That the u.s. Is softening its position on the settlements in the West Bank and basically repudiating in $1078.00 State Department legal opinion that civilian settlements in the occupied territories were quote inconsistent with the international law so this is yet another gift to Israel I'm not sure how much of a gift it is to Netanyahu because he's sort of hanging by threatening Yeah that's true I mean he has still very much his features very much up in the air and we don't know yet who will be able to form a government in his own but what kind of in fact is it has I mean in other words is this drawing a bound for domestic Israeli purposes I mean I think it is it's really working on 2 levels part of it is the think Israeli purposes but the other part is a bigger part in American. There is a big constituency that support Donald Trump in all of his moves that he's made with regard to Israel on the Palestinian recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital . Sanctioning the p.l.o. Basically eliminating all forms of assistance to the Palestinians everywhere and shutting down the Palestinian embassy in Washington these are all things that the. Radical Right and American evangelicals in particular have been calling for and that is very much in line with the far right agenda of. The so-called greater Israel crowd in Israel who who want to maintain. Permanent control over the occupied territories. Of course without in franchising the 5000000 Palestinians who live there so this is I would say par for the course given where the trumpet ministration has been almost from day one well there are about 700000 Israeli settlers now living in the the West Bank's 2 areas and it's always been considered to be an impediment to a future settlement and they as far as I can tell the the could then the Israeli right have never actually announced what their real policies but the end of the day it seems that they somehow expect the Palestinians to so go away which clearly not happening even the past in these a divided and of course has been a lot of rocket fire from the Gaza and Israel and Israeli strikes on Islamic Jihad leaders in Gaza so what difference will the elections make because even some of the Palestinian Israelis who are in in the canoe. Went to happy about Gates even though Gantz needs them to become the next leader of Israel right I don't think there is a whole lot of difference between the 2 sides between the can the blue and white coalition and and that sending out coalition. They both have said that they would maintain Israeli so-called settlement blocks forever that Israel would remain in the Jordan Valley forever and that they would not approve settlements so it's really a question of style over substance really I think where they they differ but the Palestinian issue is is not really a front burner issue in the Israeli elections except to the extent that Palestinian citizens of Israel unlike those in the occupied territory are clearly playing a role in that they seem to be pivotal in terms of which side they end up supporting who they will endorse to to form a government. But just to back up on this question of u.s. Policy because I think that's I think it's important to point out that we didn't get here by accident this isn't a kind of it's not necessarily a huge shock in the sense sure we know where Trump was coming from he's very much in favor of basically permanent occupation of the Palestinians and eliminating the chances for a 2 state solution but as far as the policy itself American president since Ronald Reagan have been eroding that policy that that you mentioned the 1978 determination by the State Department that settlements are illegal which of course is the international consensus on Israeli settlements as well but you know every almost every president since Ronald Reagan has been gradually moving away from that policy and has been eroding that international consensus so you know we didn't get here by accident it didn't happen in a vacuum as radical and as reckless as policies are it's important to remember that the way for basically the path had already been paid by previous American presidents who would sort of talk out of both sides of their mouths on the one hand we don't like settlements but they're not illegal they're not obstacles to peace in which case why would Israel refrain from building in the settlement so this is part I think this is the culmination of a gradual erosion in u.s. Policy and this is kind of the exclamation point on that on that repudiation which has been happening steadily over time and again I was speaking of how detailed indeed is a fellow at the center the Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution he previously SEVIS and advisor to the Palestinian leadership on permanent status negotiations with Israel in 20042000. 9 and was a key participant in the Annapolis negotiations launched in November of 2007 and he's latest book is blind spot America and the Palestinians powerful Trump So just in terms of the motivations for this move by the state by Mike pump a a who himself of course is a Christian Zionist I mean he is he believes in the Rapture which just scares the hell out of me frankly I just think it's a conflict of interest being a steward of u.s. National security and having an investment in the end of the world but I guess that's a conversation for another day is what's going on here is that something to do with the fact that the Israeli military intelligence establishment and I imagine by extension Netanyahu and again it's just totally alarmed by Trump's deal with the one and the sellout of the Kurds and the Israelis have very close relationships with the cuts not just in Syria but also in Iraq and people like Michael are an Foma Israeli ambassador to the u.s. Believe that now that the caucus out of the bottle in a sense that the u.s. Has handed. Syria to Russia and Iran that Iran might start beefing up his bill and start running down missiles on Israel within months as he's been writing about so is this a way to sort of heal that wound. It could be I think it's not clear that there is a direct causal relationship I I think there is there is real coherent and consistent the in the Trump approach to Israel and the Palestinian independent of of anything else this is consistent with. You know the State Department removing the word occupied and occupation from internal memos and and discussion it's consistent with. Their move away from the 2 state solution and sort of normalizing settlements. Recognizing Israel and the station of Jerusalem these are all very very consistent policies that are. Internally coherent independent of anything else so it could be a way to ask the wage the the Israelis on on some of these other differences that they're having but I don't really see a causal relationship in that I see an extension of a policy that they have been implementing. Pretty consistently almost since day one well but that's why I mentioned it again the that you know why didn't somebody call out the Israeli right and even I guess the moonlight the center on what you're in game with the Palestinians I mean don't think it's time to be honest about this as the settlements grow and now they're being legitimize by the White House isn't that just a gradual way of denying you know squeezing the Palestinians you know smaller and smaller territory it is and there's no question that that is that's the goal the goal is to take Palestinian statehood off of the table take it off the agenda and to basically normalize Israel's permanent control over the occupied territory and the 5000000 Palestinians who live in. There's no question that that is that is the goal but it's important to keep in mind that it's influential and important and after that the United States is there is still an international consensus and it's pretty clear that the United States is along with Israel are the outliers on that. There are not other countries that are following suit that says this is a very different reality than we've seen in the past where Europe and the Arab states tend to follow. Washington's lead that's not happening in this case at all. So if the u.s. Senate is out of step with the rest of the well the Europeans surely have some leverage and they have a lot of trading with Israel and they also Israel's very concerned about this V.D.'s movement which is fairly alive and well in Europe and growing here in the United States and the competition Nations through the Department of Education is trying to criminalize any any body that talks about Palestinian statehood in just 6 and force a one sided narrative about Israeli Palestinian issue what leverage does the Europeans have over the United States and by extension of its room I mean theoretically the Europeans could of course but you we saw recently what it took for for the e.u. Even to uphold its own policy and rules regarding the labeling of Israeli settlement products in in Europe that you know that part of their trade with Israel . It took a decision by the European Court of Justice to affirm the necessity of labeling Israeli settlement products as not products of Israel that the fact that they were produced in the occupied territories so even that whole idea of truth in advertising or truth in marketing it took a long time for the e.u. To up hold its own policy because they have. You know these dusted economic interests. In terms of their trade with with Israel so theoretically they they have that ability to have that power but it's a question of political will are they prepared to kind of put their money where their mouth is when it comes to Israeli settlement I think there will be growing pressure on them to do exactly that. Either they're able to do that as a matter of consensus in in European policy and whether that will end up actually affecting Israeli behavior is is another matter and it remains to be seen but I think this will underscore the need for the Europeans and the broader international community to insist on international law and international legitimacy . Because this prompted ministration it's fairly clear I think on on Israel and Palestine but also on a range of other issues that they are. Quite openly and explicitly opposed to international law and even the idea of a rules based international order and this is something that is a direct threat to the Europeans and to the global order in general so just in the last couple of minutes what's your sense of what's going on in Syria now that the u.s. Has basically handed today to Putin and to some extent to the a many and we know that Netanyahu has a close relationship with with Vladimir Putin and I mentioned earlier this former ambassador Israel's ambassador to the United States Michael Oren is being writing about the possibility of Iran resupplying Hizbullah with more and more missiles and starting to write them down and is around the thinks that they'll be a war within months and it will be quite devastating do you see if that's all a possibility and then of course the role that Russia appears to be playing now is to restrain Iran if that's possible do you think that the Palestinian issue will therefore will be relegated to the back burner if they if they've got this threat on the horizon I think not just events in Syria but events all over the region are kind of pushing the Palestinian issue back. I I think on Syria decision by the administration to kind of run has left a vacuum in in northern Syria that's been filled obviously by the Turks but also by the Russians by Iran and and of course the the regime in Damascus. It's a hugely detrimental policy it undercuts American credibility the fact that he international actors cannot look to the United States to uphold. Its its end of the bargain or to stay true to its word they're basically sending the message that the United States cannot be relied upon as an ally as a friend as a as an as a supporter that's a message that is being heard certainly in Israel but it's also being heard by others in the region and it's also being heard by America's enemies and adversaries so it's a very dangerous situation but in terms of the Palestinian issue it was already on the backburner and and I think it is certainly going to push more in that direction. But it's really up to the Palestinians and I think it's important to point out that the Palestinians although they don't have equal power to these elites they do have equal agency and the Palestinians were they to have an effective and credible political leadership would would would I think be able to better put their issue on the international agenda than what we are seeing today and the absence of a coherent Palestinian leadership is is contributing I think to the ability of other parties to put the Palestinian issue on that accurate. Well how do you know guinea I thank you very much for joining us here today thanks for having me and again I've been speaking with Alan Alleghenies a fellow at the Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution he previously served as an advisor to the Palestinian leadership on permanent status negotiations with Israel from 2004 to 2009 and was a key participant in the an apples to go see actions launched in November 2007 and his latest book is blind spot America and the Palestinians from powerful to trump We'll take a b. Station break and back discussing President Trump's pardoning of u.s. Servicemen who are murderous and have been convicted of war crimes. And. Welcome back I me and Masterson This is Background Briefing available 247 a background briefing top to hold and joining us now is to tell it kind of Rachel Van Landing him who is a professor of Lord southwestern law school in the film a judge advocate in the United States Air Force she was a legal advisor for international law at the United States Central Command's headquarters where she advised on operational and international legal issues related to the armed conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq and also just the commands chiefly ice on to the International Committee of the Red Cross as well as providing advice to the Department of Justice regarding a.b.s. Cases brought on behalf of detainees in Afghanistan welcome to Background Briefing the Pentagon will Rachel and landing him. Thank you so much and it's just professor now thank you Professor Ok I understand you are tied in but your background is important since you've had firsthand knowledge of the issues involved in the treatment of prisoners in u.s. Custody and the president appears to have basically gone ahead and power in some special forces operators who many considered to be rogue operators some of whom were facing serious prison time and I mean let's not with with the president's plan it looks as if he just did it on the zone this is something that he wanted to do is certainly not something the Pentagon wanted to do for the sake of the defense wanted to do of course not because real commanders know that this is dangerous and so the secretary of the army was picking on behalf of his military commanders when he asked the president to allow major goals to its court martial to continue so there are several different things going on here one they were just consist of individuals that he pardoned weren't just considered rogue operators they were convicted or criminals convicted by their peers by fellow service members not by lawyers of by fellow comrades. So so let's be clear about that for it so there's been 2 lieutenants 2 lieutenants as well as a sergeant there were all convicted war criminals because president pardoned has issued full pardons for because he issued 2 earlier pardons regarding a Sergeant Miller and a lieutenant both of them that were convicted of murdering detainees in their custody and then he of course just hard into Lieutenant raunch who was on Friday who was convicted of murder is also attempted murder is false obstruction of justice but I have jury of uniformed members of a security full well understand the operational complexities the proverbial fog of war so I want to be careful to ensure what to call these things as they are. And then we have another situation altogether which is the major Goldstein case and again Major cull seamlessly was a army green pray who was charged by the 1st it's called for for all of charges by a military commander not by a lawyer by a military commander because in the military the criminal justice system is one that is operated and run by military commanders and then it's of course operationalized by lawyers in the courtroom as well as judges and an appellate courts going up the way the u.s. Supreme Court well the full panoply of suppressed h.-l. Safeguards set an accused would get in the u.s. Federal system but these commander Major Goldstein as commander had decided that there was credible out evidence that he had murdered an Afghan civilian and when there's a credible allegation of a war crime and here it would be a war crime because in a combat situation soldiers are allowed to kill and amenable entrance they're not allowed to kill civilians and also civilians are participating in hostilities pose a threat and so would there be a factual issue of whether or not that individual posed a threat that's what juries are for and that's what you just feel processes for that's what courts martial for he may have been acquitted and he should be if there's any reasonable doubt whatsoever that he did not commit in a lawful killing a murder in time of combat However the president trumps averred and that entire process by doing so he I mean he kicked out that the court martial the court martial hadn't even met yet it was only at the very 1st stage of prefer a lot of charges by the commander the commander had a duty as a legal ethical and moral duty to bring those charges regarding credible allegations of a war crime in the process to resolve those fully and fairly for the accused as the military justice system that was a status before the Constitution by church Washington so it has a very very long pedigree it's been completely overhauled it has more oversight and then any other criminal justice system the United States why big. Congress has the constitutional duty to provide roles regulating the military and part of their oversight is is to provide oversight on the criminal justice system so by taking out major Goldstein's case completely from the system that that's not real of law that's rule of man and that's dangerous because we have processes processes are set up to operationalize values and to ensure there is an arbitrary arbitrary wielding of power and secondly it also undermines the commanders commanders have to have this not use us military justice system have been given it for over 2 centuries in order to ensure that there's accountability for misconduct to ensure their orders are followed and so by completely ripping the rug underneath the commanders. That sends a dangerous not to 2 or whether or not commanders should be should be obeyed It's subtle but it but it's there there I mean there are strategic legitimacy issues here too but where what would you like me to answer. Let me just remind the audience that I'm speaking with a Russian fan Landingham who's a professor of law in southwestern law school in the form of Judge Advocate in the United States and from us and she was a legal advisor for international law at the United States Central Command headquarters where she advised on the operational and international legal issues related to the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq and she also said as the commander in chief liaison to the International Committee of the Red Cross as well as providing advice to the problem of justice regarding have these cases brought on behalf of detainees in Afghanistan but when I add that I mean I think it's important I was also a prosecutor a defense counsel and an appellate defense counsel by criminal law litigation experiences on the defense side and I teach criminal law as well as national security long clued in the laws of armed conflict so I come at it from a more holistic perspective and one with other empathy and sympathy for the individuals who stand accused of crimes who deserve every reasonable doubt in. Deserve a full process that's my real concern here is there is the institutional challenge this presents to full and fair process if you can take charges out of the process. What does that do to being able to rely on the process what does have to to. The soldiers also regarding their adherence to the law of armed conflicts I'd like to pivot a bit from criminal law issues and turn to the law of armed conflict the law of war what these soldiers were just convicted of murdering someone in downtown Los Angeles or Houston or are where have the United States. To these individuals the Sergeant Miller and let's have a hand over convicted of killing detainees and make a defenseless detainee and the Senate behind his case. In a combat zone which is which is a fundamental flagrant violation of the law of armed conflict that the United States helped develop under the lever code under President Lincoln during the during the Civil War the reason and that it manifests American values and how we fight we fight with more according to values and according to morals and those are in capsulated and enshrined in the law we we don't kill civilians that are trying to kill us and we treat our detainee's humanely and of course that's been observed in the breach as we know the grave but that's the goal that's the rule that's the law and we we don't we kill enemy belligerents So when those rules are stepped out from beyond when they're when they're transgressed commanders have a legal and ethical moral duty to to hold those transgressors those violators to account because think of and it's a betrayal by President Trump president trumps pardons betray the rank and file soldier or sailor Marine airman or woman Coast Guardsman who had to put themselves they they volunteered themselves to be incredibly morally and physically and emotionally and mentally draining and challenging situations and yet they had here to these laws they'd hear. To the commanders orders can you imagine for example put yourself in the shoes of a 19 year old from middle of America Middle America who is fighting in Afghanistan and his platoon runs over part of his platoon as a Humvee and it's just right by an i.e.d. An improvised explosive device shortly there after he and his fellow platoon mates the ones that survived the blast find the alleged The someone that they think an Afghan they think actually made that i.e.d. And they detained him. You can only imagine the type of moral courage it takes not to want to kill Cheney of course they want to but not to do it and the vast vast vast majority of military members are able to handle that situational honor and integrity and according to American values and according to law because of their commanders training because of their not commissioned officers training because of good leadership and because of being a good American and President Trump the trace all of the. Well I was going to ask you the question I think which you largely answered and that is that it seems that this system is in many ways stacked in favor of the defendants in the military because the military above all and they have the unique position to understand the fog of war and the difficulties the people go under so so it's not like the rules are stacked against the defendants the only thing I would use just ended on the no I don't want to don't want to touch on which is you know only in present times tenure and he spoke before a group of Police in Suffolk County New York where he urged the police to be rough for on those that they arrested and he said you know specifically you know don't put your hand on the head of the arrestee when you when you're putting him in the back of the police cruiser you know that's too nice so there's something about President Trump that equates being rough mean vicious cruel that sort of manliness that's being tough when of course he has an affection for the best parts around the world and he's mentioned many times that he likes Putin because he's tough he likes a good one because he's tough So what's this obsession with toughness. I'm not a psychologist I don't get it it's a President Trump said but I think you have hit upon a very consistent theme but it's also an obsession with toughness that doesn't understand it is much tougher. It is it takes so much more moral courage and guts and iron will to do the right thing and not to kill the detainee in your custody that you think is responsible for the loss of 5 of your fellow American soldiers that were on your left and right that is true mental toughness just going around indiscriminately killing or just Kelly anyone that you want to despite your commands orders only to kill those kind of you belligerence that your commander says to kill but just step outside I'm going to kill him ever that's not toughness that's that's not toughness at all that shows a lack of discipline and a lack of honor that's what he finally doesn't respond that's your cowardice that is true cowardice he has. That the idea of honor and discipline and toughness completely preferred completely reversed he doesn't understand any honors those who are fundamentally don't understand it in America wins its wars and eventually and maintain strategic legitimacy when it does because it fights with honor and we fight the way according to our values because you know who doesn't I says are extremists enemies they don't care about the law of war guess what they're going to lose because they don't fight according to to the values that we all hold dear and if we go down that slippery slope we're going to lose to so do you think that the fact that the Seiko adults in the room the generals have been effectively purged to try and talk about McMaster madness eccentric there's nobody around him to tell him what you are telling I want him to now Rachel been lending him I'm not making excuses for the president but it does seem that they're not the God rules anymore. Well that's you know I'll push back a bit on that he has a secretary of defense he has a secretary of Army who went in and and laid out to him I'm sure I wasn't in the room but the secretary of the army was lobbying on behalf of his military commanders these what I'm saying is Iraq and science from saying isn't some you know really an inside on my behalf this is this is fundamental basic military operational effectiveness and fundamental basic this is how America fights and we don't thank me lie. We suffer for think aboud grave we suffer for it those are strategic setbacks we don't just fight this way because of pilot sky humanity and morality we fight this way because in the long term it works it works we win the war so there's the whole huge huge pragmatic part of it and so his secretaries know that he disregards them because he fundamentally doesn't care he thinks it's the classic sign of again I'm not a psychologist it's not a suspect behavior he thinks he is right despite individuals who have vastly marks perience an understanding that he does in these matters he does not care he only cares about what he thinks that is tyranny and we are in democracy and our democracy is weekend because of actions like this Well you recall Ellie in the tremendous Gratian when a nice 1st segment in France General Mattis that he referred to as Mad Dog madness which apparently really upset Radisson apparently madness was able to persuade him not to use that description or that title anymore but then more recently of course Trump was very insulting about form a secular defense maddest suggesting he that he him self taught knew better and these generals weren't very good and he was an overrated general in the way that Meryl Streep is an out of the right actress. So what's going on in the Pentagon I mean my assumption is that the people in the Pentagon whether that's a different group of people to the people in the field but let's just start with the Pentagon I manage I'll challenge you on that the same people at the Pentagon rotate through the field you don't spend those in uniform don't spend an entire career at the Pentagon and if they did they would jump off the roof of the Pentagon everyone dreads an assignment the Pentagon because most individuals that voluntarily join the military do so because we want to be in the military want to be where the action is you don't want to be there I guess at the Pentagon so I want to caution that yes there are civilians that spend their whole lives there are members that's the last place they want to be they want to be back with their troops back with fly planes or on on their ships or with their battalions preparing and training for a war and executing war so so I'd be a be careful to paint your outbreath her well but that makes it easy it in terms of the question what's going on with morale I would assume that the rank and file from officers Dando enlisted personnel really supportive of madness not of Trump commander in chief Well again as secretary Mattis General Mattis of course did not like that moniker mad dog because that implies just a rabid unconstrained use of force rabid unconstrained violence and that's antithesis of what our generals what our leaders in the military commanders train our folks to do they train our fi our folks to provide discrete managed apples to see to manage violence in a discrete focused away strategically that comports with the law of war of course that comports with our values why because that's how that's how we win and so of course he didn't like that moniker and of course I'm sure Secretary madness is appalled at these types of pardons for the rank and file military member I'm not so sure I ran into a marine recently retired Marine in the airport yesterday flying back from j.f.k. . He was appalled do it does every single rank and file military member understand the complexity of these cases I think often it's no I think it's going to depend on the leadership in their unit and it's fundamentally and it's as can depend on what their news sources are right if they're only watching Fox News they're getting a very warped and distorted and inaccurate picture of what's going on here and so they may very well support these because they don't get to understand the big picture and I don't blame them for that however I do you put the onus on the commanders in the noncommissioned officers in the leaders of every single military unit out there to ensure that they keep up the training that they keep up the message and the fundamental are standing of no we fight with honor we fight with distinction we are professional forces we don't revel in unconstrained violence we don't revel in killing anyone we don't want to kill anyone but we know we have to win which one we train to have to we're going to do with devastating limb fallacy devastating left ality against the people that are trying to kill us and not against anyone else so but there is the concern now that when you train individuals to treat detainees humanely for example and then those who actually commit murder against detainees are pardoned. The commanders of the commanders orders are or are are we going to bet. And I did have someone asked me yesterday on b.b.c. Well look these are only a handful of cases you've got millions of service members what's the big deal the big deal is that you've got the. White House you have the president you have executive attention from the White House on these cases and these pardons weren't done in the dead of the night they were done with full fanfare to distract from n.p.t. Meant proceedings on Friday and there's and they've been done in the context of a steady stream of tweets victory all that seemingly impugn both coming out military commanders right now that are that are leading our troops and they impugn the effectiveness of the law of war again president trumps comment about what's great about what we we train our bull course because he forgets that you know women in America where the uniform and and can shoot just as effectively is that we train our boys to be trained or we train our boys to be trained fighters and then me then we can run across are trained killers and then we turn around and prosecute them for killing. Of course there he that he's basically in part of the overall context of all of his tweets saying a few things there 1st of all he eased he doesn't say that we're fighting we train our soldiers and sailors and marines and airmen to fight with according Yes they're trained killers trained killers according to law so you don't you don't kill the right people intentionally or murder you're not just the killer right so of course the military are killers but they're not murderers because they know they they kill to roles so he's disregarding it's implied the rules don't matter made that the rules actually hinder and are obstacles hinder the effective application of force and he's implying that it's courageous an honor and honorable to go ahead and just do what these what these men did and that's. That betrays a lot of folks and it betrays the American military ethos going back to the founding of this country President Washington when he was General Washington told his troops that he was going to fight according to walls and that they better find according those rules to this wasn't developed overnight this wasn't developed by some human rights body in order to prevent Americans from winning on the battlefield or to prevent Israelis from winning no these rules were developed by us to help us win and to do so at the same time preserve according to our values and preserving the morality of our service members of whom we ask a tremendous amount and we owe them allegiance to these laws. Well Rachel Van Landing him I thank you very much for joining us here today well thank you so much for having me have a wonderful afternoon and again I've been speaking with Rachel Van Landing Ham is a professor of law at Southwestern Law School and a former judge advocate in the United States Air Force she was the legal advisor for international law at the United States Central Command headquarters where she advised on operational and international legal issues related to the armed conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq and she also served as a command chief gaze on with the International Committee of the Red Cross as well as providing advice to the Department of Justice regarding habeas cases brought on behalf of detainees in Afghanistan going to be stationed back or back look into reports from Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security leaked by an Iraqi patriot who wanted to let the world know one Iran is doing in my country Iraq yeah . Just 90 something these communists all cowards. To all caps recently talk ops the badges on our caps have you looked at them. A bit. Like scowls on them. Have you notice the our captain actually got pictures of scowls on my. Return. And we the bad teeth. Welcome back I mean masters and this is Background Briefing available 247 a Background Briefing dot org And joining us now now to Hashimi who is the director of the Center for Middle East editor the judge of Caldwell school. Of International Studies at the University of Denver is us of the people reloaded the green movement and the struggle for Iran's future and his latest book is sectarian eyes ation mapping the new politics of the Middle East welcome to Background Briefing Hashimi Thanks Ian So somebody inside of Iraq obviously in their intelligence services something happened there government leaked says the intercept several 100 pages of secret intelligence reports from Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security the m a y s which is a pretty secretive organization which is pretty hard to penetrate and they these cables detail Iran's operations in Iraq from 2013 through 2015 and they are pretty extraordinary don't you think well I agree I think it's a major gravel lation that really confirms what we know I mean there's no real surprises here now we have the documentation that effectively proves what Iraq is a vassal state of the Islam ical public will be wrong and that Iran holds. Extensive influence over. The ebb and flow of the Raw Politics now we have the documents to prove it and so what's interesting about these revelations is that they really fall from the demands of the protesters in Iraq who have been complaining about Iran's influence you know in the region and in their own country and the killer but also I think these documents affirm one of the core grievances of people who are protesting in the wrong today about how there's a lot of wasteful expenditure by the Islam a public all the wrong in the region in Iraq and beyond Iran's borders and that's that's been proven today by these by these leaked cables and the Sunni who sensei says link these cables to the intercept in the. New York Times says that he wanted to let the world know what Iran is doing to my country Iraq but this isn't this extraordinary situation isn't it now in the sense that you've got Iraq of vassal state thanks to George Bush and Dick Cheney's invasion essentially handing it over to Iran tragically at least but now it seems in every sense they control it through the Revolutionary Guard Corps and these militias that they've set up but the got young Iraqis demonstrating in the streets being shot down by these I r g c militias the same people who turn the tide for Assad in Syria in 2019 when the people took to the streets in drugs and the Syrian army didn't want to keep shooting their own people so the Iranians stepped in with the i j c and the courage and they shot the Syrian civilians to the point where they essentially crippled the movement turned it into a civil war so there's no doubt about the ruthlessness of the i j c and the militias but you've got them projecting power next door into Syria and into Lebanon but at the same time back home you've got people demonstrating in huge numbers in a Iran against the doubling of gas prices and obviously they're chasing the running people under the American sanctions so how do you see it in that context I think it's pretty clear that the. You are doing a lot of press. In its own borders and beyond. And taking advantage of. The stakes that the United States has pursued in the region on text of the law the disastrous 2003 invasion which had consequences one of them. What you just outlined how you Ron was the big beneficiary from that foreign policy Divac all. But also you know throughout the region. You know Iran has been able to extract its muscle. In large part because there's very few. Political forces that can or or military forces that can challenge their position. Either in Syria or in Lebanon and so you know things have been going fairly well for the Islam a group public over Iran until recently these protests in Iraq these protests in Lebanon and now protests back with even. Public Republic of Iran have been I think a huge shock to the religious establishment. They don't know how to respond one of the challenges that the Islamic Republic of Iran is facing rather than on an Iraq is that many of these people who are on the streets you know they come from Shia backgrounds this is the natural sort of segment of society that Iran would you prefer live upon to support its policies but they have secular givers all revolted against what one can call as you know overreach. Sort of an arrogant set of policies that Iraq has pursued thinking they could get away with pursuing these policies and now it's seeing its own rollback within Iraq among Iraqi Shia segments of the population who are you know deeply upset about what you're on has been doing. In Iraq since 2003 and also you know in Lebanon as well and now of course the recent developments over the last couple of days is that each year on itself there are a series of protests that have you know that have brought tens of thousands of people into the street and the shape of the political establishment and they really don't know how to respond to these to these developments and so I would describe what you want as facing today. Senior leadership. Well the head of the Revolutionary Guards in the codes General Salim Aney He of course has been issuing the shoot to kill orders to the militias ready and backed control militias in Iraq and as I mentioned earlier they turned the tide for Assad when he was under siege from his own people in 2011. And you of course wrote a book about what happened with the green movement in Iran itself the people reloaded the green movement in the struggle for Iran future they did the same thing they should shoot to kill orders to the agency in the Kurds did they not against the Iranian people for God's sake. That's correct although you know they Iran has become much more sophisticated in terms of how it you know puts down protests you know if it didn't engage in 2009 Iran didn't do what Bashar al Assad did in 2011 just engage in sort of gross mass murder it feels it could kill people on the streets but it even gauged in a much more sophisticated way of spreading terror by you know arresting tens of thousands of people putting them in jail roughing them up scaring them and sending back into the sending them back into the population to spread the word but what life is like when you're inside an Iranian prison so Iran has sort of you know really perfected the art of repressing political dissent one of the interesting developments that sort of ties all this together was this report that came out in early October that awesome Soleimani the you know the head of this you know the codes force travels to Baghdad in the early days of the protests and convened a meeting of the senior sort of security organizations in Iraq responsible for security and control and basically chairs that meeting and sort of is quoted as saying look we know how to deal with protests in Iran and basically is advising the Rocky you know security forces on how to deal with protests in Iraq and we've actually seen the you know the results of this there's been over 300 people that have been killed in Iraq over the last month and a half tens of thousands of images of injured people a lot of them from these militia groups that Iran finances and supports and we're seeing this playing itself out as we speak on the streets of Iran right now so they the the Islamic Republic knows how to play this game of repression it knows when to crack down hard it knows when to play play a sophisticated game of trying to retain power and it's doing that throughout the region eventually. Going to have blowback effects because you know you can't control these underlying grievances that millions of people have that are rooted in economic injustice and poverty and unemployment but also in you know deep political grievances and corruption in the deep anger that people feel that a certain segment of the population is benefiting from the status quo while others are you know suffering and so push sort of I think seems these this sort of blowback taking place blowback in this case that affects the Masonic Republic of the blog and it's a fuller Tarion policies both at home and throughout the region. And of course the authority that the supreme leader in Iran has justified the parking of gas prices which has got people taking to the streets and in retaliation the supreme leader and who controls the country along with the Kurds in the message passed around that just cut off the Internet now for what several days since Saturday to try and stop people from communicating and getting more politically engaged and the cables that you mentioned the secret cables have been released to the intercept they show division between a split between the ministry intelligence and security. Around CIA if you will and general sort of money and the Kurds the minister intelligence and security feel that the heavy handed behavior the Kurds and the militias that they control shooting the Iraqis is actually backfiring and making life difficult for Iran's control of Iraq so do you think I mean what's interesting is that we have a simplistic assumption in the United States that because Iraq is Shia and so are the Iranians therefore if there's a religious bond but the Iraqis are also nationalistic So do you think that Iran may end up losing control or at least having to get more and more repressive to hold on to Iraq. I think we're seeing right now I mean what's been so interesting about these protests in Iraq is that you know one of the target of the protesters. Is precisely what was revealed in these cables that you were on has. Too much influence you think that we dominate. And you want to supporting the side of the political parties that are modern representative culottes that have. 2 networks and that you are left out of this political equation and they paid you know the economic price for this sort of arrangement so I think you are. You know is facing a deep challenge to its influence over Iraq for precisely the reasons that you mentioned you know Iraq is do have a long standing cultural religious ties with Iran but you know Iraq is also our Iraki citizens there nationalists they don't want to see their country ruled by neighboring regional power that dominates politics at the expense of the vast majority of Iraqi citizens and so I think this is I think what we're seeing in Iraq today is I think probably the biggest challenge to Ron's authority. Since the since the 2003 of the Us invasion which you know change the the the nature of Iraq in politics and I don't think there's any easy situation and an easy outcome because we're dealing with deep seated. Extensive you know economic grievances that exist and you know there's no quick fix it's not that you can you know turn on a light switch and everyone is going to have a job in the future the problems of the Iraqi political system are chronic they are deep rooted and they require you know serious political transformation and change in Iran ironically you know is on the side of the status quo Iran likes to project itself where historically since the revolution has projected itself as being on the side of street protests throughout the region right now we're seeing Iran is actually on the side of the tormentors of the street protests because that's where its political interests lie and I think we're in it we're in for a very long long period of instability in conflict around these issues when that as for me I thank you very much for joining us here today thank you for the opportunity take your turn again I mean Spiegel now from who's the director of the Center for Middle East Studies and the jazzer Cobell School of International Studies at the University of Denver he's the author of the people reloaded the green movement and the struggle for Iraq's future needs latest book a sectarian a zation mapping the new politics of the Middle East this is being Background Briefing on. Me en masse is I like to think producer Grant has given an engineer D'Angelo Johns this program is available to Background Briefing dot org way can bookmark it sign up for email updates us want to subscribe whenever you get your podcasts if you enjoyed this program make sure you write and review us on i Tunes stitcher Google Play and Sound Cloud and be sure to share the program with friends family and colleagues on Twitter and Facebook at e n Masters media and we'll be back again tomorrow with another background briefing by for now. And now a moment in San Diego's history in 1835 Massachusetts resident Richard Henry Dana wrote in his classic work 2 years before the mast about coming to San Diego then according to Dana in his own words San Diego was a small snug place it was a motley settlement of about 40 dark brown looking huts are houses less than half the size of Monterey or Santa Barbara but long before Dana. Of San Diego the Native American comi eyed people had settled here over 12000 years earlier described as the birthplace of what is now modern day California San Diego got its start in the mid 17th hundreds when the 1st Europeans moved into what we now know as Old Town today old town is home to a number of small shops and Mexican restaurants on the air at 89 point one f.m. Streaming live online at k n a stray dot org And on your smartphone tune in radio app where k. And I stress. Of social justice.