story in this form and that didn't and was convinced to write a myself. >> would you say it is like a manifesto or does it differ from that? >> it differs when you think is a manifesto something that starts today that is what we stand for today and what we are going to do. why start to do here is to take the founders principles in the declaration of the constitution as from their perspective to try to understand what they understood and take that as our perspective and then step back and look at the debate today in light of that. from that you get a good sense of where we are relative to those principles which they felt were self-evident and permanent. ..

is. >> bought these through very

hard and deeply and wrote about them and put them into these documents it is great to think unlike their own circumstances. >> host: who are some of the other authors at the heritage? >> guest: it is in a public policy question you can imagines authors that do most time on public policy questions title-- in national security policy to health care. with this kind of work, i am the only person there that is great for me i like to be in the middle but the policy work we do at the foundation with current debates about what we should do about policy xyz need to be undergird did buy a very practical historical understanding whether on the left or the right you need to know the history of entitlements or social

security which grows out of the new deal point* has a history of that. 81 to know what we do about that some of the us -- history that is so important to the current public today. >> host: do have another project going on write now? >> guest: that is a good question i have several other by to write about. i love history and my earlier book was fine george washington statesmanship brett favre by to get back to that. there is so much going on write now but right now we are finishing up a study guide to eight -- to help you won't run your own group with that debate among yourselves. a popular tax book. >> host: what did you read to prepare for this book? >> i read a lot of history.

my own background as an academic a ph.d. in political thought i studied history, the notes, "the federalist papers", for some time and time of all of that. added a certain point* history turns from being fact which is taught in school to the story which is the narrative. it takes a lot of steady to do that. that is the nature of learning and the book is really based on a lot of background going through all of those things and putting together in the narrative of in their own mind whether of principles. there is not new discoveries are hidden documents and research as much as it is that once you know, the documents and study them and see how they fit together and how they are all

connected, gives you a great perspective to see what those things mean today. that is historical grounding. >> host: thank you very much for your time. >> good afternoon, ibm the ceo of the hudson institute of like to welcome you and book tv audience, and various other camera crews that are here to the walter and best eastern conference center for today's book forum for their new book by our visiting fellow lee smith and titled "the strong horse" power, politics, and the clash of arab civilizations" of the book

has just been published by doubleday. i can say "the strong horse" is an important new book and a wonderful read which i urge all the view to buy. for those of you in the audience it is available for purchase after the event for $20 on tv it is on-line and available in bookstores everywhere. we have gotten to know lee very well. he brings a unique respective to the dialogue on middle east appears an independent of inside the beltway discussions, prognostication and personality politics. first and foremost, a writer and thinker and his work has a distinctly literary touch a real appreciation for the fundamental role of culture, history, politics of the deepest sense. teeeighteen born in the san

juan pr and just returned from their big drop in brooklyn. smith is from the irish side of his family graduated with degrees of english, latin from george washington university before going on to do graduate work at cornell. his writings and has appeared in many publications. and he was editor in chief of the village voice literary supplement as well and has since gone on to appear in many of the leading publications including a frequent contributor to the weekly standard on middle eastern affairs and also writes were numerous other publications near times, "washington post", is slated and all other publications on-line that you can think of. as a native new yorker or as

a porter rican turned it new yorker he decided after 9/11 tried to figure out why it occurred and he decided to separate himself for you spent time in cairo damascus beirut and tel aviv and his book offers a fascinating account of the people he came to know intimately. the differing views of the arab world, ed bin laden, the same, arab liberals and of the u.s.. the characters the portraits that you come across hour fascinating. the professor at the american university in cairo wants one of the light and university and the egyptian freethinker and a doctor whose feminist aspirations are crushed by the radicalism all-around her and a lebanese christian whose new role model had a call for democracy of the

middle east. these portraits of the paint they are quite vivid set against a backdrop of the day including july 2006 has below more. lee draws on his muslim prehistory save their q'uaran and the context of the antecedent to make claims the intellectuals from studied in onward and those democratic and republican ministrations the problems of the moody's still little to do with israel or the west in general but instead he argues the real problem that he sees it in the politics of the arab world is the notion or the legitimacy forces given within the politics. lee will do a far better job to present his own arguments. then we have the honor to hear from two commentators first from elliot abrams who

served as senior director for democracy and human rights and senior director for the new stand security advisor handling the police to an official or in affairs of the church of the russian lustration and also served in the ronald reagan ministration as assistant secretary of state for international organizations, and for humanitarian organizations were i in turn for him. my first real boss in washington and 94 and latin american affairs as well and i am proud to say and alumni and as senior fellow here in the 1990's before going on to become president of the s lakes public policy organization and elliot abrams is on the council of foreign studies here in a lush-- washington are other

speaker is ambassador to 14 the assistant secretary of state for the bureau of near eastern affairs. ambassador served to the republic of lebanon july 2004 through january 2008 which is of particular interest given the focus on in his five prior to his assignment in lebanon he headed the coalition provision office and iraq's serving simultaneously as the deputy regional coordinator for the cpas in the area. 2001 to 2003 the ambassador served as u.s. consulate general that as a principal i acted officer and during his long and distinguished career in the foreign service beginning in 1986 he also served in tel aviv and studied arabic after joining the bureau of near eastern affairs in 1993.

i want to think your distinguished commentators for share their insights into questions from the audience and without further ado i will pass the floor to lee smith. >> thanks very much and they do for coming today. not least because their efforts in the middle east have played such a single role in american policy over

the last nine years in my thinking about the region. because as i write in the book it was a great time to be an american and a privileged represented by u.s. government that had taken the side of freedom. i lived in bare root of what we call the cedar revolution where many lebanese regard mr. abrams says the deputy national security advisor for global democracies strategy and assistant secretary feldman when he was u.s. ambassador and many of them still do. that there are those spirits the designation from which they may distance themselves. but there you have it. want to be very brief nudges because i prefer to have you read the book but largely because i am as eager as you are to listen to mr. feldman

and mr. abrams described the current tour of u.s. policy. they have labored in the field while i have merely observed in the act while i was watching the u.s. strategy and told that provided much of the impetus for this book. "the strong horse" is about regional transformation as well as transformation of my own thinking about the region and in particular why did these very good policies not succeed as intended or why has democracy not gone on in the abilities to a? a convenient explanation is these policies were the right ones supporting the democratic aspirations of arabs and standing again spoke beat and militants of those of repressive regimes. the problem that the pressure administration

failed to implement them. the previous white house made mini hour -- heirs and many were deadly one specific piece of criticism is that americans should have provided more security and earlier than they did. my general criticism is three should've taken the arabs fears more seriously. we americans believe we were bringing democracy to the region while discounting the farfetched conspiracy theory the long-held conviction of many arabs the sunday the americans would come into play divide and conquer and the arabs would be at each other's throats and as it turned out, that is exactly what happened. of course, it was not american his hand the blue of the mosques and calls are cali was not on washington's payroll and was now working

in behalf of centcom when the brothers killed his brothers in west beirut it was not the bush should frustration that conducted a campaign of terror assassinating lebanese politicians and journalists and civil society activists in the u.s. department of state said no opposition figures to prisons and syria, egypt saudi arabia and elsewhere around the middle east and there were subject to torture rape and murder. it was arabs who did this to other arabs. precisely this vicious political culture the americans believed it nurtured a hothouse flower like osama bin laden they were so relentlessly cruel to their own people the only option the arab masses have from political expression

was for is long and so the americans would give the arabs and other choice, democracy, freedom by speaking over the heads of arab leaders and starting with sadam hussain. as a columnist put it describing the chaos of post invasion iraq post circuit 2005 the arabs thought the problem was colonialism and zionism and the americans. what they thought it was the airbrushing but it was the society itself. from a distance and reflection the paradox is obvious. it is not the exception but the political norm is not easily lend itself to remedy never mind a transformation. that in short is the subject of my book, some of the issues that set the arabs against them solves. clashes between confessions and arab regimes and their

own people, the regime's against their domestic rivals and insurgencies between and within the families and even inside the individual. perhaps most importantly the clash between world views where on one hand there is the democratic and progressive trend in the tradition of there of liberalism on the other the bloody it environment -- by lent represented by far too many of the region sum of all figures from sadam and bin laden and among others. however where allied do believe there is a real clash between arab world views for the future and destiny of the region, unlike many i do not believe there is anything like a civil war in the arabic speaking middle east with the forces of

liberalism pitted against the armies of resistance. the outcome depends on how many which way and whom the guns are pointed and hear the liberals, the moderates as a minority of on armed profits are at a distinct disadvantage. i hardly need to downplay the role of ideas for those of abdicate the ideas but for the protectionism, my heroes are all men and women who have taken a courageous stand that would seem unimagined of the reckless against of pollute -- mainstream the election all intellectual and the german idealism and a life ambition is to translate into arabic the cairo dr. though it's all the freedoms american has to offer but that she says in her country and in her lane bridge a syrian father of

three wells watching president second inaugural god for the leader of the free world to is the only man who cared about the arabs come in his own words. a former lebanese basketball star when talking explains he marks those who loves life. at the party of life we will fight to keep it. they will fight but they will not win. not right now anyway. the region is in the hands of those with guns and those who prize death. that said i should say something. the freeze is you will recall and people see it "the strong horse" and a recourse by nature they will like the strong course i am confused they will only like force unfortunately attributed to the bush a administration but most of

mankind has understood force, the lucky few fortunate enough to live their political lives fear of violence and within the east and west coast of united states. the inhabitants of the arabic speaking are not so fortunate. to say 119 is held at gunpoint were syrian intellectuals in the egyptian rights activists are thrown in prison and tortured and those christians and currency and issues have often been the topic of political violence in the name of arab nationalism the corporatist ideology that seeks to erase differences as not to say arabs only understand force but violence is a central factor of their political life that is impossible to understand the region without taking this into

account. one more thing, the strong course not only punishes his enemies are rewards and protect his friends sometime by punishing their enemies. this seems to me to be an entirely objectionable motion from the most basic principle of human relations to protect those you love from harm and we prepared to do harm to those who would injure them. they are too often neglected across the political spectrum that among others has approached rapprochement with those that have made their idea is toward the friends and allies clear. it would commit the expense of our friends in potential friends like many of the men and women today venturing physical safety and lives on the streets of tehran. policies ago against the

natural course of affairs warning enemies and freezing out allies are destined to fail. socrates reminds us a dog knows well enough to distinguish friends and enemies so should our policy establishment but also analyst researchers and journalists. the u.s. is a strong horse and in fact, it is the strong course not the only on account of our military might or the protectiveness of our economy it is a great misconception held not only in the region but by many here in the u.s. but it is possible to distinguish between the values a culture holds the year and what the side reproduces and those things that they will catch up with maternity blue tooth, satellite tv, and make the modern world so attractive that the young

arabs will do anything for a ticket into this with -- sweepstakes. dat is in dire as that gave rise to the technological ingenuity economic dynamism weather information technology for military hardware or pop culture. we sell short not only arabs for failing to catch up but also ourselves our core ideas and values the belief of the inherent dignity and forget to over centuries with this idea is to lettuce live our political lives by which i mean living among other men and free of violence. we can have no other source other than these ideas now i will turn it over to michael panelist to men who represent these american values with our foreign policy as well as anyone. [applause]

>> i want to echo what can is said i have finished reading the book and it is a really interesting book and i want to urge you to buy its. he did not saved read it coming he said by its. [laughter] that is critical advice. it is a pleasure to be here i am mostly as ambassador to lebanon what a good american ambassador if he understands how to use the resources and reputation of the united states with the department of state fully. that is not the last nice thing i will say. [laughter] but i do wants to divide my remarks that will be brief into four categories and it will not cover the whole spectrum, but human-rights, syria, lebanon israel and palestine to talk about this past year, i was

going to say that the u.s. record in the last year has been disappointing on human rights. there has not been enough said and what has been said has now been said with the naphtha oomph. they have the sense the american administration is not doing enough for them. if one looks at things for the budget for the promotion of human rights and democracy in egypt, it has in some important ways have been cut. i am not aware although i should not necessarily be aware yet what do administration is planning for the next egyptian the elections which given we are at to near the end of the period will be very important and but we will do to try to make them as free as possible is quite important.

but i should have that i throw this back to you lee. i hope you can talk about it because you said in the book, just now this is a great point* to be in the middle east when the american government would seem to be promoting freedom and democracy. you seem to say this is a mistake that the problem was miss analyzed in washington and quite deep in air of society and you just said a vicious political culture and went to ask you to combine all of fabric of the policy was wrong then what is so great to be there while the policy was promoted? with iran, i will have trouble covering this in two minutes but they had a policy coming in and that

probably book have been carried out head the election gone differently in june. but for reasons of its own the regime in iran the stole the election and gave rise to a potent opposition movement, whose activities impressed us every week as we watch them and watch the risks they take. my criticism would be i am not quite sure what american policy is now. is seems to be we will nodding gauge. it has been put aside due to the events of june but no new policy has been elaborated. trying to get sanctions with the security council is an important tool but it also does not look as if it will

work because of the chinese. what is a policy? year i would go back to the strong course to say one criticism, i have been very unhappy with the comments by american military leaders secretary gates and admiral mullen and by the way this is not a criticism of the obama administration but the american military because this happened in 2008 as well program have been very critical of their saying what a catastrophe would be of military force were used against iran. i don't understand that as a negotiating tactic. i don't understand why they would say it and thereby reduce the pressure for a negotiated settlement with

the people running iran would logically feel. more recently, a general petraeus made a counter banning statement in which he said we have plans for everything and we can carry out those plans. that i think is a much more sensible message to be sending to the ayatollah. third, syria and lebanon a subject very close to our hearts, and the book is not 100% clear to me on the outside there is a great deal of continuity but it is not meant to be a heartwarming remark because the bush and administration policy became too soft or was too soft on syria and i think the obama administration policy is as well.

to put a different way this syrians have been pursuing a policy of repression, at home, interfering in iraq and within the last six months in general odierno saying passing to jihadis through into iraq and the are being of hezbollah and the keeping of the palestinian headquarters in damascus and after that killing the united states imposed a certain additional sanctions on and syria and we removed our ambassador but since then there has just been no price that syria has paid for continuing these policies. the israeli government is convinced by prime minister

roamers that opens the door for syria that had been quite isolated but the israelis opened that door. i think mistakenly and in the last year not only have they not paid a price but we have begun a policy of engagement four or five or six high level visits and engagement is neither good nor bad. and in the case of syria i would argue it produced literally nothing positive. than negative is not seen only in syria but lebanon with march 14 group won the election but could not put a government together for something like six months now has the government but is not able to govern the

country because of the power of the forces relying on the syria and iraq. this is obviously a tragic thing for lebanon, the reassertion of syrian dollar and another case where the united states under two presidents has not been forceful enough to the syrians. if you go back a few years when the united states was suffering a significant casualties, just about all of the g jihadis went to the damascus airport. it is criticism up through the present but through the palestinian question, i have written all lot about this and i should not go on that

much links. the fundamental error being made today is the same that was made toward the end of the bush administration which is which is getting a negotiation going. annapolis showed of those negotiations don't succeed it will get the palestinians to the table. it may get them to the table the united states has a great deal of clout but then what? it is almost inconceivable that under current conditions they would reach an agreement and signed an agreement, i think it is pretty far apart i don't buy the notion that they don't see the ability to

compromise the differences right now. i think there should have been over the last 10 or 15 years, but to go back to the death of arafat i think there should have been for the last five years from a much more concentration on building the institution of a palestinian state of the west bank before since said takeover of gaza by hamas. but i think there is progress and there could be a great deal more even with the leadership on both sides. i don't think the reliance of american diplomacy on negotiations, let me rephrase that.

sometimes many to get them to the negotiating table if you rely on the institutions that is the formula for 50 years from now. i would argue that repeated efforts of negotiations that fail actually will take a lot longer than steady progress on the ground. and with that i guess i turn it back to 10 at? >> that is characteristically in cycle remarks and i am sure he is glad to he can keep his job. >> thank you the hudson institute and inviting me to participate. it is intimidating to sit between two great minds like this am prolific commentators. i will return the compliment because when i was ambassador in lebanon it was extremely important to know we have the support of the

white house for what we were trying to do to work with the lebanese and there was extremely important to know what was happening was getting out accurately which the smith always did so a very much appreciate being included even though i find it intimidating. but the u.s. priorities in the region under the current administration, yes, we are trying to pursue a comprehensive peace in the middle east and we are trying to secure a resolution of differences with iran and nuclear ambition as well as a destabilizing role in the region with the palestinians and trying to counter by men to extremism and the development dimensions then manifesting the commitment

to developing partnerships with the purchase of the jury pluralistic societies and what this means is working on democracy and human rights and academic development and finally addressing the great security challenges of yemen and this is not happened after september 25th something early in this said minister shamir asked to do policy reviews in yemen. those are the priorities. of course, the approach to achieve these properties is partnership and working without lies in building new allies to reach out. we talk of what about president obama is preaching cairo but not just cairo he is determined to change the tone with muslims around the world particularly the

middle east. the issues we all talk about our difficult ones they will not be changed overnight. not by a speech or epo meetings or a passage of time. but we have opened up new potential for cooperation that did not exist before. let me talk about the individual issues that have been mentioned. middle east peace i said our goal was to achieve a comprehensive piece that means peace agreements between israel and the palestinians and syria and israel and lebanon. but that tuesday's solution solution, and we believe is key. we are working on this in three different areas right now.

one is the negotiating track. whether they should be a priority and it is a priority of has not been easy end in part we did not have a full year. then -- the net on the yahoo! government needed to come together. so it was in me when they were ready to talk about this and the palestinians waited until august after the congress in bethlehem said it has not been a full year do remember one year ago israelis and palestinians were just coming out of a war. now both sides have reaffirmed their commitment to reduce state solution is so pre-can move ahead but one of three real looking at as going together to a

mutually reinforcing and the second area of security by the palestinian security performance, a good performance is absolutely essential to move ahead. i think of security as a second track there has been frankly quite a bit of success when you talk about security in the west bank. the third is the institutional developing call it the ground up supporting the prime minister plan to build palestinian institutions that are worthy of their name and can take the means of a palestinian state as a functioning accountable state in which the citizens feel they need to be

matched. these three things have to go together. if you neglect day security track it is obvious. of the constitutional track it is creating conditions for what would be a failed state but if you leave the negotiations l and don't have a process than there is very little incentive or interest for the palestinians to be working on the other two tracks, the ground up approach. we see these three working together and waiting to try to get back into negotiations rebuilding cancers anybody but the extremist. with iraq, our strategic goal is iraq that is sovereign, a stable, and self-reliant her crowhop

crowhop -- we're going through a transition and believe me those in the state department know how close this transition will be watched and how important their responsibilities are on our soldiers to get this transition right. there has been a lot of blood and treasure this country has committed over the years and we must up the challenge with the civilian led relationship. there is a lot of debate with the upcoming iraqi elections. i would say does that make them disqualified? did the commission have legitimacy? all of this debate shows that elections matter in

iraq. it is basically a positive sign of our important the democratic process has been to see a debate that is the strongest in iraq today. with iran, this is i think probably the biggest challenge that we face in the region and the question is how does the international community work together to show if a country openly defies its international obligations, refuses to play by the rules how do show that there are consequences for its behavior? the united states has looked at the engagement as one way to address the diplomatic challenge the rand poses it to us and to engage does not

mean to embrace. it means using a different tool in the toolbox along with the others to try to fix a problem but i would argue there has been a benefit of the president's commitment and has demonstrated the evidence to reach our to the iranians that we're not seen as blocking a diplomatic resolution the focus is much more internationally on iran and iran's behavior and much less, was there a chance for a peaceful revolution just did not open that door? did not knock on that door? without doubt iran's response to the diplomacy has not been encouraging. then meetings in geneva october 1st look to be a

promising start but that in fact, the iranians have not pursue better looks like the iranians are pursuing belligerence not co-operation at this point*. but one thing to emphasize is that simply because the iranians have not responded to a u.s. offer for greater engagement does not mean we simply say we will wait and see and tell the iranians to have a few months to respond. that is not what is happening at all of all times options are examined and consultations are happening with partners but there is a much greater emphasis on the multi lateral aspect for what we do about shelving iran there are consequences for ignoring the rules of the

game. i will talk one minute about egypt and elliott is right. they are close to my heart and i feel blessed i was able to spend the time that i did when i was in lebanon. when a bomb came into office he did offer to encage syria as well. i travel to damascus a couple of times it's something i thought i would never do especially 2006. senator mitchell we had one visited washington but these are tough discussions we are having. what is different is we're not just talking about the syrians put to the syrians but believe me about all the issues we have always talked about. the new lines of communication do not mean

buy any means we are putting aside our concerns of syrian policy are somehow looking to sudden they fell out our lebanese partners the message of the iraqi partners has been made clear but publicly and privately. but i know lebanon well enough to lead mitt honestly that our friends continue to have questions about this and continue to ask about this. on egypt, our dialogue covers the full range of issues and get every opportunity, this a administration has engaged egyptian government on human rights issues. was the president and told the media after words yes he

had raised the democracy and human rights issues with him. there are definitely still areas of concern and we watch very closely for example, with the raids with the bloggers detained over the last few-- to pay condolences of the sectarian crime. on democracy and human rights the secretary's met with representatives of civil society and basically all of the trips she has made in the region and i have seen her stressed repeatedly at these events, that it is the foreign policy of the united states obama administration to promote support defend democratic press is a page

10 and progress including egypt. not because we want the other countries to be like best of all people to have the opportunity to have themselves how to live their lives. and elliott mentioned the elections coming up a and we believe it is of the best interest of the chip to work toward a more transparent and democratic system that protects human rights and freedoms under the rule of law. i would like to close with a quote from president obama from the cairo speech. delivered on june 4th. the president said baidu have unyielding belief of people you're in for certain things. the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed. confidence in the rule of

law and and the justice it is transparent and does not steal from the people the freedom to live as you choose not just american ideas but human rights. that is why we will support the very rare. thank you. [applause] >> we will have lee respond them leave will turn it over. >> first of all, the positions are exciting things and to be there on the ground to see these things happening as i explained in the book of lot of us got carried away and it is an easy thing that happens in the middle east all the time. that is are lots of americans travel to to articulate and express a very extreme emotion that are entirely out of place like in the middle east

whether they are fans of the resistance but if they have has plucky rings and t-shirts with on the other hand, there are others i remember myself somebody who was incredibly induced i think that is part of that. i don't think those policies are on. to be open to the bush and administration for not implementing them correctly. i do think there are some issues we did not quite understand and the issues, the main issue is for the kind of revolution because that is precisely what the bush of ministration is calling for, a cultural, societal and political revolution and the grounds are not prepared for that yet and it takes a lot of groundwork i am doubly made the bush administration for not doing

the proper groundwork pressure had a better idea of a lot of things need to happen. one more thing fact a point* i do make and the book gas well and the different places that were perhaps more ready for this kind of transformation, lebanon it has at least the colonel of a democratic policy of not more and research and they said paul lot of right things. the assistant secretary feldman and the way use to them from lebanon was exemplary. however, i think without protecting that lebanese democracy, the small colonel from the campaign of terror raised by the syrian regime, if we were not ready to use those tactics of our own it would be very vulnerable and fragile

experiment. and resaw secretary rice at the time pointing every time the syrians did some things saying we know you are involved in something is going milan, which is fine to say we know you are involved but to not do anything in about it where exact a place for that vineland's i think that was a serious problem against our friends. that is not entirely inadequate answer but you are right for you found one of the contradictions of the book but one of the dilemmas that i am still trying to figure through. >> we will turn it to the audience for questions will begin in the back. >> i implanted to offer a comment of praise of the book and i will amend it go

ahead and buy the book also read it. [laughter] but some people who have to read it or should read it are people in the region as well as people of the united states. this panel has a large discussion of specific policies but i want to commend it for of the things which are more prevalent in the buck which is an account which we successfully demolish that number of instances. the most important is the notion that the problems of the region are of our falter somebody else's fault rather than the region itself and a culture that has prevailed. that is really very, very important because the

opposite view is frequently taken and it does lead too partially a false view of the region also a false view of policy because the notion is if we are responsible for the problems than our actions can fix them and got rid itself of the responsibility of dilemmas. but is why i suggested there rear rather important for people to be distributed as well. i do want to ask a version of the question that elliott raised which this year pain to a bleak picture of the capacity of the region to do with these problems. and especially by the means we have been trying to pursue. and i wonder in your last

remarks you suggested there was a way to begin more modestly with a focus on lebanon but the required date point* very serious attempt to be nemerov with a syrian than iran. but my question is is that we were seriously proposing? the way to proceed is through more modest efforts on the one hand and rougher tactics on the other? the other thing you want to observe not about the book itself but the discussion taking place of, it seems to me it has been brought up but should be emphasized a number of the policies of the administration are continuations our policies of the previous administration but they are

nonetheless failures that we have had a policy for a example of engagement since the summer of 2003 but emphatically through 2006 but to offered negotiations to iran. we are far along on this path and it seems to me we have had ample intense fear both the administration's. and the same thing is true i think with syria. we need to try to be more in gauging and the results have not been very successful. thank you very much brighter urge everyone to buy and read lee book. >> i will respond to the

first if you buy to take a second. i don't think the policies are so modest that they definitely have rougher tactics. of you look at iraq right now i think it is very hard to break down different countries in the region but even if you're able to look at about eleanor iraq, i will stick to those two countries in particular and work on the different issues, you have a lot of regional actors to are invested will go on and a and it seems that the syrians and radios along with prime minister morale the key. so with everyone interfering in everyone else's house hired you close down the one society to say now we will look at lebanon? now you need to play fairly

rough with the neighbors perhaps the saudis generally have been a fairly positive influence in lebanon up until recently in a way. i think these things are very, very difficult. don't think they are modest but extremely ambitious. i think that would be one of my issues. if we understand exactly how the ambitious these ideas are, you just cannot work on one of these societies on its own because there are different people who will have a hand in it to. >> with respect to syria, there is continuity and the failure to what would change syrian policy but not to engage ran. blasted the industry shifted nine engagingly and we that is what i reject is that engagement to syria. >> when i look back on that

2005 point* in lebanon, i analyzed one of the assets of lebanese head was international iran but there was a reaction to a fascination that brought together the lebanese but also the international committee so you have them all working in the same direction for a short period. the pressure administration working already putting in place the foundation for the international consensus regard the need to withdraw before the assassination started in the summer and the fall 2004 but that term

magic key event brought other countries into play an international consensus it did not last. , as elliott said the israelis opened the door to be engagement with syria when they have there in direct negotiations with the turks. . .