three diplomacy has not been encouraging. the meanings and geneva october october 1 looks to be a promising start, but that in fact the iranians in fact have not pursued that. it looks as though the iranians are pursuing belligerents, not call operation at this point. but i think one thing to emphasize is that simply because the iranians have not responded to a u.s. offer for greater engagement doesn't mean we have simply stopped and waited. ..

when he came into office and did in fact offer to engage syria as well. i traveled to damascus a couple times, something i never thought i would do certainly in 2006. senator mitchell has traveled a couple times. we had a syrian visit here in washington. i will just say the start of discussions that we are having with the syrians. what's different is we are now talking not just about the syrians, we are talking to the

syrians about all the issues that we've always talked about the syrians on. so these new lines of communication do not mean by any means that we are somehow putting aside our concerns about syrian policy or we are somehow looking suddenly sellout our lebanese partners. the message about not selling out lebanon or our iraqi partners has been made clear to the syrians both publicly and privately. but i know lebanon well enough to admit honestly that our friends in lebanon continue to have questions about this and continue to ask about this. on egypt our dialogue covers the full range of issues at every opportunity this administration has engaged the government of democracy, political reform and

human rights issues. you may remember when president mubarak visited the white house in the summer it was president mubarak who told the media afterwards yes in fact president obama had read the democracy and raised democracy and human rights issues with him. there are definitely still areas of concern and we watch very closely for a simple and raise with the egyptian government on many levels the case of the bloggers that were detained over the last few days that tried to pay condolences in what was secretary in crime. on democracy and human rights and i will close with this the secretary has met with representatives of civil society, democracy activists and basically all of her trips she's taken in the region. i've been with her on these trips and she has -- i have seen her stressed repeatedly at these

events that is the foreign policy of the united states and obama administration to promote, support and defend space participation and progress including egypt. it's not because we want the other countries to be like us but because we want all people to have the opportunity to decide for themselves how to live their lives. eliot mentioned the egyptian he elections coming up this year for parliament. we believe it is in the best interest of egypt to work toward a more transparent and space local system that protects human rights and freedom under the rule of law. and i would like to close with a quote from president obama from the cairo speech delivered on june 4th. the president said, quote, i do have an unyielding belief all people year and 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 equal administration justice. governor this transparent and doesn't steal from people, the freedom to live as you choose. these are not just american ideas, the argument rights and that is why we will support them everywhere. thank you. [applause] >> we will have lee respond to the remarks and then turn it over. >> first of all, to partly answer the questions revolutions are exciting things and to be there on the ground and see these things happening as i explained in the book i think that a lot of us got carried away and it is certainly an easy thing -- that is a thing that happens in the middle east all the time. this is a place where lots of americans travel to articulate and express oftentimes very extreme emotions that are entirely out of place in a country like the united states or in the middle east where they are fans of the resistance and

they want to visit hezbollah areas and collect key rings and t-shirts. on the other hand there are others, and i remember myself as someone who was incredibly enthused about this and i think this part of it. the other part i don't think those policies were wrong. i think they are extremely good policies and i don't believe it is the fault of the bush administration for not implementing them correctly. i think though there are certain deep issues we didn't quite understand and i think the issues -- the main issue we didn't understand is for the kind of revolution that is a thing that is precisely what the bush administration was calling for, cultural, societal and political revolution and the grounds were not entirely prepared for that yet and it takes a lot of ground work. again i'm not blaming the bush administration for not having

done the proper groundwork but maybe we all should have a better idea if there's a lot of things that need to happen and one more thing i will say is a point that i do make in the book as well in the different places that were perhaps more ready for this kind of transformation for instance lebanon where lebanon certainly has at least the kernel of a space poverty if not more, and we certainly said a lot of the right things. assistant secretary feltman who was ambassador and you, the way they used it up for lebanon was exemplary. however, i think that without protecting that lebanese democracy, that small kernel from the campaign of terror waged by both of the syrian regime and the iranian regime in other words if they were not ready to use strong horse tactics above or own it was going to be a very vulnerable and very fragile experiment. and we saw secretary rice at the

time pointing every time the syrians were doing something saying we know you are involved, we know something is involved. that is fine to so we know you were involved but to not do anything about it, to not expected price for that filings with our allies and friends i think there was a serious problem. i don't know of that is an entirely adequate answer. i think you are probably right you found one of the office wouldn't say contradictions in the book but one of the dilemmas i am still trying to think through. >> why don't return to the audience and return to questions. the hudson syndrome is on democracy and of the muslim world in the back.

>> i want to offer a comment of praise on the book. [inaudible] some of the people who have treated or should treated our people in the region as well as people in the state's, and there has been the latter part of this panel is a large discussion of specific policies but i want to commend it for some other things which are more privileges of a book which are and i count of the various views taken of the region which lee i think successfully demolishes in a number of instances. perhaps the most important is the notion somehow that the problems of the region are our

fault or someone else's fault rather than the region itself and the culture that has prevailed. and i think that is very, very important because the opposite view is frequently taken and that does lead i think to partially false view of the region but also a false view of policy because the notion is if we are responsible for the problems that our actions can fix them and that leaves the region itself with the responsibility facing its own dilemma and that's why i suggest it would be important for people in the region to read it as well i do want to ask a version of the question that elliott raised which is to paint a bleak picture of the capacity of the region to deal with its own

problems, and especially by means we've been trying to pursue. and i wonder in your last remarks he suggested there was a way to begin more modestly to say the focus on lebanon but the required a very serious attempt to be rough to put it bluntly with syria and iran. but i guess my question is that what you are seriously proposing at this point the way to proceed is through more modest efforts on the one hand and with rough tactics on the other. the other thing i want to observe is not about the book itself but the discussion that is taking place, and it seems to me that it's a been brought out

what should be emphasized in number of the policies of the present administration are continuations of policies in previous administrations. but they are nonetheless failures. that is we oppose for the example we have had a policy of engagement one could say since the summer of 2003 but emphatically since the spring of 2006 when it became the policy to offer negotiations to iran subject to the suspension of the iranian and richmond. so we are long -- far along this path and it seems to me we have had ample evidence through both administrations that path is not going to work and the same thing is true i think with syria. we have tried to be more engaging and the results have

not been very successful. thank you very much and again i urge everyone to buy and read lee's book. >> thank you. >> why don't you respond? >> i will respond to the first part and then if you would like to take the second part. i don't think that those -- policies are so modest. they're definitely refer tactics for instance if you look at iraq right now i think it's very hard to break down different countries in the region. even if you were able to look lebanon or iraq i will stick to those in particular and work on the different issues in those countries you have a lot of regional actors who have a vested interest in what is going on. right now in iraq it seems the saudis and the syrians have made a deal along with the iranians over prime minister maliki so if everyone interfering in everyone's house how do you sort of close down the one society

and say now we are going to look at lebanon? were you need to do is play fairly rough with a different neighbors like the syrians and iranians and the saudis who have generally been a fairly positive influence in lebanon until recently at any rate. so i think these things are very difficult. again i don't think they are modest to think it is extremely ambitious and i guess that would be one of my issues if we understand exactly how ambitious these ideas are again you can't just work on one of these societies on its own. there are different people who are going to have a hand in it. >> with respect to syria there is continuity in the failure to impose the kind of pressure that might change the policy but not with respect to engagement. the last administration did not

engage with syria and we object to israel's engagement with syria so that 1i reject. >> when i look back on that 2005 period in lebanon, i analyze that one of the assets that the lebanese had was international and regional unity. it did not include syria and iran but by and large, there was the reaction to the assassination brought together the lebanese but also brought together the international community so you hit the lebanese and the international community all working in the same direction for a short period. the bush administration working with the french had already put in place the foundation stones

for an international consensus regarding the need to withdraw before the assassination. it started in the summer and fall of 2004 but the dramatic assassination brought other countries in to play, an international consensus and the census didn't last as elliott said the israelis opened the door to the engagement with syria when they had their negotiations with of the turks. when president sarkozy looked at the policy for the middle east he made a dramatic shift from his predecessor. he decided that it was worth trying to engage syria to try to see if you could increase syria in a way that would moderate the syrian behavior of course more recently you have the saudi representative pushmataha which has a number of routes by the degree that part of the

discussions have been on iraq. so you end up in the point where we isolate -- we were the ones isolated, it was no longer syria, it was the united states being isolated so i think this administration decided that engagement is not the -- engagement something we need to try and i will emphasize engagement doesn't mean as i said before to increase, it doesn't mean endorsement of certain policies, it doesn't mean you go and say we love everything you are doing. it is simply a different tool to try to achieve the means. so far the results have been modest at best but this also hasn't been something that we've been doing that long. >> i entirely agree with you that engaging someone is not the same as embracing. however i would also ask why aren't we acting and maybe we

are and please correct me why aren't we acting with a conviction that diplomacy is not necessarily the opposite of war were we believe this president can to office campaigning on the eddy we are going to use diplomacy not just military action. why can't all of these tools be a part of the same portfolio? while we are working on engaging the syrians they certainly do this, they are very talented and giving this. they are willing to sit down with anyone while they are blowing them up at different points. so i mean, why aren't we using -- why can't we use pressure on them as well as engage them in diplomatically. >> i would argue that we are. i would argue that for example there has been a renewal of executive order that we are trying to use as i said as much -- as many tools in the toolbox

as we possibly can. >> is there a follow-up issue? let me turn to you. please identify yourself and we will come back around. >> thank you. i would like to follow on the syrian issue. both iran and syria are neighbors to turkey in which prime minister's government want to accomplish the problems with both of them and also all of turkey's neighbors. trying to understand the previous administration and also the current administration at route to the syrian ankle i know that the turkish officials including the turkish president and also the turkish prime minister has expressed their

engagement with syria has been widely appreciated by the bush administration may be they didn't start as so because they were against it but as did negotiations with israel went forward they think turkey that they start to this engagement with syria. that's one. so i would like to ask you how it was during the bush at the fenestration and on the current administration you emphasized strongly that engagement doesn't mean encasement. how do you see the turkish position on syria? do you think that their engagement means increasing the government? thank you. >> of the bush administration didn't favor at the time it

began syrian-israeli negotiations because they let syria out of the box we had carefully constructed. syria was in that period if you go back to example the number of european foreign minister visits over 12-month period very, very small. syria was quite isolated and the price it paid for the break in the isolation was zero. that is mostly a criticism of the government of israel. much less so crevices of the government of turkey in the sense that two governments want to negotiate and they ask you to facilitate the culpability is a great deal less than if you are the author of this engagement. there is no point, nothing to be gained by criticizing the turkish role and i don't believe

the united states averted criticized the turkish role. the problem i would say is trying to figure out what israel of the cause of peace or the syrian population or the lebanese population or the iraqi population gain from this and i think the answer is nothing to respect this administration recognizes the fact turkey is a significant player in the region so turkey's interests in the region obviously derived from turkey's location, syria, iraq, iran, we appreciate the partnership that has developed between the united states and turkey on a number of these issues. the turkish relationship with

iraq for mixing bowl is an extremely important element of iraq's reintegration into the region. i said one of the obama administration's administration's time-consuming as it is is a comprehensive peace in the middle east, comprehensive peace in the middle east has to conclude a peace agreement between israel and syria. if the israelis and the syrians believe that turkish mitigation will help restore the negotiation we are all for it. >> [inaudible] >> it looks difficult at this point. we have talked a lot to the syrians -- he said recently in an interview he traveled and met with the turkish officials, talks a lot with turkish foreign minister. it's not that easy right now to restore peace negotiations but

we believe they must be restarted the some point and to some extent the parties would rich to rely again on turkey's good offices again we would be supportive. sprick what a british high to keep comments brief because we do have the significant number of questions. >> thank you for organizing the conference. it is good to see you. i think you should be feeling good about what you and the administration has shared with iraq. today iraq and democracy is moving forward. iraq has more political parties and newspapers and televisions than all of the arab nations combined so you should feel good and i feel good because my son was an officer. i'm surprised mr. smith didn't mention anything about the government in his comments because the opponent to the space reform in the world.

mr. feltman, the administration mr. obama and secure clinton and military officers have been saying with respect and i agree we should treat people with respect. my question and i hope you can answer is as a citizen and officer. my question is how do you consider treating with respect why we are supporting the most absolute dictatorship since saudi arabia and egypt [inaudible] >> a year ago i might have had to answer that question. [laughter] this is the time you get off the floor of the elevator like the national chicken association or something.

it's not an easy question obviously as you yourself know because we believe that all of these governments should have the respect of their people, all of these governments we are talking about should earn the respect of the people. the people should feel the government are accountable, people should feel they have a chance of participating public life and to speak in their lives they can affect the composition of their government to election. sadly many of the government's fall short of that idea. most of them fall short of that idea. when we talk about treating earlobes with respect, we are talking about the language we use to address the arab world.

we are talking about thinking about not just what we do that how we do meet when we are talking about using for example the toole that the bush administration put into the bureau. i now have the partnership initiative to read when we had the middle east partnership initiative to promote civil society how do we do it? dewey do it saying washington has the idea how you should do it or do you actually go and talk to the civil society people? and we are increasingly flexible giving grants to civil society organizations across the arab world so they themselves can help direct how best to do it. it's trying to treat people tall levels in a spirit of partnership. it's not always reciprocated and you don't always say publicly what might feel good to be said publicly. you might feel i need to beat up on this side publicly but it doesn't achieve that much and so we are trying to speak respectfully and appropriately behind closed doors about where

we see the best way forward to building per to support democracy to provide an opportunity for civil society to emerge, things like that. these are not easy questions >> ambassador feltman, with the united states do to deal with the upcoming elections in egypt which everybody thought was three stages to pass the power from the bark -- mubarak to his son and to mr. smith, what kind of road you envision for the obama administration to guide the arab world out of its troubled past and at the same time keep the u.s. strong course?

>> on the e egyptian the elections, you've got parliamentary and elections this year presidential elections the year after. we believe that it is in thought interest of egypt that the electoral process be opened up and be more inclusive that more people be able to purchase a paid. the group's that are willing to use space means only to rely on space means only don't rely on any kind of violence should have the opportunity to participate. we hope that the the egyptian government will use domestic observers for international observers to help in the process. believe me, this is a subject of much discussion between us and the egyptians right now. >> i would say that there is been some speculation. i mean, especially with the

president's speech at the u.n. where he was talking out about the balance of power, that balance of power of the nations will not hold. so i think there's been some speculation and before the president came to office that he would reduce the american profile in the region. i think one of the things we are finding is it is a very difficult thing to do. and i think we are finding this particularly in yemen. i'm curious was this -- what kind of place did yemen occupy in the thinking of the last administration or does this come as an absolute surprise on the human issue? >> just for a minute on that to go back to the u.s. a school. again and has been very much a matter of attention in the united states government for the better part of a decade. and if you look at things like

the visits of the president here are from millennium challenge account budget for yemen or the u.s. aid to yemen, we have had a lot of discussions with the government of yemen and a lot of effort to get the government to respond better to the needs of the yemen people and i would say it's been up and down and up and down. there have been moments when things look like they were on the right road, for example after the election which was by local standards meaning standards of the arab world. someone was allowed to oppose the president and he was not put in jail after a by-election. but then there were the corruption problems as just one of the many problems. the jail escapes me it clear that either the government

wasn't keeping its word or was simply not able to do so. meanwhile as particularly the latter years of the bush administration went by, it became increasingly apparent that our interests or let me put it this way, our priorities and those of the yemen government were not the same because our priority was terrorism. but the priority of the president was perhaps not so supposedly president sala dealing with the south and the rebellion so you couldn't be sure for example where resources you gave the government were going to be put. but i think what of the obama administration is now finding is this is an extremely difficult problem for us to solve.

partly because of the different priorities of the government of yemen and partly because it does not have certain capabilities that we wish it had and that cannot be developed overnight so this will be a problem that they have the whole time in office. >> [inaudible] i always feel -- what he did was very good school. but the road of one some iraqi you had the nerve after the war to say maybe there should be regulation with israel. his sons were killed, they trashed the office and never heard of him again. if lee is aware of him i would appreciate that. a more generic question is does

the obama administration realized what senator fulbright said many years ago to be effective as a weekend power is not nearly as strong as it is that is it was years ago we have no economic, we certainly have lost a little bit and we have time and in the because most of the discussion of this purpose of refocusing itself as we have the right to determine these events. some of us believe it's a good we talk about human rights but it should not really intervene in a policy unless we have an opportunity to have real points. i was one pushing the u.s. egyptian free trade agreement which i thought was a way to build relationships of of the table because we article about mubarak. i will see the relationship between the two in that account mubarak was going to change his policy very simple to taking my niger off. not that it makes us feel good. to the question i would ask his anybody seen a realization either in the bush or in the

obama administration that maybe we have to talk quieter or we don't the same stick we used to have and so on its cigarette in terms of the fact we have less power in the world and then we may have had even during the russian period but certainly immediately after the russian downfall. thank you. >> [inaudible] gist comegys still a figure as far as i know >> i will give my answer to the second question and then i guess we can go down the line or whoever else wants to take on the question. i don't know how you measure the u.s. decline. i certainly don't see it like that from -- i don't think a lot of people in the region see it like that the u.s. is declining power. i think the people believe the u.s. as i do as certain responsibilities. i mean, again the united states

has been the strong course on the intermittently challenged in that region over some 60 plus years. i don't think that we are less powerful there been before. there are certainly some people who would like us to become less powerful but i just don't know how we would measure that and i certainly don't believe it. >> just very briefly on egypt free trade agreement. the problem is that you cannot start negotiating free trade agreement or i would say you should not the day after the guy who runs against president mubarak is jailed. the message of that to all egyptians is we don't give a. and maybe the sudden to be the message that is received but it is the message we thought would have been received well. the only thing i would say about the decline is i agree with lee

and i would go back to the decline that it is a choice. those who believe the united states position is significantly reduced i would say look at iran. the negotiations between iran and the europeans have been taken place for years and years and have gotten no place because the prize is us and though the government of iran is obsessed with the u.k. it is clear the people of iran are much more akaka interested in the u.s. and for democracy. at that level i think there has been no decline. >> steve rosen. >> my question is to jeff feltman about the palestinian negotiations. the administration has been widely criticized for overreaching when it demanded a complete settlement freeze in israel and then appeared to back

down to a degree and it has been said that it put out all lamb etc. last week secretary mitchell made another long reach when he seemed to promise a comprehensive peace agreement between israelis and palestinians in 24 months. something that i think is widely questioned whether it is an attainable goal. are we creating another limb that we and the palestinians will climb altogether and not be able to deliver and then have a problem of creation? >> let me make a comment on this issue first because the united states policy is long standing and predates this administration

and the george w. bush administration and the government has had the same policy on settlements for a very long time. the call for the settlement freeze was consistent with the road map that was presented to the palestinians and the israelis under the last administration and was also not presented as a precondition for negotiation. it requested consistent with u.s. policy and we do think that the israeli settlement moratorium is something significant particularly if it is extended out over a longer term which is one reason we think it is in the palestinian interest negotiations with the idea perhaps the more tory might be extended if you have viable negotiations going on over the long term. i think that we are all very -- we have to be humbled by the experience of decades of trying to help the peace if we talk

about the time line i think yes we are talking about our aspiration that we need to try to close this up but we are also very, very aware of the difficulties. very aware of the histories of this so i wouldn't forget senator mitchell's interview on charlie rose as a, quote, decline but as an aspirational goal to try to focus our attention and our partners attention on getting back to the table and helping move forward. >> i may say here, too, i think that judge feltman has given the best defense possible of senator mitchell negotiating record he really ought to resign because his record is one of failure for a year now particularly starting with establishing the condition of total negotiation construction trees including jerusalem which everybody knows

no israeli government is going to accept and which it had the unfortunate impact of credit cornering president abbas or putting him out on the lamb to which none of us have been able to figure a way for him to climb down without giving himself damage to the i think on this we disagree. >> i think we do disagree on this and i go back to the fact that a year ago the gaza war was just ending and now we are at the point we are talking about terms of reference. i don't want to exaggerate. this is not saying that we are the negotiating table having wonderful breakthroughs but the fact and a year you go from what was say very tough military

security situation where you have rockets' running down on the civilian population and the israeli army acting in gazzo to the point we are actually exchanging ideas on terms of reference for the renewed talks where you are having arab foreign ministers coming to washington to discuss how they can support and negotiating process and i think that we have gone forward. >> [inaudible] >> there have been periods in the past you are aware where the negotiating levels have not spoken for whatever reason. the gaza withdrawal is a good example where the israelis acted unilaterally with israelis refusing to negotiate with palestinians the we that might have uncovered the moderates. even now today though there are

plenty of israeli-palestinian contracts going on not at that negotiating level but i assure you there are lots of contacts going on even now. we want to see negotiations start as quickly as possible. elliott, your article today all process, no peace. i guess we are afraid no process means more war so we want to get back to the negotiations. >> the thank you. my question to ambassador feltman is director controversy all decision from the electoral commission by disqualifying more than 500 some of them sunni heavyweights. is there any american plan to rectify the situation and maybe lee can, and how the united

states can provide any system will eckert if the u.s. has to go back every time for an election over the president or to please the iraqi elections. >> who's singing that we believe that the iraqi elections should be conclusive that there shouldn't be some sort of a trumped up political process the disqualify candidates we believe the voters themselves should have the right to pick them. some candidates haven't met the criteria for inclusion but we support the collections. the iraqi vice president abdullah was your last week and heard this from the obama administration officials of the very top and the inclusive elections that we believe would be a credible fear transparent election process i think you saw vice president biden was very actively engaged over the past couple of days and talking about this where the u.n. assistance mission to iraq which is working

on assisting the the elections has made clear to the iraqis i think that iraqi is, politicians themselves are looking at this in a different way. the risk is they end up -- the community that the iraqi themselves can endorse, that is a very real risk. we believe that the iraqi leadership is moving in the right direction on this issue now. >> could i ask you to just to elaborate on the question? i'm not sure i quite understand. thanks. >> sustainable stability of the u.s. effort if the u.s. has a free issue such as the elections of the president or policing the -- my question to ambassador feltman right now and in many other issues about but the elections and otherwise in the middle east. >> and the middle east is not the only region in the world where bud united states has a

serious vital interest. so i don't think that kind of effort is sustainable but i think some sort of -- i think a general framework as possible and what are the things -- -- my general framework would be to punish enemies and reward friends who are in the region and for the enemies i'm not a policymaker so these are the two gentlemen who will have a good idea but that we haven't done enough of that. we haven't done enough often rewarding friends are punishing enemies. >> over year ambassador feltman it caught my attention use bouck we need to reassure iraqi allies

launch its lebanese allies as we go to damascus so for three weeks in the region there seems to be almost a unanimous city amongst the political elite and the saudis seem to be working to undermine and maliki. leading up to the iraqi elections and where does that leave us with the syrians about a year rego they were putting forth iraq as the primary area of possible cooperation between the u.s. and syria but also aware that leaves us with the saudis and it speaks to the broad notion of how we deal with those in the region durham durham lining of the american strong force thanks. >> i don't think i am revealing state secrets when i see that we have been encouraging under the bush administration the saudis and iraq's other arab neighbors to basically get with as a program to recognize the fact that iraq is becoming a leading

power house in the region again. when you look at iraq ten years out and the contract is being now negotiated, the fact that you've got and the electoral system that has a history, yes it is the hiccups but there is an electoral system developing strong roots. iraq is going to be a strong leader in the region again. we believe that it is in everyone's interest to understand that and to start increasing the iraqi government. this isn't about who is in the government and who is not. it is about to the future of the gulf region that includes a stable, secure self-reliant iraq and i assure you the iraqi issues remain high on the agenda when we talk to the syrians. i took to the syrians lebanon was higher i assure you. [laughter] >> kimmage is at a point there. there is a famous line or story of a think it was kissinger who

says if you believe that then what do you think about the french revolution and joann says it is too soon to tell. well i think there's a lot of truth with respect to iraq. i hear a lot of people say talk about the huge disaster of iraq and i would ask you to come back, jeff feltman, in ten years and see if we can agree that it is a disaster was a success. one of the things president bush fought about iraq was that to have a successful and ultimately rich arab democracy in the heart of the middle east, the shia era of democracy would have a huge impact on politics and in the arab world and in iran and not only do i think that hasn't been proven wrong i think that come back in ten years and will be proven right

>> that is an interesting case and i was the sixth defeat to -- keep in mind this book and ideas are still coming at the heat of the moment. one of my amana thesis as that as was discussed before why it is ridiculous to look at us meaning americans, the united states, as the cause of the problems of the region because we are looking at a region that is very old and problems that predate the end of islam. along the historical timeline i think it is probably too early to figure out how the different things will play out and it's been it written interestingly saying the invasion of iraq will probably have the same sort of ramifications as napoleon's invasion of egypt maybe, maybe not. it's a very long time line

>> av schakowsky from hudson. on the question of engagement with syria and just want to ask about one specific point which was back in the summer there was the big attack in central baghdad that included the foreign ministry, one of the worst attacks, and afterwards maliki was fairly strong in his statements about syrian involvement and has ali understand the white house reaction after that was well this is something between iraq and syria. a kind of distancing. i was wondering is this a kind of cost of the syrian engagement it seemed like a strange reaction to for us to have when maliki had been cautious about syria for anything and made this rather strong statement that we kind of said well it's between those two governments. thanks.

>> week, the united states, do not want to further complicate the relationship between baghdad and damascus. that is one consideration. but let me say that we continue to use means to raise attention to the fact that there are still 49 fighters, terrorists exploiting the territory to carry out the attacks on iraq. the number is greatly reduced more than a couple of years ago but never the less it is still happening and still is a high priority issue for us with the syrians. when mr. maliki after august 19th called for the u.n. to look into its own assessment and we were very supportive of primm minister maliki's request to have somebody from the outside look at the august 19th

attack >> the fellow behind you as the microphone and then you our next >> thank you very much. on iran -- my name is mohammed. [inaudible conversations] >> don't go any further. [laughter] >> why don't you have a seat right over here. >> a wonderful opportunity to read this question is for elliott and jeff feltman. approaching iran, negotiating

with iran i hope that you gentlemen and the policy makers have come to understand that this regime is mother of all time deception and i hope that you have come to realize that you will not get anywhere. president obama, whoever gave him the advice to reach the regime and extend a hand to the clenched fist which is full of irony and blood and is even bloodier now after the june election or so-called election full of fraudulent. i hope by approaching them and extending a hand it gives them the legitimacy that they lost, the legitimacy with the iranian

people. we have played the copay with our blood december 27 a week after ayatollah died, 138 people were gunned down on the streets of tehran alone. he made a mistake and 1953, the american administration, made a mistake by removing the doctor. now this time if you just keep silent, quiet, don't extend a hand or negotiate, don't give them the legitimacy, to stay on the side of the iranian people, help us to topple this nasty criminal regime and you will gain of the credibility. we are not looking for any kind of help from the united states or the western countries.

but keep silent. don't try -- you have been trying -- elliott, you remember during the reagan administration a weapon hostages, iran contra, you remember that. for 30 years you have been trying to reach the government of iran who are the mother of all time deception, they are criminals and hasn't worked. to stay on the side of iranian people by keeping quiet and silent, just silent. that is all that we want from you on till we topple this regime hopefully by june. and they will come along. it will come along. believe me. >> thank you for the question. thank you. >> i think you know, mr. feltman --

>> thank you -- >> a good policy how to handle that and how to help us. >> thank you. let's get the fellow. >> i do agree it is critical whenever the united states does not regret legitimacy even in the eyes of armenian people are especially in the eyes of the iranian people that is what i think is worrying about even the nuclear negotiations i'm not suggesting we breakoff vp five plus one talks but i would go back to the model of the way in which the ronald reagan administration handled the soviet union which is to say that it was possible to have negotiations without abandoning the population in the gulag as long as you were willing to speak candidly about the gulag so that the people who were there knew which side you were

are. if you are going to have negotiations with iran which we probably are not because the ayatollah don't seem to want it but if we are plenty of negotiations with iran it is double important, even more important than today and quite important today that we make those hour moral position clear. >> i will just repeat something i said earlier. there are a lot of states around the world, a lot of countries and international organizations that just say there must be peace, they're must be peaceful solution, peaceful resolution. we all want a diplomatic resolution. but we were seen by many as part of the problem. so i would not underestimate the fact that since the president has gone out of his way to try to engage and we have been completely rebuffed that there's more on the international consensus where the real problem is to meet spec the last question. then -- >> i operate under the pseudonym urban revival media on youtube and this is only my second time here at the hudson.

i think i will return because your food is just as good as the libertarians. [laughter] >> did you try the quaker's logic? you will never come back here again. [laughter] >> i'm from an exotic middle eastern town, poor town called baltimore as you can tell from my accent but i have a question for you particularly to mr. lee smith anytime you can produce a book that puts it all together as you seem to have done i want to congratulate you on that. i wanted to ask you did you ultimately come down on one side or the other in retrospect with respect to mr. bush's administration decision to go into iraq which is obviously heavily criticized and part of the reason that he is no longer in town as he used to be. but you come down on one side or the other or foretell that we would run into some of the issues we have had with some of