there still is a difference. sonyway, i hope that answers your question. >> we've been talking with adam bellow and bill strachan about some of their upcoming titles. gentleman, thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you ..

>> we really do. i don't think you can discuss the presidency without discussing what i call between the united states and the great middle east. and that particular legacy has its deep roots in the cold war years between the united stas and soviet union where the united states sacrificed progressive forces on what they call the struggle against the soviet union. in 1947 to 1989, so much damage was done to the middle east and so much hatred in the united states, and this culminated in the 9/11 war. and the 9/11 war particularly the invasion of iraq, a rather

blunt treasurer and tears were shed as a result, and this is why i think any particular chapter of the book we discuss when you say to the viewers when we talk about it we are talking about the particular since 9/11 multiple war and multiple front hundreds of thousands of american troops battling the muslim land. the united states engaged in a social engineering project that goes far beyond its strategic interest. the moral standing of the united states major setback of credibility of the united states. the united states of america pretending, acting the leader of the free world and yet and expanded in torture and abroad. the economic costs of the 9/11 war between three to

$5 trillion. three to $5 trillion. >> it's one of those members i've been using and hearing and writing this for so long and it's one of those numbers that is so large it is almost impossible to comprehend. what is a trillion? i can't quite imagine a million. >> guest: think about when barack obama came and said 700 million, $700 billion in order to basically reconstct the american economy, think of the cry. you are spending $700 billion. we don't have $700 billion. we dn't even have $3 trillion we have spent. most of the money was borrowed not to mention just about economic cost is also about the opportunity cost. while the united states was chasing the jihadis in afghanistan and pakistan the war

was going on so barack obama inherited the legacy of the economic decline and also the rise of the geostrategic power china, india, africa, brazil, turkey, and this is why any particular as you say the question must take into account what he inherited and what he has been able to achieve so far. >> that raises the critical question scenario where he has inherited this weakened position of the united states. the u.s. is no longer the sole superpower it's not even clear that the u.s. is the most important or influential power in the region. it's now contaminated in the whole new way with a lineup of the emerging power. in tha context we of the u.s. defeat in iraq, the rise of iran and turkey that you described

the book contending with each other and with others for the regional dominance and crucial we have the arab swing the the u.s. could rely not only on israel but on the air of a dictator's. what do you think would have been different from another president either neoconservative president like george bush or someone else. did barack obama i suppose is the fundamental question have any options and what he has gotten? >> guest: you are raising many points and i think we need to understand what s subtitled the end of america's dominance and in the beginning of the american dominance is very much related to help american foreign policy was hijacked to 9/11 and the deadly and costly war waged in

the name of security because it had little to do with the security and the social plant in the jeffersonian democracy using the bottom-up. the system to his credit and his adviser he realized the damage was done. they also have the sense of america's decline. they realized america was declining and they were beginning to start with barack obama and this is where it comes in and that's why many of us basically were blinded by the rousing. many on the right and left with barack obama has never said that he was a transformational president. never from 2006 he always trusted he was a realist tradition. this goes to the heart of who he

is as a president. he never promised and that is why from day one he wanted to amend the istoric trust. there's one particular point to highlight his legacy he wanted to bring american foreign policy to the decline before the neoconservatives. >> let's look at that because i think one of the questions that people are still able to resolve is even how much of a disconnect not in tactics or strategy which clearly the war against terrorism was called the response to 9/11 was there a break with the kind of prudent imperialism if you will what we have seen earlier than that but fundamentally it seemed the interest of the neoconservatives wasn't so different than the interest of those that came before and after but the

interest in the middle east of israel and stability for the markets and expansion of power the sort of things, those three things seemed pretty consistent with the assault after 9/11 and with barack obama. bdy you see the shift? >> guest: i have learned about american oreign policy and i've written other books on the social movement and the war on power the structural institutional company in american foreign policy. you really cannot understand. this is one of the lessons you cannot understand the system of american foreign policy without understanding. what do we mean? let's translate. what we mean by the institutional foreign policy is

dominant you use the world through the particular land and this you have israel first, the oil and gas and america its strategic interest broadly defined as you suggested, and the reason why i think why barack obama tried to basically undo some of the damage done by the new conservative particulars he came to contact and resistance by the system itself the structural company continuity what we call the dysfunctional american system. people say nonsense. this is a dysfunctional american political system which includes special-interest group, the foreign policy as a whole that controls how policy is made.

if you want to look at the team these people have the same name and voices not even a single dissenting voice on the middle east this by itself the same voices and the same paradigm that's why the policy itself keep some putting itself and that's why barack obama when he came up against the whole special-interest groups three major confrontations is benjamin netanyahu and the three different occasions. because he realized you have to invest major political -- you have to take on the american political system and he was unwilling to do so because at the end of the day barack obaa

deeply anchored in the foreign policy views the world through the dominant consensus that the establishment and viewed it. >> host: that sounds absolutely right but i wonder there was a moment i believe of was the third of the confrontations with netanyahu that you refer to and this was 2010 there was a great deal of media coverage about this question is the u.s. being too tough on israel and there was accusations from lobbies like a pack and the think tank from the media and plenty in congress and they are all putting pressure on the obama administration claiming they are being too tough on israel. as you mentioned there was no pressure. there was a series of requests based of the settlement. answer, no then the question

stopped. during that time we were being told, the american people were being told obama is going after netanyahu. this is a whole thing but there was a poll by the zogby poll outfit one of the major democratic pollsters and one of the questions dealt with settlements and give people to options. one was the israelis are given settlements in the occupied territories for the security reasons and they have the right to build wherever they want. question number two, the israelis are building on excreted palestinian land. the settlement should be torn down and of the land returned to its original owners. very provocative way of describing it. accurate maybe but provocative nonetheless. 63% of barack obama's party voted for sentence number to. i think there was a stunning shift. a cadel moment in time it's a snapshot but why do you think there was such reluctance in the

administration to acknowledge that public opinion had in fact changed and that it wasn't going to be the same kind of political suicide to criticize and a serious way that they had not done yet and stilrefuse to do it? >> guest: you are absolutely correct on the polls and basically the shift in the american public. i think american president barack obama convinced since the 1960's but it is one particular narrative and one particular view that any president that takes on special-interest groups will pay a heavy price. the end of lasers convinced him that is the reality and that apec speech for the jewish communities. this is in a way if you look at the -- and salles at many polls done that in fact the jewish

community has always been progress of the forefront always a majority of the jewish communities always supported the two state solution. this is often a post -- >> host: as a definition -- >> guest: as a reality. >> i'm talking about particular young. a pack doesn't speak for the jewish community. apec does not represent the jewish communities. there is no one community as we know the reality is coming in even barack obama has used a pack or has come as part of the special will impose of special-interest group as opposed to representing the liquid tide constituency and this is also i think the reason

because the reality is whenever you take on dhaka dominant paradigm you need to create a counter constituency for peace. a constituency for peace that involves basically engagement and political capital educating american people that these are the costs and benefits of the peace process because if the educate not just the jewish community but i'm talking about a win-win that no one is trying to undermine on the contrary the united states has an obligation to save israel from a very particular point of view that unless they take into account the right and the obligations of the palestinians that at the end of the day as a separate command you might end up with one state

solution for in many holocaust that this -- >> host: i don't see that as a possibility. >> guest: absolutely but i'm saying the options are in the two state solutions. what options do you have to have most of the palestinians -- >> host: there's a big question people are grasping with right now whether there is still the two state solution has an option given the expansion of the settlements now is 650,000 breaking the law every morning just by waking up because they are in the land but i think the question of whether a one state solution would be in the apartheid or space state is a big question and there's still the illusion if you will but there may be a two-stage solution of some sort. but right now there is certainly no negotiation. there is no date, there is no

pressure. there was one line in your book that i was struck by and i thought i don't think the first true because you refer to obama challenging netanyahu which he did rhetorically and at the end of the day the party is divided and went home empty-handed and i thought that can't be right because he was still going home with this year 3.1 soon t be $4.1 billion in military aid lifting the promise to protect ensuring that no matter how many resolutions are passed no one is actually held accountable but all these things are taken as a matter of course such as a utility handed -- empty-handed. >> guest: barack obama in his latest interviews last few

months said i don't understand all the moraes. you have given israel a possible launch literally in fact few people know that under the obama administration they conduct the question of the palestinian-israeli conflict. the reason why is beyond the politics. you can argue and debate that barack obama from day one made a settlement to the israeli conflict a part of the strategic interest in the united states. he was one of the first presidents to articulate the conflict as an extension of american security interest. on the first day in the white house, the first telephone call that he made was to the palestinian president and he promised to bring about. even the u.s. military would go

public and say that resolution of the conflict has an impact on the lives. >> host: i wonder there was a critical development and i wonder if you think that when president obama first made the statement that the issue would be important, that's an old story that's not particularly new but the statement as you said, one of he first to say that this is part of our strategic interest, how much of that do you think he was in fact reflecting in the military view with top generals saying this is crazy horse soldiers aren't risk because the action. >> guest: this is why we said if the first time the u.s. military basically went public trying to settle the argument this is a force that an extension of american security because the impact on the soldiers in pakistan and afghanistan because there is a

consensus within the american security apparatus and in particular the intelligence services the cia in particular and the military has come to believe this is a major strategic interest and that's why the failure, the inability anunwillingness of barack obama to carry on is also a testament to the failure of the international relations we call it the tail that wags the dog, and here you have benjamin netanyahu with the president and the white house and to the congress receiving standing ovations but the biggest point for the politics again is there's a system deeply entrenched. they challenge not the institutional continuity and also, it speaks volumes about

who he is as a president. >> host: of whom? how broad is the consensus? >> guest: its narrow. the coensus is it is a full policy. that's why because you see the entire world literally the entire world and even the american security apparatus we know what the settlement is, the two-stage solution. so the consensus tells you in the u.s. foreign policy it goes against the consensus including the military and the intelligence service. so, and also barack obama is not just basically when he is challenged, he retreats on what i'm suggesting is unfortunately regardless of the statesman basically on a very strategic policy challenge barack obama decided to prioritize at the beginning of the administration.

>> host: if we shift a little bit away from the israel palestine question and look a little bit more broadly at other middle east aspects coming you quite brilliantly take the reader in the book through the shift of the bush administration and what changed and what didn't change as obama took office. one of the questions i had had to do with the rhetoric of president obama. he is a brilliant speaker and is an inspirational figure. his charisma and ability to inspire is unmatched in president kennedy. it is absolutely inspirational. but there is a way in which i wonder if you seen in the book to accept parts of the rhetoric

has his real, you for example when you talk about the decision with libya, you spoke of the move in the administration there and in a move particully in the military and hillary clinton and secretary of state for some period that was against military engagement in libya. there was a pro engagement pro intervention fraction if you will particularly the state department and you talk about president obama starting very hesitant to engage but being persuaded because the fear of a massacre. i have some questions about number one whether the massacre that the anticipated was evert inevitable quick at the time it happened as you remember the first french attack actually were on tanks that had been driven out because the people have the capacity to drive them out. but it was also being talked

about quite likely that president obama's rationale was primarily because he was afraid if he didn't back up the europeans particularly the french and the bullets in their initiative they would withdraw or consider withdrawing from their support to the u.s. and afghanistan. do you see that more strategic part or do you really think that obama was responding purely to the humanitarian impulse? >> guest: to the last minute barack obama's heart wasn't in the operation seen so far and limited amount of data. barack obama the reason why few people know the the middle east doesn't talk back on the foreign policy. in fact barack obama and his policy team from day one believed that america was engaged in the middle east far

beyond what his strategic interests are. in fact they said this is america's future it lies in the pacific. from day one. and the rousing rhetoric, the outreach that basically was launched by barack obama using his own personal stories and the speeches in cairo and jakarta were designed to amend the draft with the muslim world and then began systematically to shift american foreign policy priority somewhere else. that's why barack obama wanted to reduce the american boots on the ground. the area itself to him he knew he wanted to bring american troops from iraq and afghanistan and that's why he was deeply suspicious. the people around, the close national security. in fact it was hillary clinton that forced his hand to a great deal because he was very much in tune with sarkozy and ther people so at the end of the day,

of barack obama and the national security as you know was opposed the military said we are overextended. e reality is at the end he was presented with a particular and the whole debate was you have to do something about libya. and the truth is that wouldn't help his cause by saying we will chase you from house to house and go after you. we will kill you -- >> host: he was speaking to the armed rebel -- >> guest: the idea even many of us if you had asked myself as a student of the arab world would you trust him so if i were suggesting even we don't have the complete evidence i think based on everything that we know

he was trying to divorce himself to stay away from mauney take on it and i could be wrong he realized a massacre could take place and look, it was the united states was not directly engaged. france and britain provided a great deal of logistical military -- >> host: and -- >> guest: i don't think that barack obama was keen to intervene. >> host: i think the question of what pushed him over the end remains critical whether it was humanitarian or whether it was a strategic calculation of i really don't want to do this this could be a disaster by military is telling me not to the slash risk antagonizing the leaders and they could, you know them around in afghanistan. the would be a disaster. >> guest: door interpretation makes sense had the u.s. military and security decided to

support such a mission. in fact his decision was at odds and that's why we have to wait for the evidence to see -- >> host: this goes to the question of the eddy logical backing framework that you described i think quite brilliantly of how the neocons particularly cheney and then bush taking it up he accepted cheney and wolfowitz and the others that had this language about democratization we are going to force democratization. wondered reading it do you think that is what motivated them as opposed to the more traditional assumptions of ny in the country that they were motivated primarily by issues of expansion of oil in iraq that the democratization frame was how they were going to sell it to the american people.

>> guest: you are raising a very important point. in fact i would -- these are the least people i expect to talk about the promotion and the accreditation. that is my own view. the big point for me because we don't have -- it was a social engineering project to be one it is and into real pressure to the project and they argue the united states was in power and should not shy away from the power. and this was an area iraq was the weakest. few civilians know the reason the intervene often the weakest would go into iraq and it is a very weak regime collapses dominance in iran, syria mr. president would go down as the president that basically planted. the we made the middle east --

we had to take our troops out of saudi the whole idea -- i don't think myself and i hope he would agree a single cause -- it is always complex and multiple causes but i think it is the whole notion of what i would call the arrogance of power and the idea that the united states is and in power and as one of them said yes we can change the social reality and they did but unfortunately for portable ways. >> host: if we look to this question of transition, continuity, non-continuity change one of the things that you point to in the bulk that is so important on the question of how president obama has carried

out the so-called global war on terror he made a fuss at the beginning of rejecting the name saying this isn't a useful term and it implies too much, it's arrogant. he spoke a few devotee. but in his actions as we see and as you document and others have the numbers of attacks for example was twice as much as barack obama's twice eight years of the bush administration the use of the same list the bush administration initiated only with obama using much more emphasis on killing rather than capturing mean tannin despite the early effort that din't go very far maintaining the basic war on guantanamo all these things it seems he is simply carried out the same war as george bush with slightly different rhetorical definition.

>> guest: neoconservatives talked and fought the war and fielder that have little to do. at the heart is that american boots on the ground in the muslim land where a source of instability provided by the various elements against the united states of america. the idea from day one is to bring american troops to reduce the military footprint in the world and that is the correct idea and this has been really one of his major political achievements even though the military wanted to maintain a sizable force in iraq, iraq said no we won't give you legal immunity. in afghanistan we accepted but we know that barack obama doesn't believe the mission will put used to the fact. but he did though in fact barack obama has raised much more

deadly war. he has given the security establishment a contest launch. literally a strategic priority. he said on what this war and al qaeda to be dismantled. you can do anything you want in afghanistan and pakistan. we cannot document the extent of the attacks any more and special operations forces, and he's talking that the civilian casualties. the reality is he is proven to be. al qaeda doesn't exist since 2003 it ceases to exist and my most rece book on the anniversary of 9/11 was the rise and fall of al qaeda which document the organization doesn't exist you are talking about very few surviving skilled

soldiers and lieutenants and i think what we have not discussed so far is the potential blow backed. and i feel we might wake up a few years from now and this blow back might come to haunt us in the same way that afghanistan came to haunt the united states in the mid 1990's after 2011. pakistan the extent think of how pakistan -- think of even talking about the political leadership go to pakistan and talk to the junior officers not just the senior officers in the pakistani security service and we don't debate in the united states. even they realize how bad the situation is in afghanistan and pakistan now we are waging people think if we are waging the war and afghanistan and pakistan and in somalia we're

talking about dozens where the war on terror measures are applied, and now with american forces out even in iraq fleeing drones in iraq and the government complains. so even though american forces might come home from afghanistan in the next year or two come counterterrorism measures will go on and there's a fascination that these killers basic we're doing their job we don't have to send troops, and no account as a human dimension. >> none of the costs, the blood back costs. we are hearing now about the possibility that the negotiations under way against the u.s. and pakistan involving how much money pakistan will get from each truckload of goods that come into afghanistan or leader that began to take the goods out of afghanistan, pakistan's essence of the old

$250 per truck dealer could be charged with $5,000 the u.s. says that isn't going to happen we are going to rely on the so-called group which is all of the other dictatorships and the notion that uzbeckistan might be in the next somewhere. if you had to pk one regime with the worst human rights record in the world, they would loyal people to death there. it's an extraordinary thing. but my question has to do with whether the debate that you're speaking of the divide with the pakistani military, is that why the pakistani president zardari that was in chicago this weekend but without apparently a serious meeting with president obama is that why she's sticking to the hard line because his mother terrie is demanding it and he's afraid of being overthrown if he doesn't? >> the senior officers and army have been warning the u.s. counterparts about the american

generals have often spoken including and the difficulty trying to come down. it's the urban middle class. the militants of extremists most of them come now from pakistan. they are angry and part is they are going to al qaeda because they are angry and what we're suggesting is that we haven't had a debate on barack obama's counterterrorism measures and the legal aspects not to mention the moral spect we estimate more than one or two killed as a result now in yemen there is another debate taking place about the whole american united states fighting a direct war

against al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. the big point here to come back to barack obama, if i were sitting realizes that one single terrorist attack on the united states would undermine his presidency. he realizes very much how important his national security. that's why in fact going so far and beyond the republicans cannot even -- he really pre-into the foreign policy question from the public and presidential. ironically hysterically the democrats -- this tells you how deeply the foreign policy is. >> host: doesn't that mean the risk remains that day sky high level of the exact kind of blow back that you're talking about that by the escalation on the scale when we are talking about the civilian casualties on this

scale that what we are facing is the almost inevitable response from somewhere in the region it doesn't takemuch to, you know, the kind of grand thing of an airliner maybe they can't do that, but terrorism is the nature of it, the instrument of the week. >> host: think the difficulty in the multilateral is that any effort on the part of academics and to caution the american public about the questions of cost and will act to draw the links between the militancy and foreign policy is perceived to be as being an apologist. and the debate i have a chapter in my book on the local branches , and i went -- i almost -- every single i spent this

trying to understand where they come from out of my research that link between foreign policy and the perception of the victimization and with the united states is doing and the radicalization process. so we that we discuss it in the united states is that home grown radicalism is like devoting any kind of context people are radicalized because they're bad, they are evil. these are of course misguided. the looted. that is the reality to understand why what has happenedwhy the shift in the radicalization process, while pakistan and put together afghanistan integrated more and more in the majority are basically migrated to the militancy and there is no debate

it's unacceptable to say look our action could it be "the new york times" headed in one of the editorials somehow counterterrorism is creating. even though technically president barack obama pelosi has been put into it doesn't exist the bigger question, the greater question of the costs have been addressed or debated. >> host: when we get to the cost one of the difference is now we did work early in the first, here of the iraq war michael the cost of the war himeno environmental costs and financial costs it didn't go very far. as you say because it was a war being fought on a credit card mostly with china writing the checks. but now what do you see as the difference in the midst of a

mass of economic crisis both here and in europe? it is dramatically having an immediate impact on people's lives. the question of what happens to the military the of the soldiers in this example of the one soldier in afghanistan for year the million dollars when that soldier actually is qualified for food stamps because the salary is so low all the rest of the costs are to get everything into afghanistan. it seems that people are hearing more the sense of the cost of the war and beginning to be able to weigh it but do you think that that is enough to change that discourse so that it becomes possible for the historians, for academics and analysts and others to make the case that not only is it expensive but it doesn't work. can people here this differently now do you think? >> guest: i don't know. i really don't. i don't sense this -- even in terms of the military budget and

now the budget almost $700 billion i think because of barack obama's interest in the national security barack obama is on his way to great lengths to embrace the military doctrine to say that he supports the military, and of course there are some now bills the military will have to pay the next ten years or so but we are talking about very minor numbers. talking about the cost of the war and. >> host: if you look at the new budget that was just passed very recently, a majority of democratic members of the house of representatives, barack obama's party, voted against his military budget for the first time. it seems to me that is huge but how do you read that in the context of --

>> guest: i mean, it's wonderful to see that -- you're absolutely correct. i guess president barack obama the last year has shown the consensus president. not his own party. even on the question ironically on the question of afghanistan when he did the search he knew better that the search wouldn't produce the facts. he kept asking questions for almost three months and the military can to him with many members of the party as such. >> host: and he had a general of course. why did he not choose that general -- >> guest: it tells you how barack obama got a reality. he looks at -- and he made choices. he wanted to please the military the echelon of the military and he did knowing full well that this particular strategy based on his questions he is as you

said a brilliant decision maker. his ability to absorb the formation to the process. the question he was asking is they are coming to him saying well, we don't know. and he was presenting -- the numbers were from 80,000 to 40,000 we come back to the question how local politics -- local politics in the military as an establishment -- post of the military had different opinions. >> guest: the general consensus of the military. the military came to him and the pressure that was applied on barack obama was overwhelmed by the security, by the military. and that's why he caved in because he is a consensus and plus that's why i don't

understand. he seems very vulnerable when it comes to the national security. he knows better he is a consensus president to the dominant consensus in the american farm policy as publishment and the record really shows it even in iraq for the last minute barack obama accepted the military decision to maintain a sizable force-iraq is that because iraq is the elite that was put in place by the united states that said no we would have had at least 15 to

20,000 american troops in iraq. >> host: 50 to 20,000 troops mainly green beret special forces and the warrior class if you will egyptian and permanent u.s. citizens in afghanistan at least 214320, 24 and presumably sometime in the future. now a government, the parliament of afghanistan is nowhere near as colorful as the already very weak parliament afghanistan can't even match that. but it means that there is this kind of consensus for a military presence. do you think that premier li the military itself is urging that or is it from the financial or economic or other political interests who, whether it is in terms of making sure there's access to pipelines, within this

question of the basis for for forward projection what are the pressures on obama now that led to that decision? >> guest: [inaudible] before he left for office said america will never leave afghanistan. the american national security particularly seems afghanistan is one of the most fragile theaters not just because of the whole question of global jihadists of itself, the convinced then self the united states can never leave afghanistan because when it lifted the end of 1980 after the soviet union pulled out of afghanistan the conception of the afghanistan as a potential bidder whereby al qaeda as allies and the taliban create another base but basically there are no big economic questions

involved there really are not in fact it is a bleeding thing because as you know, even now we're spending on average $100 billion. it's so costly. but the military and the consensus that exists in the american security apparatus we can never afford to leave. >> host: i know there is a misunderstanding that every military is always fighting the last war. but do they really believe that al qaeda or any other militant organization or terrorist organization needs a physical space to train in the era of the internet? the 9/11 hijackers didn't train in afghanistan. why did they think that what matter of the taliban keen beckham would be terrible for people in afghanistan but was already terrible for people in afghanistan. what do they believe, what does

barack obama believe? >> guest: they are coming back. the taliban have no vision, no -- that is what is sad about afghanistan as many years the taliban will be a key role everyone knows now again, the way the argument is constructed is that its al qaeda -- if they leave now there are certain segments that a subsequent to the transnational argument and this is joe biden's fer demint as you know when he said don't surge american gypsum of guinness to rely on counterterrorism measures, so thidea is you bring those we have 90,000 american troops in afghanistan. you bring most of them and leave

between 15,000 wage bill war relentlessly. and they realize because they want to prevent the idea that the pakistan and afghanistan theater in any reemergence in the transnational jihadist. when we talk about the taliban, the taliban are very fractured on multiple fractions and that's why this is how it seemed. i basically have written again the taliban don't have any interest in welcoming the few surviving because the history of the relationship between the taliban and al qaeda is a history fought in the

contradictions. >> host: when you look at what president of offices -- and we have only a few minutes left -- what do you think barack obama believes the legacy foreign policy not being the primary interest for domestic consensus building but how does he define national interests? it's been the same in the consensus about israel and oil and stability. are those still the national security interests is that the realism of president barack obama or is their something else that he is hoping for? >> guest: he himself took this question from 2006 to the

present and his realism is a realist thinking of american policy makers from 1947to 2001. it's based on mutual interest. as you said, the israel first speech in september, 2011 at the united nations really was a classic realist speech that you present. the consensus in israel as a beseeched of land in the sea of arab and muslim house devotee. the question lies at the heart in terms o investments and the much real. the purchase deal in the united states ever. there are multiple.

the we that he has defined his own legacy producing the u.s. mother terrie footprint from the muslim land dismantle the al qaeda organization beginning to shift the debate in the muslim land from the foreign policy for interests in the muslim world of the united states is not an enemy state i think is a legacy will have nothing to do in the middle east think barack obama will be seen as the first president who is a pacific ocean president ultimately will be seen and basically the president that shifted if from europe and the middle east and asian president as opposed. >> host: he has an amazing moment with the arab spurring to show the world a different face of what the u.s. involvement in the middle east could look like.

do you think that he is going to pull that off? >> guest: his role frced barack obama's hand. the last meeting was -- the why is the least and the following day you should see the editorials not the story and other newspapers he welcomed and embraced of a speech in the state department was released for the speech he rhetorically increased the aspiration of the people and he has never offered any concrete initiatives or economic plans. i'm not talking about money. he's never shown the leadership in order to help the traditional societies. when he embraced the space aspirations of the egyptians and

two nations he basically fell silent when they invaded behind to suppress the aspirations of the people. saudi arabia and our speech on may 11th, 2011 he didn't have a single word about. so in this particular sense because again, to come back to the consentual underpinnings of the policy, he doesn't believe in the democracy promotion he doesn't believe in preaching to other nations he believes that even though he expessed his delight at the uprisings with the arab people and i think that is healthy and he said you must take ownership and he kept a healthy distance. that's fine. to his credit he played an intellectual shifting debate in that part of the world from america's role to questng

governors institutions this is in many ways now what's happening i do not have any data to argue this particular point barack obama's presidency has indirectly helped show the the date in the arab world from the external enemies to the internal and the debate in the arab world today shows very clearly the leadership priorities. and i think barack obama has in a very small measure contributed to the particular shift that we are seeing. they planted the first seed, it was barack obama that began the process of amending and using his own personal story to say that to humanize the american face in that part of the world. >> host: this is an extraordinary book and extraordinary conversation. we are looking at a scenario where you are seeing and describing the possibility of

president obama turning away from the middle east, leaving behind a region that is fought with a space uprising what brought about by the u.s., the new rising powers like turkey and iran that are not accountable to the u.s. reassessments perhaps it is really of the palestine because they have been unable to and answer these questions, and i think that your book obama and the middle east is going to be a great tool for the rest of us as we go into this next period whether it is four more years of barack obama or whether we look back to this period of obama's one part of history. thank you. >> guest: thank you for having me.

>> that was afterwards mack, booktv signature program in which authors of the latest nonfiction books are interviewed by journalists, public policy makers, legislators and others familiar with the material, "after words" airs 12 p.m. and 9 p.m. on sunday at 12 a.m. on monday. you can also watch "after words" line. go to booktv.org and click on "after words" in the book tv series and topics list on the upper right side of the page. here is a look at some books that are being published this week.