together to build this. >> thank you very much. >> thank you all. [applause] thank you all so much. thank you. [applause]

>> you're watching book tv on span c-span2. stanford university interviewing scholars and professors. right now we are joined by america's rogue states and the name of his book, dr. henriksen how do you define a rogue state? >> it is an easy definition. this is a start stark definition because we think rogue states are states a manufacture weapons of mass destruction meaning nuclear biological weapons and chemical weapons and also dictatorships suppressing human rights and international norms so the definition that is pretty precise, i this that i most people understand and when we mention the rogue states certain states come to mind

we think of north korea and iraq before the invasion. and other states that have been sort of like rogue states and close to it. such as say cuba which we no longer think of as a rogue state or libya at one time. it too was addict tator ship. and weapons of mass destruction. and other states such as berm a sometimes called. and venezuela hugo chaff died they were states. so the path is somewhat familiar. >> one of the things that you get into your book are rogue states and how they use super powers. how is that done? >> well, i think that what happened is when the rogue states burst on to the international scene after the collapse of the soviet union they were somewhat

footloose and fancy free. they did not depend too much on a another major state such as a soviet union because it was gone. what we have seen is the rogue powers. soviet union. and they also ewed the major powers for the protection. currently we can see that north korea is very dependent for example on china. that iran was not as dependent and it still relies on russia to run a diplomatic interference for it in the united nations. and in the case of iraq it was very much depend ept on soviet arms. so is libya for example so the states have used and been used by great powers. they are used because i this

i that it is too dangerous during the cold war for the united states and soviet union to collide. and the nuclear exchange. so both states had clients. or both states had powers of what they can use periodically and alliances. the difference is that the soviet states were really bad actors. the states such as iran for example and iraq. north korea is it and sir yeah. libya. has the u.s. used rogue states in your view? >> i this i that we had rogue states that we cozy up to with communism and not particularly i would say boy scout states or states that we would assume are up and standing for example, the congo, a disreputable character. and suppressed human rights. we backed him because he was a staunch anti-communist or the devalues and haiti a

long time. the so-called baby dock. in haiti they were staunchly anti-communist so we did back them. and overlook the execute over human rights violations and never used the states. in a confrontation or to arm them, and to use them in a more aggressive manner as a soviet union did. is there an ex-advantage for north korea as a client state? >> it is an excellent question. i this that i there is a trade off. it is a more complex relationship. at one time. i would say directly, yes it. is an advantage for china to have north korea. it kept americans a little bit off balance. and it could be use against the united states whenever we were too friendly and provide arms for taiwan. that angered the chinese. so they would use north korea in that sense. lately they are somewhat of

a liability because what is happen something that the paradox cal. rather than to be a sort of rogue state and keeping americans off of the base. this is causing the united states to reinforce its arm amounts in east asia and that is something that the chinl he's are not keen on. they are very much recent president obama's pivot to east asia and they are against that. reinforces it so consequently the relationship is more mixed now. so i think that at times some of them of the kmin he's officials are a little bit more wary or think that north korea has become too much of a liability for them. thomas henriksen in america and the rogue states you talk about iraq. the iraq war and away to deal with the rogue state.

did the u.s. deal with iraq in your view in the correct way? >> that again is a very complex and very controversial question. people think that the war against iraq was an unnecessary war. done una false premises with no nuclear weapons found. and on balance on the other hand, the united states rid the world of a very bad character. a man that spread terrorism. destable itedz the region and did make weapons of mass destruction at one time. and it was found out after the persian gulf war in 1991. stopped for a while. to be truthful. when the sanctions were relaxed or tension was off. he would return to weapons of mass destruction. the ingredient that i think. some would argue and would argue that saddam hussein's

removal is a necessary precondition for the arab spring that took place years later ten years after the american notvation of iraq. and the other hand was a necessary condition. but it showed arab world that addict tator could remove. there was a begin that can could happen. so consequently. i think they would be fight like they would be fighting other controversial issues such as the or begins of the civil war with supporters and detract ors and the problem is it would be better to avoid it and once it was done. we cannot go back. and we can't replay history to say what may have been had we not entered so it will be a very difficult question for stories in a long time and political questions. supporters of george bush

will have varying view points on the outcome. and the justification for the iraq war. >> well, it is a double question. how did you feel in 2003 in your book, you talk about the containment policy that had been a policy for many years not working very well. >> the containment policy and it had been a vigorous containment policy. the administration called it containment plus. you know, of we in the united states maintained no fly zones and north iraq south iraq in order to keep saddam hussein under wraps. many time the planes shot tarpg ets on the ground. but were considered radar sites. and had locked on to the american aircraft. there are 200 airplanes that were employed in that containment. there was a feeling that we tried a lot of things and some that hussein of

breaking out of the containment. and sanctions were not being violated. even though there had been a period in the united states that had stopped a commercial air flights into baghdad airport being violate and hugo chavez in fact went make a big issue of going to baghdad and broke that air lock for example by his presence and in other arab states that were angered by saddam hussein's intervention into kuwait. began to forgive him. >> so he was on the road to the restoration so to speak at the time. so there was a feeling among many that he had broke end out of the sanctions. it will not be too long before the sanctions will fall apart. and plus he was adept to keep the sanctions. the brunt of harm done to his own people. and there was a lot of harm done. people sfafrd. there was a lot of desperate condition as monk the poor particularly surrounding areas caused by the action and he was adept at this. there was a feeling among

many people that sanctions were breaking down. bush administration the george bush administration felt that keenly. >> did you support the war in 3? >> initially, but i also believed that the weapons of mass destruction. and like a lot of americans. taken after president george bush gave his cincinnati speech in the fall of 2002 roughly four or five months before the war, were very high. and americans supported the war almost 70%. so many of us thought that it was a good thing to do. we also became dinse chanted as the conduct of the war. and not foreseeing those things that would happen. insurgency, and not having a very good time plement when saddam hussein was over thrown. and captured and turned over to the iraqi people.

also people wanted to replay a gulf war. and we went on. americans are not good as long and drawn out conflicts. so i this i that many many of us became more disenchanted and he we thought that the ultimate goal would be to rid the world of saddam hussein and that was a good one and thomas hen run -- henriksen what is your background? >> i am a graduate of virginia institute. i was in the army. and the vietnam period. then i got a phd. and taught in upper state new york. and came to the hoover institution. been here ever since. >> and teaching? >> i taught a variety of subjects. and courses on african history. and european history. and recently, i have got more interested in rogue states. and american foreign policy.

and also a senior fellow at the joint operations university. >> thats correct and what do you do there? >> the united states joins the special operations. that at in tampa. mcdale air force base. and i write on insurge sees for them. and things like winning hearts and minds. and someone in the military practices that we use such as indirect warfare. that is a fancy term for meaning we will get others to help and partner with us. and things of dividing our enemies. so we will not take on all of our enemies, but perhaps use them against eachother. and currently. i am looking into the relationship between special forces and the central intelligence agency. thomas henriksen, what is in your view the best policy to deal with iran? >> iran is most formittable of all of the rogue states. and the most different of all of rogue states. the other rogue states were

sort of dictatorships and military dictator ships and some that imitated the soviet unions and trappings of socialism and communism. north cuba and others were military dictator ships. libya. iran iraq. and iran. i should say emerged from the revolution that took place on 1979. a religious revolution that over through a staunch ally of the united states. iran had been close to the united states and so-called administration. and then unwent this ex-upheaval that took a country that was on the verge of becoming a westernized and modernized country and took it back. iran is a suffocated state. has many intelligent people and it is a large state. 70 million the roughly three

sizes the iraq and the large deposits of oil. ranked sometimes second or third deposits of oil. and the state that can look at yourself. and also a revolutionary state in the sense that it will expand the tentacles so this is a more formittable adversary, saying than north korea or iraq was. it does spawn various fronts and movements like hizbollah. and it cozies up to smaller groups that are not shiite it is capable of weapons that is very much feared in the west not just because of it will become a nuclear power but of its aggressive ideology. because of the confrontational stance, not just the united states. but towards israel and other gulf states.

so it is a very difficult. up until now. we have relied sanctions. and the current administration. the obama administration has implemented severe. and very far reaching sanctions that have caused major economic problems for the iranians. for example. the currency has deappreciated roughly 80. deflation was 30% and considered to raise another 27%. this year but nonetheless. this is found ways to get around sanctions. by using shell companies and so forth. i am doubtful that the sanctions will bring iranians to heal. the program is peaceful. unlike the north koreans that brag about nuclear capacity and weapons. iranians will protest within the iranian people.

and to deal with that we really elect one or two options. one to continue on sanction paths to negotiate a sort of grand bargain and offering all sorts of iranian people. or to resort to the military strike that i think would be extremely dangerous for the united states to do. it is not that we could do it. but we could knock out substantial numbers of the nuclear factories and facilities. the other hand it may 'em broil the united states in another land war that is the waryness that somehow once the war starts no one really knows where it will end. there is a problem and get a nuclear weapon. and will have to face adult

challenge. it will embolden them. they can become aggressive there. a great deal of thwarted and we never challenged the soviet union on. we let it go. so i think that is what the outcome will be. i don't think that this administration will use a military strike so we are going to have to. they are going to get the nuclear weapon that is my feeling. >> you argued against military strike anyway, right? into so, they get the nuclear weapon then what happens? >> then do we have military strike. >> well, it is possible. i think that what is happening right now in addition to sanctions, the united states policy to build up a deterrence in the region. recently. we are putting together the administration is putting together a very large

package of arm amount. not just for israel. israel will get several but some in the gulf states. and trying to reinforce their anti-missile capabilities. their air forces. in order to create a deterrence for iran. and another prospect. am election in iran that got out of hand. it was considered fraud lent of the there was an up surge and precursor to the arab spring. and the administration did not do much. we are up to the game again. this year. iran has another election four years and consequently there may be again a up surge. that is the hope that if iran got nuclear weapon it would in fact become an moderate state. and would become a democratic state.

that is a distant hope right now. that is the possibility fault this people think and it could become a more transstate. and not so fearful. and not such a dread as it is right now. >> if the u.s. or israel took out a nuclear reactor in iran. would that be a smart thing to do. taking out a nuclear reactor. >> as we hoped. it would save a lot of problems. the arguments for it are. no one doubts they would try again and also some are very buried.

so deeply that there is a concern that even our so-called bunker-buster bombs could not penetrate into to earth to devastate it. some of these are deep. 2 or 300 feet below the surface. with reinforced concrete and the steel plating above that. there is a possibility. and we know iran will strike out. a conventional way. and activate for example. hizbollah to make the strikes on israel and cause problems in lebanon. we may be by widespread activities in various parts by iranian and upped cover in sleeper cells, we will to face a nuclear conventional military strike. we will be hit by several unconventional attacks.

even inest withern europe and the united states. some that we are not aware of it will be an ongoing problem for a while. not that america cannot prevail. and it can. but it is at what cost? i this i that is what is the back of people's minds. thomas henriksen. american rogue states and the tate less rogues perhaps? terrorist groups. and taliban. al-qaeda. et cetera. >> that is excellent there. are many state less groups that operate in countries that are ungoverned spaces. molly has the country which has a weak and political structure. and so the concern will be molly. and somalia and other that will allow not because they want to but because they have the capabilities. and they will see within their territories their lands a used for terrorist training and terrorist

operations. that was the great fear in afghanistan. and incidently. afghanistan never considered to be a rogue state or put on a state department list as a terrorist state even. but tv. it lent territory to the al-qaeda elements for several years as a staging base for a training base, and operational center for al-qaeda. which hit the united states in 9/11. they connecticut patrol what goes on in our borders that is a great worry. some somalia. and yemen. pakistan this. a state. in control of the government. those are the worries so and starting to deal with them. the strategy of use of drones. special forces training local forces and indigenous forcees to help us. that is what we are hoping

that strategy will slow it down there. is always a feeling however that the terrorists will get through. it happened in the boston marathon bombings. some got through. being make organized. but ideology of the feeling of victimization of a radical idol gement and empowering them has a hold on a certain number of people. that will be almost impossible to stop. with he can do a better job of uncovering it. and to be more aware of it. but the state less terrorist groups are a important factor and will be for the foreseeable future. dr. henriksen what percentage of attention is focused on the rogues? >> a great deal. actually been. it is. it will go. we have the problem with

china time-to-time and dealings with european allies and reoccurance of the power struggles with the putin government in russia. a great deal of time was spent on the rogue states but they are a small and medium weight states but because of the nuclear factor or nuclear and biological they attract a lot of attention. so as a consequence we spent a disproportionate time. moving up to the iraq war it was 100% focused the same. in the case of north korea. it comes and goes. heightened tension and december fating. perhaps it will go down. and it will remerge later on there. are times in the that spoke 100%. and other times maybe ten percent and 20% of our time. looking at the problems and all we have is an internal

or political event to capture the american media's attention and all of our attention. for the size that they are. they occupy a great deal of american tension and have done so since collapsed. >> do you think of cuba as a rogue state? cuba was one time the refresh the most aggressive spreading communism for example nicaragua. and attempts in bolivia. me sent 16,000 troops to angola in the 1970s they were at the forefront. they backed them. oil and resources to them. when the soviet union

collapsed, so did cuba in many respects. the military no longer had the largest provided by the soviet union. and out in the fields growing their own food. they lost their oil. they had to look to venezuela. hugo chavez looked upon the cubans the way they looked upon the the ancient grechblgtz they sent oil. and oh. there is an example of how a rogue slips from one great power into the orbit off another power. and today, i don't think i consider cuba a rogue state any longer it. a state failing in many respects and moving away

very slowly from a doctrine communist ideology. and allowing some minor changes in the economy which are more free market than in the past. >> one of the take aways from the america and rogue states as the world relapses back to the great power politics, modern days will look for the prince to find him in that of kim jong-il or bashir al-assad. be as may. lone wolf states have aligned themselves with a more powerful patron. we should say that kim jong-un now that's true. rogue states over history, and there have been many rogue states. i bring it out in the books in the classical period. they do fade. they are not strong. they are military states. and garretson states. and they succum or they will have to go into the shelter

of a much larger power. that is happened in the case of states south yemen at one point a rogue states. that is libya. a rogue state. so was cuba. they are weak and succum to others and we will have to deal with them. and this the long-term. as the rogue states will disappear. and others will surface. some such as cuba and libya. they surface and replace them that part of the ongoing pattern of history. and there was always a small military state that caused, the rest of the world a lot of problems. >> thomas henriksen the author, america the rogue states. american foreign policy in the 21st center echt book tv is on location at stanford university.

4