chinese then joined us in the passage of resolution 1929 had is the corner stone of all the International Sanctions against iran. It points the chinese have been in a different place than where the russians are and where they are portrayed. The russians dont wan them to acquire a nuclear weapon. They dont want to us strike them either but they have tried hard to move them in the right direction. They recognize that. They are concerned if they didnt come to the negotiating table and try to get the sanctions lifted that the chinese would fall into line with us. The third i think he is terrified of the u. S. Soft war against him. He believes several members have pointed out that the u. S. Is out to get him and he believes were actively trying to do. So its clear from a variety of different pieces of information and evidence he believes we could do a lot more if we chose to do so. Part of what he seems to be looking to do is can he turn off or mitigate the u. S. Soft war. Then of course the last one out there, i think its the least important but worth noting is perhaps some kind of a fear of american or israeli strike. I think the truth is they had written that off. They wouldnt be at the table if they thought we were going to hit them. Under those circumstances they would definitely want a nuclear weapon. But its out there. They set up a process that could move forward things that we might want to try to employee in a negotiation even if an indirect one with the iranians moving forward. Even if the negotiations break down, the president s red line is still there. It the right one. We dont want the iranians to have a nuclear weapon. There is a world of difference between the iranians in their Current Situation and the iranians with a tighter breakout window and having an actual nuclear weapon. It is e nor 340us from the perspective of Crisis Management and regional stability. Thats where we need to focus our efforts. If we dont get the deal, can we keep them from crossing the red line. The reasons that brought them to the table create things we might offer to the iranians and things we might threaten them should they choose to cross those lines. And there is a whole other set of issues out there that is too big to talk about in these circumstances. Whether we get an agreement or not, whether we can keep them from aquiring Nuclear Weapons or not, were going to have a whole slue of areas where our interest will clash and areas they will coins side with irans. That doesnt wednesday negotiations. It would be nice to get that deal and it may open up greater cooperation between the United States and iran. Even if we dont get it it doesnt mean we dont have ways of negotiating with the iranians and hopefully finding peaceful olutions to our differences. In the time that remains, lets discuss the issue that obama did not discuss in his west point speech which is the palestinian israeli conflict. To give you a flavor of the kinds of questions that are oming from the floor, they are whose interest are we safe guarding chand comes first . Are we not responsible for this situation given our support for srael . Thats the flavor. I believe it was paul speak of political courage if were going to deal with that issue. Id like the panelists to comment on this. Before they do, i would say actually president obama said the resolution of the Israeli Palestinian issue was a National Security issue to the united tates. Because it results in terror. He said resolving the conflict would ease those conditions and make it easier to negotiate with iran. Once you say its a National Security interest and then you ought to succeed in your efforts. And if you dont, then we need to talk about how were going to be in jeep i did. What should we be doing to bring these parties to a conclusion and agreement because clearly it doesnt seem that the palestinians are going to accept being occupied and being blockaded. They are going to resist. And if their resistance is always met with this kind of force and these kinds of kass alties, we shouldnt be too surprised if some people do lame us. I think its clearly to destroy the unity thats formed in palestinian. The see consequence of events began with the murder of three young boys. Incidently responsibility for that was taken by the Islamic State, hamas denied responsibility. It was politically convenient for mr. Netanyahu to attribute the murders to hamas which he did. That was followed by round up of roughly 600 Palestinians Associated with hamas in the west bank. Two houses were destroyed. Eight palestinians died in the roundup. There was an israeli raid in gaza. That drew rocket fire from gaza. Rocket fire was used as a justification for the current operation. The problem here also is problem of war termination. The socalled truce offer was concocted between israel, egypt and the United States without reference to the other side. Not only is that insulting but its inherently unworkable. Opposite of diplomacy. Mr. Kerri has been in egypt, talking to whom we dont know because talking to the egyptians who are the enemies of the people in gaza now is not going to do a damn thing. It is a nice show of activity which seems to be our specialty these days. But the prospects for it producing anything are extremely poor. How will this end . Lets not forget that there is a broader context in the palestinian camp by the way, the socalled Peace Process which concluded in april i think once and for all because i think people have had it with u. S. Mediation which wasnt mediation. That process was fraudulent in no small measure because the palestinians were not represented there except through the Palestinian Authority which has no constitutional mandate to rule which lost the last elections it competed in and which is essentially in the employee of the Israeli Occupation with subsidies from the United States. Not represented there were the people of gaza, the Palestinian Refugees or the palestinian. There is a basic rule of negotiation which is that if you wish to achieve a result that is worth anything, those with the capacity to wreck the result as well as those who must sign on to it have to agree or at least be neutralized. That condition was not even considered. So i dont know how all this ends but the broader context is that the palestinians as a whole are moving toward law fair, the use of international law, ternational organizations to put squeeze on israel, the International Court of justice, other instrumentalties and i might add they are not bound anymore than the bricks have turned out to be by existing organizations. They can call add hock conferences and organize boycotts, sanctions and disinvestment without reference to the United Nations. So i think we are headed into a period in which our defense in israel which im sure we will continue is going to become considerably more difficult and there will be no resolution of the issues on the ground in the oreseeable future. Couple of just add a other observations in terms of hamas point of view. Hamas was observing the ceasefire after the lastlesser round of violence in november 201. They continued to observe it even though there were some incidents initiated by the israelis along the border. It was after the kidnappings and murders and the israeli response which included besides forcible action along the gaza border which involved some god shed, it also included the wholesale rounding up of the usual hamas suspects numbering in the hundreds, a number of whom were the ones who had just been released not all that long ago the deal that freed the corporal. And so this was seen as a direct reanythinging of the deal certainly in the absence of any hamas responsibility. This whole issue is so huge that the larger problem involves those issues of political courage that have been wrong with us for several administrations and several decades. I would just make one other point again putting on my hat as an old Counter Terrorist official and you eluded to it, tom, in terms of the president s remarks. Both the unresolved nature of this conflict and the extremely close identification of the u. S. Ith one side of it is indeed a major factor in radicalization throughout not just the middle east but beyond and certainly in the modern world. One often hears in response to that the strawman kind of argument even if we resolve this, that wouldnt clean up all the other problems in the middle east and there still would be a whole host of other reasons people become radicals. That is, of course, true. It does not refute the fact that this issue has been a big one. And if you look at the statements of captured terrorists who have been interrogated as well as the propaganda that reflects where they can most appeal for support, this is the thing that comes up again and again and again and again. And until that is changed, we ave a major factor stoking antiu. S. Radicalization. Just to add to that one thought. 9 11, if you read the statement by the perpetrators, this issue israel palestinian, contrary to the mythology was very prom nantly cited as motivating that. It is not the case this is a trivial matter or as ken began this session, that it can be grown graded in downgraded in importance and ignored. It touches directly on the security interests of all americans. I would Say Something about the topic that i said perhaps these add think hock support of democracy gave hamas legislate massey it has as a government. Thats why i mentioned we have to be care to feel promote deck si or elections or whatever aspect of democracy the reason i talked about states is gaza a state or not . They won the election. These go deeper. Thats why i raised it. When we go and make democracy a pillar of u. S. Fundamental fundamental pillar of u. S. Policy and support and allow a group such as hamas to run for elections and they gain legislate ma si how you take that back out. Therefore the problem goes back to my argument that to create these aspects without proper ground work which is a long term aspect, democracy doesnt just fall out from the sky this. Is one of those ramifications which i think we need to look at. And dwhrooned, i think on the other aspect, i think while this say very important issue, i still believe that the importance of it again today we cant see it with what is going on there but when you look at what happened during up risings or what happened in egypt, the same egyptian papers headlines are blaming hamas for almost everything this. Comes from the spectrum of egyptian newspapers. Yes, its there. But i think there is an exaggeration of the importance of it. m not diminishing it but it goes up and down depending on what goes on on ground. I dont think legitimacy can be conferred by outside forces or foreign powers. Elections are not the only source of legitimacy. There can be other sources as the middle east illustrates. But if an election legislate mieses a government and we threat as inconvenient and invalidate the result of the election, we are at a minimum not being true to our own values. And another issue is how the plo and Palestinian Authority have been how their legitimacy and credibility and stature have been diminished by failing negotiations for more than 20 years. Im struck by the interview the two Administration Officials gave after the end of these talks in april which they said the primary reason for the failure of the talks was continued israeli settlement billingd. We know what the primary obstacle is and we say its in our national interest, what should we do about it . I think he tchoovered in his remarks with regard to what is not nonl u. S. Interest but in israeli interest in terms of the jewish state living in peace and prosperity forever. The current course doesnt do t. We just heard from four very experienced people and i want to thank them. I thank you for coming. Lease visit our website if you want to watch this video in a day or two or videos of our previous conferences or read articles from the journal. Thank you very much remarks by the director of the centers for Disease Control on antibiotic resistance. He spoke to the National Press club earlier this week. You can watch his comments right here on cspan at 7 p. M. President obamas foreignpolicy initiative, including recent events in the middle east, ukraine, and h iran. Week at thest western conservative summit in denver and we would show those remarks at 8 p. M. Eastern right here on cspan. On the next washington journal, the uks sunday times and Martin Klingst talk about how European Countries are responding to ukraine. Veterans health care and why his organization has new leadership in the v. A. The legislative agenda before Congress Adjourns for the august recess. Plus, your phone calls and tweets. Journal, live at 7 a. M. Eastern on cspan. Senate this week, the Veterans Affairs Committee Held a confirmation meeting for ronald mcdata Robert Mcdonald Robert Mcdonald. He askenswered questions on why he wants the job. I think you have answered my first question but i am going to ask it again. You do not need this job. I do not think you are at the age in your career where you want to move up the career ladder, due to not need to add anything more to your resume. In the midst of all of these problems, in the midst of a dysfunctional u. S. Congress, bitter partisanship, why do you want this job . Thank you, chairman sanders, for the question. Good questiona and the question my family and i have talked a lot about. I guess really want this job because i think i can make a difference. Whethermy entire career it was starting at west point, being in the 82nd airborne division, being at the Procter Gamble company has prepared me for this task. As i said in my prepared remarks, i think there is no higher calling and this is an opportunity for me to make a difference in the lives of veterans who i care so deeply about. If not me, who . And that was some of the confirmation hearing for Robert Mcdonald to had the v. A. Department. You can watch the entire hearing on sunday at 10 35 a. M. Eastern time on cspan or any time online at www. Cspan. Org. 40 years