isis, what does the u.s. do? i think the big danger is seeing regionally as taking a side in this. right now isis is trying to say that the united states is on the side of iran. a lot of sunni arabs believe that the united states is basically on the shia side. this is a sectarian war. it s a regional war. the more that the united states is seen as being on one side or the other, the less leverage it has on both sides. it wants to make sure the iran deal goes through and make sure its regional partner res main stable. that means towing a very unsteady line. as we talk about that, there s this new video showing u.s.ist fighters ill killing hostages. there s a man dubbed the new jihadi john. the uk is trying to figure out exactly who he is, what do we
all these things are really surface maneuvers. the big story in the middle east is the shia versus the sunni. this is their version of protestants, catholics, call it what you will, but that s really what s happening. so in iraq it is a shia dominated government friendly to iran, and there are sunni insurgeon sis against it. in syria you have a quasi-shia government and sunni militancies and insurgent sis against it. saudi arabia if you will is spearheading the sunni side. the iranians are spearheading the shia side. they re fighting in all these various places. the wonder it took so long for something direct to happen because they ve been indirectly fighting proxy wars now for ten years. so while all of this is going on, and this is a key region i m also thinking of course with regard to syria and saudi arabia and iran and their different interests and backing different groups in syria, u.s.-led
extremist islamist sympathies. so what does that say? if you get rid of a assad and one of these groups come on in take share the same basic ideology of isis, is anybody better off? absolutely. you have to get rid of assad and isis for any stability in this entire region. secondly, in iraq we dealt all of the time with islamic religious parties from the shia side and sunni arab side. much of the middle east has ideologies that indicate the islamic law should be applied. and basically social values and rules that we in the west don t find com mattabbapatible with o. the question is will they take up arms against us and fellow muslims who don t believe what they believe. and that is a different question. but that s the whole concern. you don t want to help people who will turn around and attack you you once they get in. 60% of these rebel groups have
are now going to be against russia. to take this furtherer on the sunni-shia divide, do you think he sees it that way, that basically russia s on the side of the shia? i think he sees it, that russia s on the side of strong men. when i was in the government, i used to listen to his theory about peace and stability, and he always emphasized that we have to support the strong men, that s the only way to keep the peace. but he s been doing that for four years. that strategy has not worked. so now he s doubling down to support him. but de facto, it means what you just said. you are now seeing a sunni-shia divide, and russia now is on the shia side. and that s going to reverb berate not just in the middle east, i m sure the saudis are looking at that and sunnis will be wondering why is the leader
we ve got an arab coalition talking not only about airstrikes but if you see iranians expand their presence moving from money to actual troops, you ll talk about the middle eastern version of the cold war breaking out into a hot war. that is the saudis and the egyptians represent the sunni side. this is not just arabs, this is the entire sunni universe. the iranians represent the shia side. if the iranians show up the middle east will view this as sunni versus shia. the iranians will start playing their card. i think the iranians are extremely aggressive. i used to watch them pretty carefully at the cia. i think even they would be cautious about going that step. staying with iran, i want to stay with you, phil, for the moment, running out of time on this deal to come up with this framework for this nuclear deal. how worrisome is that for the u.s. specifically? i think we ve got to be