they control their own industries and have their own army and navy and their own missile program and they are under this program in charge of the nuclear program. they also have a force, they called it, which does assassinations and other interventions abroad. we are getting to the exploitation of that in a minute. >> host: so what is the relationship with president of iran? >> guest: the president has but it is something that the president has spoken of also. it coud not be ordered to do

this when they told him not to do this or vice versa. >> host: what should be the view of the policy towards iran? >> guest: there should be two basic options. an alternative to those two options would be what i would advocate that we need to consider. the two options we are considering now are both highly undesirable one is to attack the nuclear program and to prevent it from having a nuclear bomb. that is what the president has promised to do. president clinton promised he would do that with north korea. and he didn't do it. and wisely so. because he would not have been

sensible to allow a million south koreans to be killed in an artillery barrage in exchange for preventing north korea from having a nuclear weapon. the president has promised to prevent them from having a nuclear weapon and that has suggested an attack and has been very costly and it would cause a lot of civilian deaths and it could fail. it would certainly be regarding this as illegal by most of the world. it would fail because it would leave the entity they perceive in secret the development of a nuclear weapon. the other option is to later on get a nuclear bomb than try to contain this nuclear armed. that is perhaps even worse than the option of attacking the

nuclear program. because it will lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and it will destabilize near that part of the world. it is a threat to israel. and has threatened that israel should be wiped off the face of the earth and yet we have failed to consider a third way. that is what my book is. >> host: what is that? >> guest: is to change the policy relating to this. which has been one of indulgent capacity. we have allowed them to sponsor the killing of american soldiers and marines in lebanon soldiers

in iraq and soldiers now in afghanistan. we have allowed them to work with hezbollah and to work with others in iraq to arm them to kill americans for that purpose. that is clearly illegal activity. we were able to negotiate this and we should stand up to it, defend ourselves with the sponsored attacks and then through that shows strength, make this negotiation possible. >> host: you have experienced this directory with the iranians. is that right? >> guest: just come i was legal adviser to the state department

we have claims that included a lot of things. as we developed a good relationship, myself and the person was a member of the 10 person controlling body in the iranian government and we were able to tackle some other issues as well. and i think that we can negotiate this effectively with iran. but we must do so with a background of strength and with policies, negotiating policies that are more analogous to what we did with the soviet union than they are to what we are doing now.

>> host: he worked with him in the form policy here. and we have national security here at the hoover institution. >> guest: we have not yet used the gun at all. we have said that a nuclear armed iran would be unacceptable. we say that it is a supporter of terrorism and then it's unacceptable and that we have the option, the military option on the table.

and we have not pushed back in the last 30 years adequately. we think a bunch of iranian speedboats and ships. the iranians got the message and they stopped putting it in the gulf and they stopped firing missiles. as we have made our point and if anything, ron was more eager to negotiate as a result of that strength than before an exercise had taken place. but other than that we have done nothing. they tried to get this to go year and half ago. all it did was indict the people that we knew were responsible.

he went on killing americans and blowing up american ships until he actually took them out. that is what you have to do with the radicals who want to kill americans. but at the beginning of our discussion we had said that we should not attack us, an attack would be bad, it would be the wrong policy. how do you negotiate or operate from a position of strength if you're not willing to use military force? >> it's very different to attack the nuclear facilities than it is to exercise self defense against this. the nuclear facilities are spread all over the country. they are highly well defended. and they could cause all the damage that i mentioned.

it would be regarded as legitimate as targeted they are carrying arms right now to help kill nato troops. this is limited and yet it shows the iranian government that we are not going to tolerate this strategy of using mass to attack us. making it more difficult if not impossible to achieve a strategic purpose in places like iraq and afghanistan. >> host: in your book, "taking on iran: strength, diplomacy, and the iranian threat" commie talk about 30 years of u.s. interest. >> guest: that is exactly right.

it was striking for me as a member of the reagan administration the uighur standing up to the soviet union and we said all the right things. but what did we end up doing? i mean, we allow them to kill marines in lebanon for hezbollah. we absolutely did the right thing with the soviet union and we negotiated from strength in a meaningful way. it will be like when i told secretary schultz, when we apply

these policies, we should apply the same ones that we apply to the soviet union. i am so honored that he wrote the forward for this book. >> don't make a fool of the person you are negotiating with and making it more difficult for them to make concessions by pounding on your chest and claiming that you are accused of something. make it easier for them. he would not cower down when the soviets wanted to do something. the second thing is to treat them like a sovereign nation. that doesn't mean you have to accept or respect them for that matter. but you have to engage them diplomatically they wanted to be

treated with respect. he still treated him with great respect. it is equally bad, if not worse. what happened there was the secretary and ronald reagan decided that instead of linking the willingness to talk, we have to stand up to these guys when i do something wrong. refusing to talk does not deter an enemy. standing up to an enemy does. it makes talking more possible. we stopped linking ms., stood up to them.

and we care about a lot of things as well. particularly in this way. but we never talk about that stuff. and i'm sure that the issue, that they are right, that we don't want to give them anything until they give us what we want. that is not the way we negotiate. we negotiated nuclear arms and also the human rights and regional issues. every time the leaders met we had a few things, agreements to sign and there has been momentum

as a result of having missed. we are talking about the meetings of commercial leaders. wait we did with the soviets. but what we do is we had these talks. we sat down with them at a very high level. every time it happens. it's on television. we are going to demand this and stop in enrichment and then they get up and say that we are not going to stop enrichment or close the door. but we are not going to do

anything we actually have changed things. and changing things means that you have to figure out solutions. it means that we have not managed to do that we have this and there's no reason we can't have the same principles. >> host: if they were to acquire nuclear weapons, would they be willing to negotiate? would they feel stronger at that point? eisenhower and truman both

rejected this. even before they had nuclear weapons. >> guest: for all the reasons i mentioned, it would be even worse. it would prevent him from having a nuclear weapon and have the whole population of the united states virtually gardening the population. it is going to be a terrible and much more difficult problem. you think about the complexity of keeping the world safe. and you multiply that many times over. and you start getting an idea of what we will face.

it is they are going to cause this to get nuclear weapons and the saudis and egyptians and all the nuclear weapons. and that is just going to make any kind of arrangements destabilize that area of the world and it will make it that much more difficult. let's hope that we don't have to get to that point. we are trying to have another path where we exercise limited discrete string through force. against a highly unpopular entity. within the state. it is to grapple with the people

and corrupt, very corrupt. and everyone knows it. it won't be anywhere near as damaging as if we attack the nuclear program. so that would give us the leverage we need both externally and internally to be able to talk to them in a meaningful way. we need that political leverage. then i would advocate that we talk to them in an in-depth manner. we have done it. >> host: tremont, what do you think the rationale was behind after the marine bombing in beirut retaliating? >> guest: there were several reasons given at that time. one was the pretense. when i that was the notion that hezbollah was not supported by

iran. we knew then that it was a viable idea. but they have said that there was some doubt about this, but they did not want to attack this in the valley. but the president did want to talk. it was a big disappointment to the french on the lebanese and he was absolutely embarrassed by the whole situation. it did set a tone of a weakness that we were never able to respond or understand when our soldiers were attacked.

and we did not respond then in the military repeatedly said publicly that the rain ends were supplying this with weapons and vehicles and tanks and killing americans, to increase their influence. which is now probably greater than ours. so it is not a good strategy because it enables them to walk away from that engagement with the united states. they have left and we are there. we have never struck back and they look very strong vote

domestically and within iraq as a result. they are doing the same thing in afghanistan and we're letting them do that. all of this is damaging the effort ultimately to convince them that we are credibly going to prevent that. i don't see how they could be convinced that we would honestly follow through given our history of weakness. thirty years of terror and weakness, we have to overcome it with deeds and not words. as a secretary says, we have to point the gun and pull the trigger. >> host: what should be our response with israel? >> guest: well, i hope that it doesn't come down to that.

obviously. the book is written about the united states. i know that would israel has to face everyday, the thought that if they get a nuclear weapon, they would have another holocaust. there is only 15 million jews left in the world. the germans killed 6 million in the second world war. so if you could have another holocaust, we need to keep track of our history. however, unlikely that may be. that is something you don't want to have written down in history. and you were there and did nothing about it. so the pressure is tremendous to do something and i still believe

that iran does not want to have a border. i believe that with a radiance that i talk to, members of the cabinet, people who were part of the u.n. their elements that almost want to create that sense of desperation and anxiety. it helps them domestically and makes it makes them look like they are really radical. of course, it terrifies those people outside the country who i worry that something will happen. >> i think we are doing the white thing. we are doing the right thing. we need to really get something

going. this is something that secretary shultz approves of, henry kissinger approves of the idea and i would like to see the united states really hope that israel does not attack iran. because that is going to lead to an ongoing dynamic between these two countries. who knows when it would end. it would be an ongoing war with terrorism, it would just multiply the problems and so if we could somehow avoid that, i think that the administration is doing just the right thing.

trying to figure out that we have had ideas and support. than we do need to have those ideas and we need to come up with ideas. we need to do more to solve this problem. >> host: you know, i am not just a jew, i'm a middle eastern jew. my heritage is iraqi and iranian. as well as egyptian. i come from a family that left israel after the first revolt against rome in the temple was destroyed the second time. we have been in the middle east for up to 2000 years and my

family and my mother's mother was egyptian. my father's mother and father were from baghdad. and they all had relatives and so yeah, i think it did. they know when they can tell immediately that i do not distinguish myself culturally or from egyptians or iraqis and i grew up in a house where my parents lived. we were a very secular family. not exactly the religious type. but definitely middle eastern. so maybe that happened.

you know, they would come in and try to sell something at ease the price. it was something that i was pretty used to. i think that we are at a disadvantage if we sent people to negotiate. people that are used to western-style rational negotiation. their negotiating is definitely different. the end result is very much the same, the same principle of trust and it applies. but the process is definitely different. >> host: taco seasoning that they are to acquiring nuclear weapons? >> guest: i think that they already have the ability to build a nuclear weapon.

we have the capacity that we need for a nuclear weapon. it has been found to exist by the extensions exceptions that we had the ability to conduct. as i think that they can do it. how long would it take them to do it if they made up their minds to do it? well, they would have to enriches over 90%. the rest is under 5%. so there is a lot, quite a bit of work to do. but they are building a better enrichment type of machinery, so if they want to break out and they want to do it fast, they can certainly do it within a year. certainly. >> host: "taking on iran:

strength, diplomacy, and the iranian threat" is the book, abraham sofaer at the hoover institution is the author. this is booktv on c-span2. >> under sequestration, the pentagon will cut $500 million of the next two years. that is addition to the cuts under the 2011 budget back. defense experts debate the cuts and you can see it live from the brookings institution starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> booktv is on facebook. like us and interact with viewers. get information on events. facebook.com/booktv. ..

through the arab and muslim world where polls show a precipitous decline in support. dr. james he is founder and president of the american, the arab-american institute and managing your of zogby research services which is famous for the zogby poll. he and his brother john have a long record of active predictions in american presidential elections and gained a lot of notoriety and national attention for their predictions in the 1996

presidential election where their final poll came within one tenth of a point of the actual results. they have also achieved spectacular accuracy in predicting other presidential elections. now i want to say i think it's a real honor to be invited to speak at the detroit economic club at how many people can say my younger brother also spoke at the detroit economic forum and his brother john zogby who i mentioned earlier was here in the fall i believe in september and spoke before us. so we are very happy to have both of you here. they have been very successful with presidential elections but what i think is particularly significant here is that they have been very successful in conducting polls and measuring opinion in countries outside of the united states which has what he is going to talk about today.

they correctly called in 2000 when the israeli election of ariel sharon, the 2000 mexican election of felipe a. calderon in 2006 and they have conducted numerous polls in arab countries. so i suppose -- something like predictions are very difficult especially those involving the future. they seem to have a good knack at predicting the future and i know it's through very hard work that they can get there. in 1993 vice president al gore appointed dr. zogby to lead elders for peace following the signing of the israeli-palestinian peace accord. through this private-sector committee he promoted business investment by arab citizens in the west bank and gaza. dr. zogby has also been personally active in politics. he serves on the executive committee of the democratic

national committee and co-chairs the dnc's resolutions committee and ethics council. dr. zach he was born in utica new york, born and raised in utica new york the son of lebanese catholic immigrants and i believe hearing him speak to our students he is very proud of his backgrounbackground. he received his bachelor's degree in economics from lemoyne college and went on to earn a doctorate in islamic studies from temple university. a lecture and scholar on middle east issues u.s. airplanes and 10 arab-american history he has authored numerous books as well as washington watch a weekly column on u.s. politics published in 14 arab and south asian countries. from 1993 until 2011, he hosted the award-winning viewpoints with james zogby, a live call-in tv program aired in abu dhabi. he has received numerous awards

distinctions and honorary doctorates in the u.s. and arab countries including one from his own alma mater. his most recent e-book is called looking at iran -- "looking at iran" so ladies and gentlemen please join me in getting a warm welcome to our speaker, dr. james zogby. [applause] >> thank you very much. i was going to begin by mentioning something about my brother but i will begin actually with a bit of clarification about the biography. john is -- in american politics and one of the best. it is he who established the brand's zogby here and has done presidential polling that has made the brand is recognized as it is. i had the great opportunity

beginning in 2001 to take the polling to the middle east and in the last couple of years we started zogby research services to focus just on polling across the middle east. the lesson i learned from john early on in this work. polling is important because it reveals truths, hard truth ,-com,-com ma sometimes truths you don't want to hear or know about. you may like the results or you may dislike them. what john found in his polling was when he had democrats off the left him and republican said he is the worst and when he had republicans up and democrats down republicans love him and democrats thought he was the worst. don't shoot the messenger. pay attention to what the messenger is saying because it actually makes a difference. in october 2003, we pulled the

iraq. it was the first time anyone had pulled iraq since the war. we found that the results weren't pretty. the iraqis weren't happy with us. they weren't happy with the military and they weren't happy with what they saw as the occupation. they wanted us out. three days later i returned on "meet the press" and dick cheney is on it he is talking about a reputable poll done by zogby. and he said we pulled them -- they pulled them and what they found was that they love us and they want us to stay and i think it's working and they want to be just like us. i wrote an article and it didn't make the headline called bend it like cheney. i argued in the peace it's one thing to force intelligence -- intelligence before you go into

a war but an entirely different thing when you're in the middle of the war and you have your young sons and daughters at risk and you get information that says this is a working and the turn a blind eye to that and not only that but you pretend it's saying something that is not. public opinion matters. sometimes it matters as a matter of life and death. so this issue of iran is critical. it's important that we understand iran. we have pulled in iran one of the elections we called one of the iranian elections. we work closely than the iranian news agency and calling that one we have pulled on how iranians look at arabs that this was a study that we did on how arabs look at iran. not that it ought to be decisive in shaping policy but it ought to factor into thinking about how we talk about iran, understand iran's role in the region and therefore how we would behave.

when you get into policy discussions one would think it's exclusively ignoring our arab and muslim attitudes especially those of iran's immediate neighbors across the water. it's known that several arab governments have a problem with the islamic republic of tehran but what if public opinion. over the last decade we have polled on this issue. regional attitudes towards iran and its policies have been an issue that we have explored going back 10 years culminated in 2012 with this big study. we pulled 20,000 people in 20 countries 17 arab and three nonarab turkey also by john and pakistan. the results are in the book, "looking at iran" available on amazon and in e-book form but i have hard copies for sale here. if you want to go on amazon and get the e-book form i will

appreciate it and my brother were appreciated and my family will appreciate it. i think you will learn something from it. i'm going to talk a little bit about the results today about the attitudes towards ivan's culture and its nuclear program in particular. there have been some dramatic changes. we also find out drivers behind the changes. for example when we pulled on iran's nuclear program in attitudes towards iran and attitudes towards iran's broader policies in the region in 2006 iran was at a point. back then iran's favorite was 75% positive range. saudi arabia for example gave iran and 85% positive rating. six years later the tables have completely turned. now with in a the poll we just completed last november iran's favorable ratings in the same countries have dropped to an average of 20 to 25%.

in saudi arabia it is 15%. for those that argue it's purely set. and us as the driver understand in 206185% of saudi's are having a positive rating when you're asking saudi's to name the most important and respected leaders not from their own country and in rank order they give you at the top hezbollah and mahmoud ahmadinejad and bashar al-assad three decidedly nonsunni leaders it is not a sectarian issue. some other dynamic was at work. what emerges from our study is that the results back then and the results now were not so much about iran itself. instead they appear to be a reaction to arab public opinion and its fury at the u.s..

policy seem to deny them control over their region and over their lives and in particular the in 2006 israeli policies in lebanon and palestine and u.s. policy in iraq. this was the period 2006 recall when lebanon had been devastated when gaza had been attacked when the u.s. war in iraq was at its absolute low point. and so a country like iran that stood up to the machinatimachinati ons of the west was viewed as somewhat heroic. what changed in the last six years is that the u.s. has lowered its profile in the region and would also has changed its the green movement in iran which change public perceptions and airport without they iranian government and its claim to stand or popular resistance and to stand against the imaginations of the west and what changed as well or perceptions about

policies in the broader region. what also is a factor in this is something we are going to look at is a worrisome sectarian divide that is opened up now in several countries that has many factors, not just one. what is interesting in our polls though is that both sunni and shia muslims and all of the country say that they think that iran it is a factor and it is driving this sectarian division. but there are other issues as well. clearly the role of terrorist groups in iraq that targeted shia muslims, clearly the role of the denial of rights of shia muslims in some arab tilt countries, clearly the rhetoric against the shia community and vice versa coming from some in iran has a role in deepening this divide but so too do

iranian policies and that is what we were looking at. for example, we will see when we look at it, the numbers, that iran's policy in iraq is considered a huge factor in driving down iran's favorable ratings. back in 2004 the first time we pulled on this question who is the winner and iraq? guess who comes out the winner in the arab world? iran. in 2006 it was even hired in 2008 it was even higher in 2012 they clearly think that iran was the big winner because iraq was defeated and saddam hussein who is the biggest nemesis to iran was defeated and i run was emboldened in the broader region. it goes beyond that though. they see iran's role which some think here in the west is just a matter of saudi propaganda but arab public opinion seems to think iran is involved. whether it is or not the perception -- i would say mom i

wasn't doing anything and she would say it doesn't matter. people think you're doing something. take a look at what you are doing. the iranians it's not real and public opinion believes that it is real and the nail in the coffin in our public opinion for iran is serious. 17 of the 20 countries that are negative and it's a big factor in their judgment of iran. so there was a gap at one point between arab public opinion and arab leadership. arab leadership opposed iran and arab support in iran and the gap has now been erased. that is something that whether one likes it or not they have to pay attention to that because it matters. it matters now how people will behave. understand and i will give you

maybe if for instance from my work here in the states. i called this the farrakhan factor. back in 84 jesse jackson campaign manager and reverend jackson would be moving up and doing some things that were quite interesting and opening new possibilities for african-american leadership in and all of a sudden the farrakhan would make some outrageous comment. he would make an outrageououtrageou s comment and immediately you get the predictable groups saying he must be denounced. and you can't whatever and reverend jackson was in a bind because they want him to denounce the senators and the people in the press work and he would say are not going to turn against my community. i'm not going to get into a fight here but why is farrakhan doing this? at one point ron walters at the time had african-american studies at howard university and went on to the university of

maryland and passed on your sicko. unfortunately referred to the leading analyst of black politics and i actually think ron was deleting -- i said ron what is going on here? ron said reverend farrakhan understands the gap that exists between black and white perceptions. he is the measure of the alienation of black america from white america so he knows if he is outrageous and people attack him there will be a tendency to support him because he is now being beleaguered by the very people who are being viewed as the people who are oppressing. he would make these outrageous comments and he would be attacked by everyone and he would come in town without a single bit of advertising and draw people to a rally because

people were rallying around the attacked brother. it's much the same in the arab world. when saddam hussein was making bold and outrageous comments he was praying on the alienation and frustration and anger of people who feel that their histories out of control, that they are being beleaguered by the west, that they have no ability to shape their destiny. and so here's this guy standing up and defending him. james baker understood that. in 1991 he spoke before a congressional testimony and said why don't we do this and why do we do that? james baker said understand what saddam is doing is praying on arab alienation. we have to recognize that in our calculation and work to win public opinion over. baker understood it. george bush unfortunately never did. what happened was when israel attacked gaza when israel

attacked lebanon and the u.s. committed outrages in iran we lost public opinion and we have this guy in tehran becoming the new hero of the arab masses saying to them your governments are doing nothing. i am the one standing up against the west on 2006 the numbers were way up. iran's numbers rose as arab alienation and frustration with the west grew. as the ability or the willingness of their own leaders to challenge the west became obvious they went down and ahmadinejad went up and to chart all assad window. it became the resistance that was fighting for arab honor and a period one one air of honor was viewed after abu ghraib. it's tough. we don't want to remember abu ghraib. the arabs don't. we don't want to think about

what the iraq war meant all those years or the continued situation of palestinians over lebanon's beleaguered after all these years and continually under threat. it was occupied for 20 years. we don't want to think about that. but the arab world does. it's their history out of control. and so when iran was riding high , the arab world turn to it but at this point president obama has had many failures admittedly. many areas of things he tried to do that he couldn't get done. couldn't close guantánamo, the senate wouldn't let him. he lowered america's profile. the very thing he gets criticized for their public and partying here generally is his leaving from behind concept.

but you know what? in the focus groups we did have after we did the polling we asked what the best thing about america was right now and they said leading from behind. they use that expression. they they like a leader that respects them put you out in front, that is competent enough to not have to take the lead for whatever reason and decide i'm not going to be bellicose. i'm not going to be the key were with me or against me or the wanted dead or alive cowboy. that's earning points interestingly enough. america lowers its profile. iran is now seeing more vividly through its own behavior rather than through the lens of america's behavior. when iran is viewed through the lens of american behavior it wins. when it iran is viewed through the lens of its own behavior it loses. there is another thing. that's the role of turkey. arabs that they were still looking for a hero in 2006, the

president of turkey, the prime minister of turkey rather goes to a session and davos where he sat with the president of israel israel had just finished devastating gaza and prime minister a-rod 21 challenge the president of israel got so angry at him he stormed off the stage in a dramatic gesture and people said in the west, what is he doing? what he was doing was holding up points in the arab world. he was standing up for honor. that is how they feuded and turkey's numbers went way up at the same time that iran's were beginning to shortly after that they began to dip. so you will see and i will show you the slide in the mid-iran's numbers that come this way since 2006.

now there are some policy implications to all of us. let me just close on that. the u.s. has experienced a slight improvements favorable ratings that is chairman and the u.s. is viewed more positively today in the region in terms of its contribution to stability. it's not viewed as a wildcard that you don't know what they're going to do next. but we are in a very dangerous era in the midst of this arab spring because arab and muslim public opinion are now in great flocks and sensitivities remain high. interestingly enough the region is more volatile than it has ever been for cicely because new governments that have calm into office after the arab spring and old governments that remain in office since the arab spring are now sensitive to arab voices. when i wrote my book arab voices

i said they matter and i meant they matter to america. after the arab spring arab forces matter to arab leaders. they have to know what the people are thinking and pay attention to what they are thinking. and so what is clear right now is that there is a lesson for everybody in the current situation. first there is a lesson for iran. iran needs to understand its current isolation. it needs to understand that its position is precarious and they cannot overplay its hand. in the past it's defined behavior, its aggressive behavior won support from an appreciative regional office. now it is seen as threatening and unsettling. at the same time there is a lesson for governments in the region. they have to address the domestic concerns and develop policies that rain and extremist groups that are fueling sick carrion discontent and alienation in their own countries. this is creating fertile ground

not only for extremists but fertile ground for iran to exploit. the situation in bahrain is ripe for exploitation. it is ripe for exploitation when the majority community is denied rights. other countries as well have to pay attention to the situation that is taking place and of the extremist groups that are going further to fuel this sectarian animosity. israel has to be reined in. it's a long denial of palestinian rights remains a serious problem. a serious problem that cuts to the quick of the arab soul. the palestinian situation today is quiescent but it will not be quiescent forever. should the palestinian situation explode with renewed violence and renewed oppressiooppressio n and if the u.s. should again side with israel as its expected it would inflame regional passions and opened a door that

iran has closed on itself. it's also important to recognize the situation that new governments in the arab spring are less able to control angry protests than they were in the past. president mubarak was able to squash anything that came down the road. new governments the region cannot do that as they had before so they are more sensitive to public opinion because they have to be sensitive to public opinion because they are more vulnerable. the u.s. at the same time as a lesson to learn and that is that there and if it's from a lower profile in an effort to work with allies from leaving from behind. should the u.s. change course and resume a belligerent posture or take unsupported popular unilateral military action against iran this would only serve to refocus the region's attention away from iran and back on the west. that is something america does

not need. finally, for all parties bellicose threats and suggestions of military action are absolutely wrongheaded. this applies to the u.s. senate placed israel and a place to iran. they only exacerbate tensions and play into the very hands of those who have repeatedly demonstrated the ability to turn threats or an actual attack should it come to that into an increased support for iran. i want to take a look at some of the numbers. i want to show you some of the slides here as we go forward. this is iran's rating in six countries that we pull annually from 2006 to 2011. you can see the steady drop everywhere. in lebanon for the numbers higher because the site. if i can because of other factors i will talk about in just a minute.

i will show you this in this life. one reason why is the sectarian issue. in other words in saudi arabia the numbers went up because the shia population in saudi arabia regain stronger support while the sunni population remained negative. iran's role in the region, positive or negative? iran's role in iraq positive or negative? only in lebanon and iraq is if you deposit philly and almost everywhere else negatively. a note about lebanon. lebanon is a fascinating country in this regard. while the rest of the region sees iran through the lens of its behavior elsewhere in lebanon they see iran from the behavior of israel still and they see it through the lens of 2006. in a focus groups, we did this pull three different times the last two years and we asked the questions over again. i was so infamous a process that

i had to do it again. we did it again and we did it again and then we did focus groups. here's what we heard. after 2006 the only good -- country that stood by us was iran. they didn't invest in just the south. america did nothing for us. other countries promised us money and didn't deliver better iran did. there is a deep division on the issue of syrian. there is a deep division on the election of the next government. there is no division on iran. iran gets a pass in lebanon right now and it's just fascinating. iraq is in a different situation because the majority population that iraq has worked long and hard to cultivate and helped overcome some of the ones of the long iran iraq war. now for a country that claim to be the defenders of the resistance and of the popular will and the popular muslim whatever, whatever, whatever the green movement took a real toll.

again iran gets a pass. it gets a pass in lebanon. it gets a pass in iraq. it's iraq. it iraq. it's interesting to get that passed in yemen which has a large shia population and a gets a pass in revolutionary algeria and libya. but in all the other 15 countries it gets a decidedly negative rating. iran's role in bahrain bahrain again lebanon not a word of criticism. iraq very little criticism. every other country negative. turkey's favorable rating. this is again the sectarian issue. look at turkey's numbers going from 2002 to where they are today. in 2011 they were at the peak but look in 2012 where you have the sectarian divide. what you have is the issue of the shia population turning against turkey and therefore driving the numbers down. now iran, does iran have nuclear

ambitions? the purple in 2006 ,-com,-com ma that is what people said back then. as i want to produce a nuclear weapon ?-que?-que x very low. 2012 it increased. do you support sanctions against iran? to stop its nuclear program. in all those countries, with the exception of morocco you have majority saying yes sanctions today. look at the numbers back then. only turkey was hired back in 2006. but look, if you ask about military support, support for military action the numbers remain decidedly low. they increase somewhat but still very low. the majority says all those countries say no military strike and in the other countries we didn't pull in both ears the numbers are even higher. here is that worrisome sectarian divide that has opened up. favorable attitudes towards iran bisect end of the country --

every country except yemen. you have a deep division. amman is also like that and to some degree the uae has less of the sectarian divide but in other countries the issue saudi arabia and bahrain for example it's clearly liked red state blue state in america on this issue. and this one. like mitigates against the divide is the unity that exists and countries on culture. we as a whole series of questions about air culture versus persian culture versus arab contributions to civilization versus persian countries etc.. in iran obviously when we pulled iran they view their culture superior. in turkey they viewed over them is superior. in the arab world there is that sense of arab culture trumps my political differences with iran

or my political support for iran so even among sunni and shia both these gets very strong attitudes of arab culture being superior. that is where i will stop and take any questions you may have. [applause] >> thank you. >> we have questions and many good questions from our students and i'm going to try to summarize some of these and lump sum together on the topics. the first ones have to do with the upcoming election in iran. i think it's in about five weeks and what do we see as likely happening there and will that likely lead to some softening of iran and their decisions on nuclear and other issues and

there is a comment about many people seem to be seeing and the candidates are emphasizing mismanagement of the economy by the government rather than seeing that as an effect of the sanctions and do we really need to worry about what they felt as an over emphasis on the nationalization issue? is the number one i have no idea on -- i don't think any of us do at this point in time because we don't really know what the candidates are going to look like. we have a sense of where the tendencies are. there will be a moderate reformer probably. there'll be a hardliner from the religious side and the current president wants a hardliner someone of his allies to run. that means i don't expect a significant change in iranian policy on any of these questions that affect the outside world.

iran's policy has been rather consistent from the days of the show. in that sense iran seeking to play a more dominant role in the gulf region by any means necessary, that has been a consistent feature of iranian policy and that's not going to change. what will change is the caricature of the president of iran. president mahmoud ahmadinejad has been an easy target for the west and i don't think we will get somebody like that. those who represent his tendency and those who represent a more hardline tendency are more civil appearances. in appearance they are more civil characters and have them or to distinguish way of presenting themselves. i think the again the degree to

which we make this issue of us and israel versus iran is a huge mistake. it plays right into the hands of the hardest line attitudes in that country and it don't do us any good at all. it's almost like asking for trouble. he certainly doesn't like you and certainly doesn't like your best ally. you don't like him and they know they don't like you doesn't help them. the point is that a more hands-off attitude towards iran right now keep the sanctions in place if you will. there is popular support for the popular sanctions but the rhetoric and threats simply don't pay. i would tell israel to cool his jets. the end of the day i don't think iran threatens israel.

i think the rhetoric threatens israel but iran does not pose a threat to israel just like they don't think israel's going to do anything about iran. the leader kind of playoff of each other because it's kind of good for domestic politics. it's really good for president ahmadineahmadine jad to say we are going to do this to israel. it's like to play grounds. from each other making press that they have no ability to accomplish or intention to accomplish because both of them know that if they do it will open as we say the gates of hell. i remember during the 84 convention there were some of us proposing a resolution calling for a ban on first use of nuclear weapons. somebody else said there is no first use and there is no second use because you use it in five seconds later you are dead. it's like walking down the street and you come into a dark alley and george foreman is walking the other way.

you say to yourself should i hit him first or should i wait? it doesn't matter, you hit him first and you are dead five seconds later. it's best to turn around and go the other way. that is not the problem but the point is there's no use. i would would say the best attitude for iran's nuclear program all we should been ridicule. it's okay, what are you going to do with it? e it? he wanted for bragging rights. iran's target has never been israel. target has only been air public opinion. from the beginning it's been a challenge. your leaders don't represent real islam. your leaders don't representative the challenge to the west that we do. we are the leaders of the resistance in your leaders are weak. that has been the real threat. when you introduce israel into the picture it only plays right into their hands.

it's a big mistake so i don't think that there will fundamentally be a change in iran but i don't think we should give any provocation to give them to -- a reason in that election. i think at the end of the day the only policy that the president called for in 2008 and that his engagement, think we have had a lukewarm engagement. at all to be a full-throated engagement. there are to be not just to sit down with iran but they need to be part of regional discussions. there is no solution to iraq unless everybody sits around the table and works there. there is no solution to syria unless everybody's a trauma table and works at it. if we pose a serious solution as we are working with the turks and the countries in and the southeast we are leaving out the other side of the problem. and so if everybody doesn't sit at the table people are going to

be playing under the table to their own advantage. that is what happened in iraq. we learned in lebanon. you will not defeat the regime and the opposition has to learn that. at the same time the regime has to learn that all of their brutality, all of their stupidity, all of their weapons will not defeat the opposition. at the end of the day there has to be a negotiated settlement. that is what the u.s. and the russians have agreed to. a agreeing is one thing and making it work for something else but the same goes for iran. unless there is a regional security and we can talk to the soviets. in the heart of the cold war and we can talk to the iranians. instead we have george bush going around the world giving speeches during the latter and of the iraq war making iran into is if it were the soviet union. the global threat to build a

caliphate and using rhetoric and language that only inflamed actions and guess what? it made them bigger than they were. they can do anything. but we made them so good. we blew them up into hitler. he never was. they are not that big. we have to just sit down and talk to them and see how we can solve this problem and frankly they will put tough defense of that guess what? we can be tougher in return but talking is the way to solve that problem. >> we have two more questions before need to close. there were a whole series of questions about iran's refusal to stop in their development of nuclear -- and generally where do you think this is headed and what is the american red-lined? fluid e. israeli and/or arab involvement and of course comments about the last

airstrike, the recent airstrikes and syria. [inaudible] >> they airstrikes and syria were misdirected, misguided. and for israel to say we mean no harm to the regime in syria after killing two soldiers if condit did not wash right. it's best for israel to keep out of that right now but it is best for the u.s. to deliver on this u.s. russian agreement to have a geneva style conference aimed at not just solving the problem in serious but creating a regional security framework that would go beyond syria. the region is in turmoil and it needs some degree of stability. with regard to iran's nuclear program, we came awful close during the mid-point in the first obama administration when turkey actually and brazil had

gotten an agreement from iran that was not half bad. if blew up because the senate preempted the president's decision by passing a tough sanctions measure and it made it impossible for that to move forward. iran wants to have his nuclear program for bragging rights. it's all they want it poor. for. they are never going to use it. sensibly committed the atrocities of using those bombs no one has used them and no one will use them because there is not just mutual deterrence, there is mutual destruction and no one is suicidal despite the fact that we want to think they are irrational than suicidal. the bottom-line is take away the bragging rights. it's a better solution. you want it? what you want to do with it? are you going to feed your people with it? are you going to sit on it?

you can't use it and look there are dirty bombs available if we want them. if terrorists want than they can get their hands on almost anything they want to if they want to end anything can become a bomb. that issue is off the table. the threat that iran poses is bragging rights across the water. they want the bomb so they can say we have got the bomb and we are bid. takeaways that i make in them appear small. ridicule is better than threats. there reduces your opposition much more effectiveeffectively than threats we can't deliver on. so i think at the same time one of the things that i think is necessary is uniquely p5+1 talks. there are. there are to. there are two bfp six plus one. back to the bare one. back to the bare countries in those talks. if we can talk to north korea and have all of north korea's neighbors involved in the conversation because they're the ones ones most threatened by it why isn't europe israel and

russia, why is that the only factor when in fact the countries across the water of the most concerned about iran right now. ring them into the conversation. gulf security is in the interest of both sides of the water not just one side. and so there are some solutions but we have to be willing to i thank step up and accept them and pay some of the political consequences here that might come from taking tough decisions and doing it in a different way than we have done it up until now. the way we have done it up until now doesn't work so the new way is probably important. >> there are a lot of questions about the arab spring. what is your view on the arab spring and how has iran managed to avoid the turmoil after the air of spring? >> that is what the green movement was about and they dealt with it with very ruthless

crackdowns and devastated the green movement. we all saw that on national television. it was rather horrifying to see the degree to which that repressions squashed a civil movement in the country. look, the airport of his going through some very tumultuous times and it is not pretty. revolutions never are and i wrote once if you look back at our own revolution it was not pretty. there were rebellions long after the initial victory was declared. there were the shays rebellion's and the whiskey rebellions and a bunch of other revolts and some repression and some pretty undemocratic legislation that was passed that made people shiver and shake over exercising some of those guaranteed constitutional rights. i think i expect we are in a new

era and i think it's going to be a difficult earth but i am confident that the rules are changing and the people are going to come out of this okay. but it will take some time. the president said it best two years ago when he spoke at the state department. he said we didn't start it, we can't direct it. we can only help. we can only help if we are needed and if we are wanted. those were very wise words and all of the stuff about we have to be doing this than john mccain still doesn't get it that he lost. the president ought to be doing that in egypt. if we listen to the advice is that the egyptians want to hear from us, as if we can help right now. the fact right now is that we have worn out some of her welcome across the region and taking more and more aggressive

and assertive role pretending iraq never happened and we are still the shining city on the hill for which i long for us to be but no we are not in the eyes of the world is wrongheaded policy. so a little more humility, a little more grace and an offer to help if we can but not pretend that we can be the traffic cop directing everybody on what to do and how to do it. i think we can put some limits. i think we can say to the egyptian government if you want to be a democracy you are going about in a wrongheaded way. we can be tough with that aid and i think we should be tough with that aid but we are not going to get out of this one by threats and we are not going to get out of this one by bellicose behavior. we are going to get out of this by being firm but being very supportive when we can and not only supportive of the government. i don't think being supportive

of the government is the right thing to do. dean supporter of the people in egypt is the right thing to do and finding the right way to move its emissions forward is the best policy for us to pursue right now. i said in the beginning tunisia tunisia -- when they make the circuit and connecticut if it really works they go to hollywood. tunisia is connected in egypt is broadway and syria was hollywood. it they kind of work and connecticut but it's flopping right now on broadway and it's a disaster in hollywood. it's not working. there has to be i think more of a sense of cooperation with arab leadership right now to find a way out of this mess. i think tunisia is going to be fine. i think egypt is going to actually come out of this bind in the long-haul. broadway is going to work. it's going to take a decade to make it work. syria i worry about but i know one thing in syria there is no

victory possible. there's only a negotiated settlement but paves the way to a transitional government that does not see the apocalypse where we blow everything up and it all comes out just fine. that's the infantile fantasy that led us into iraq and people still have this name, we will defeat the regime. to do will have a secular democracy. that's not going to work and it's not going to happen. what could happen is a slow steady path moving forward during transition and change it i thank you all very much. [applause] the book. i forgot to add i am lebanese as i think was noted and i have a book to sell. you can get them out front. that is one stereotype they go for. it's also available on line at

amazon so thank you all very much. [applause] our next "washington journal" is live from the port of virginia in norfolk.

>> now a debate on the future of islamist groups and egyptian politics following their mobile of the muslim brotherhood's mohamed morsi. >> welcome to you all. i want to urge those who are impacted come up. there are lots of seats in front if you want them. it is really a great honor to moderate this panel. these are two serious experts on the question of religion and

politics. ahmad atif ahmad is a professor of religious studies at the university of california at santa barbara. a scholar of islamic law and modern egyptian law. i asked him just before the event what he did in the last life to deserve being a professor at santa barbara which is certainly one of the best things that can happen to you. professor jonathan brown is professor of muslim understanding at georgetown among other things his research focuses on conflicts between sunni traditionalism and solecism. as kate mentioned this session was conceived before the july 32 and yes i did call it a coup. it takes on an additional significance with the egyptian army's removal of president morsi from power.

professor brown will focus on the muslim brotherhood and salafist reactions to his ouster and how this will affect their thinking about politics and religion, how this will affect their thinking about democratic engagement. professor ahmad will broaden the focus a bit to have a morsi episode will shape islamist ideology and egyptian attitudes more broadly. i hope he also takes a peek at reaction on -- beyond egypt's borders a subject in which some of you will note our own -- has come into recently. without further ado let me ask professor brown to take the podium and start us off. we will at the end have a q&a session.

>> thank you very much for inviting me. i think the last time i spoke at one of their offense was in november that the annual conference and a very different atmosphere and different setting. i want to first preface this by saying obviously events taking place in egypt are tumultuous and tremendous and there's a huge amount of personal suffering so when we look at things on analytical lens you can seem snide but there are always real people who suffer in the events we describe. from an analytical perspective though i would probably choose the phrase of the best laid plans of mice and men as a good way to way the lands which should be viewed.

i am actually optimistic about the future. first let's rewind to the aftermath of the 2011 ouster of mubarak. this is a very interesting time for the islamist groups and an interestiinteresti ng time in egypt and across the spectrum the party on one end and a more moderate muslim brotherhood figures and you see the same question presented to all these islamist organizations. what is going to be your organization's relationship to political involvement? and this is phrased in a way and the question of are you going to have a political party or not and if so what is the relationship of that party tier religious organization? it does teaching in the social services. those medical work.

it does legal work etc. etc. all these legal activities. if you're going to gamble and politics will be the relationship in the political wing of the organization of the core organization? what you see is that in the case of the muslim brotherhood, the voices that say we are a religious organization and the civil society organization those voices lose out and the muslim brotherhood -- go whole hog excuse the expression into political activism. the justice party is simply a legal fig leaf because they can't actually be a political party so the freedom of justice party is not an independeindepende nt entity. it takes direction from a muslim brotherhood guidance council. interestingly the one group that i think approached this issue

from a very theoretically sophisticated point of view and came up with the best model for the relationship between this core religious organization has political future political wing was the north party which was the political manifestation of the alexandria-based salafi organization. arguably the most popular salafi organization in egypt. they had a plan which was that the knower party which on the support of the salafi organization but it would be completely separate and things took a turn for the worse like let's say a military coup it could be jettisoned and at no cost to the original religious organization. what is interestiinteresti ng is if you look over the next two years to see a lot of close calls where things, where people almost rescue themselves from

predicaments or fall victim to sometimes very tragic circumstances. so when the freedom and justice party or when the muslim brotherhood is presented with the question of whether they are going to run as presidential candidates, at first the general body of the organization votes against running a presidential candidate. it was only after several rounds of voting in which the forces in question will be the most powerful person in the organizatorganizat ion is only when those forces committed to running a presidential candidate keep calling for more rounds of voting and keep ringing and supporters to make sure everybody is there to pass the vote as they slam their favor and eventually get a very close vote to run a presidential candidate. ..

>> and then he resigns in the fall of 2012. and really knew take the decomposition of the party of through the present day. and it is a show simply a shell for the government but then to support the military actions in the leadership of the party no longer supports

the crackdown of the military of protesters in cairo and other places. some have joined other parties but a peak the newer party will not be that any independent way in the future. right now we're obviously a point of intense crisis. there has been so much focus of what the june 30th but we also have to pay attention to what has happened since then. ramadan of this you like soap operas those are not in

available in large quantities but is very hot and drug the country that only with other provincial areas to come out in protest in support of president morsi really in support of the illegal this were the rule of law. but to cut here and support the you were probably find that this complicates things because now it is not just

one side of the equation the egyptian people have spoken if that were the case then the situation would be easier. not for the muslim brotherhood but the fact that morsi enjoyed popular support and these goals of secular to support them but in having seen what is -- what it is but what does it mean for the current situation? the government, the military transitional government has a problem which is the numbers are interesting so what you do?

e the you go and arrest people and hope that they don't come back or simply kill more and more people. there is a big question in my mind if the international community most important have the stomach for further bloodshed. because that crackdown is not the support of the community for that. on the other hand, the muslim brotherhood have a big problem is that they have so much support it from where they have stood from the very beginning with a return to the constitution

and law and order of the democratic process which i think is ironic if you listen to the speech from today to hear the words law-and-order which is ironic considering but the leadership decides "this is it" working we need to legitimize the government the first of all, certainly the senior leadership would be in jail. but to have so much of their net worth a and activities with the other parts of the government they are not that

vulnerable. said they will really be in a position potentially to be in the nation but having stood on the target for law and order if they said we are wrong and we're going home than that only under threat of arrest and intimidation that they will have lost all of their ideologue see and there is a big question whether or not the muslim brotherhood and its current form but the sense in egypt would have to find other homes of the networks that would not exist under the current

leadership structure today. where are the ways forward? the two sides are so far apart the military says in order to pursue you need to except the legitimacy. that will not happen but the muslim brotherhood to say that you need to understand president morsi is the legitimate president that seems very difficult for the military leadership but i do

think that with the initiative from some intellectuals that thinks that morsi returns to power in a transitional role so the constitutionality he immediately hands over power to the prime minister to represent some governments and they are elected to power then it is in a legitimate fashion. i think to return to power simply would be the compromise of the military

is acknowledging returning to the process they would say we're out of power for now if we go back to the original mold it in the spring of 2011 withered not this organization should be involved in politics i think the answer resoundingly is absolutely not. i think if this initiative succeeds, the one of the results is a retreat from the political activity. thank you very much. [applause] >> the vision in the

willingness to go from one extreme to the other. the history of this to go back to hundred years ago to find some of the things that have happened today but no question it had the most

impact of what is going on today. but to go back to go back that was not addressed sufficiently is why did it happen? you know, why it happened. there are so many problems. what did the majority want? there were people willing to go from day one and a weak number one or two and a lot of people were watching the revolution. so forget about that for a second to in the united states but even the egyptians would disagree. that hasted to with the initial uprising how that was interpreted people saw

what they wanted a feat that is legitimate real individuals participating in a society and becomes problematic when they're supposed to be leaders speaking in the name of the others but the willingness to go to extremes they disliked it the majority did make money in their elected very much by july and they could dislike it again. only a small denver would

die and they would come back down or something like that. not that these are in the blade change again in the 16 months from theory of june of 2012 but the confusion added to the willingness naturally people look at themselves in a major? because i don't have access. and a think the confusion is just over the last month there to so with that factor to be identified because it was a new choice.

what does that mean? there are many people that we referred to it does that have to be political we are very happy with social and moral utopia it is very much of the participant the public is one of them but people are happy to look a certain way and they don't talk to other people the same way. and that will continue maybe for a lot of people this whole modern game of democracy and so on. it doesn't do anything i want to see i can fill more

of my obligations within my community of course, some of those go back and forth within those parameters so of course, this is a hard question because the question the keep asking myself to what extent does society change? to change in the way cannot accept the news about people just being killed? but then somebody got killed in result traces of the blood. the police was chasing somebody and they killed him

on a motorcycle and we have seen that some people were curious but did they do something different? no. you are terrified blood is cheap people said it is now normal we are not afraid anymore. but i don't know if society changed. i am leaning toward it did not change sufficiently and then the kid at modern egyptians but they have been i to you right before it the assassination of the prime minister in 1910.

the whole society was agitating, 1980 in the broken promises of president wilson i will be with you he coined to that self-determination and people learned that the agitation is to be suspicious lee from the political science point of view that some acceptance of the political energy will run out but the islamic actors react differently to the current situation those that believe this is possible without see it is

difficult to expand your act as individuals they cannot help themselves it would to go back to run for city council to be given the legislative bodies are offered to be in the executive authority there will still accept it because that is something to them as individuals i take this part of the army in the liberals now they will participate in politics and it will be good news for everybody of us stayed it succeed as individuals and not as a group because as jonathan said it really was that moment when people said i can win the national elections that they started

to be a different so can they go back? they will be be not to the same point but something that is a hybrid that people have now and something that is a little more sustainable so society is divided this is one set of realizations but there are other things that move everybody in the direction not necessarily more understanding but steadily down so the last point is about the united states of course, it is hard we agreed you get more by doing less a it did can be

dead in the intelligent way i begin a certain context but i don't take i should have an incentive to explain because that provides additional misunderstanding i know we think that i of the answer but just for those that are beyond their capacity i realize they have not done the reading and it just isn't happening one indication is i will fix this in 30 minutes but it doesn't usually work like that and also because the miss understanding by itself lead to further misunderstanding. i really don't know of the hidden task of diplomacy and

politics but i realize it is a moment of suspicion that if the egyptians really hate somebody if this continues you don't benefit to be a part of this country i have no questions about the long-term plans but to my mind the best is to make it sound that i not have to deal with some of these details and in fact, they are being determined by the population. this is a strange moment in history also if you think about the history of democracy it is that social animal where the property owner comes together or the

institutions that are very controlled with the markets and oligarchy but now you have something different of people coming out and the numbers are different. what do you do if you have a city that swears it is big enough hundreds of thousands your and their? that is let led to the ridiculous conclusion to count by airplanes because it is different so for the outside to pretend you understand we don't understand it to take that position of the teacher of the problem and then to

learn with is going on thank you. [applause] >> there are seats up front. don't be shy. >> i will open in the q&a period with the question of my own. a subject of which did not touch in any depth and that is the question of which i say the potential of people to react in that direction. disappointed in democratic politics and some people i

imagine might say this does not work for us. maybe something else will. do have a sense of what is happening in egypt today or that reaction would spread more broadly in the islamic world? >> i would say, first of all, is its own special creature and violence is not indicative related to violence but that being said if you look at the beginning of the process what surprised me is you saw the most extremism like people part of the jihad are those that have just a matter of prison saying we reject

violence we will not kill people and it should reassure reassure rea. rule of law. and there is no evidence i have seen to contradict that this really is the dominant theme of the course that people have taken but let's say that brotherhood say sorry we've made a mistake and we will go back and day avila did the ideological ground completely then what happens? note they have no ideological ground to stand on except democracy with all these institutions failed there is no rule of law and even pakistan is not recognizing the government

that they cannot get calls through zero or things like that. why should we participate with this framework and why not use violence? >> you have a banded it completely an a tide of vigor and polarization tend up potential maybe we can participate in elections and with democracy. no. you cannot do that it be more. that is the real danger. so if that abandons the cause that would be bad news this is the terrorism of the 1990 karpov's and if you were in the background and

avoid the analogy and it has to be divided the one speculation that i heard the difference of the syrian army is it basically has not fought for a while. to say that the egyptians fought since 73 or in the coalition so all the time it has to do with the fact it has been fighting and it could split but you'll see that with the egyptian army but if something like this would have been you could have that that would change the structure of the society but there is nothing like that but again the violence of the terrorism of the '90s

and it is not easy but it is different and we use the analogies and egypt passed to elect pakistan or turkey or something like that but we are working on it trying not to do these things. >> thank you. question? >> please introduce yourself first. >> i m.a.c. your fellow upstairs. the questions personally i find a lack of understanding of political islam i have it

moved around because this is what i have done that the absence from the beginning is reciprocal that the idea is islam and politics are one of the same the basic essence of one is that. so there is no giving that up they may go underground and as you just talked about violence cover the problem here is not initiated from the hijacker outside the al qaeda types in the respect that could be a real possibility. and i find your opinion of this subject that the failed experiment democracy as far as the perceptions are concerned but the fact they

cannot purchase a pate in this is the chance that they had they are empowered it will not back down there will not go back to medical clinic it will not allow them to have capital basis of the ground with the people there was a political objective there to provide medical and social services to engage in politics above ground but now that is all changed what is your opinion on that then that it could turn into something else? >> thank you. >> i was actually worried what you were going to say until you started talking. [laughter] if i am ill informed then hit the books again but they are not there at the beginning of the muslim

brotherhood i will not get into these debates but if you want to say it is not political every single muslim brotherhood doctor is out there treating for the of a rash that is not done in the fact of the matter is they we're doing that with political involvement in the 1990's and other organizations even if it is the oldest islamic organization in egypt has no politicalization whatsoever. but from the 1920's and the muslim brotherhood throughout this entire province all they see they have been on the tv in the newspaper for months. is the muslim brotherhood a political creature? yes. is everything political?

yes. obviously but be realistic there are things that are political in the professorial sense that they are not in there is a lot of space and there has been in there will be for islamist groups to thrive. >> to be clearer and everyone is committed to a connection between islam and politics, who is everybody? thus the wrist or group of held leadership positions. not that their impact is insignificant but pay attention to a lot of those who identify themselves as members from the university are not really but think they are and they were significant in the election in the last to three years and they are different. they only have to think the way a political science book in america describes overall. but i do agree there is a

dilemma because if you begin your sense of the normal is long customs of tradition it is not political at all but it is very interesting and the rituals are important important, the marriage covenant and women are different you don't talk to the old the way you talk to the young. he did not have to avoid banks so to move from this kind of islam to say is long is everything and should be everywhere does not discover the families in the markets but also our public life life, that moves the person is dissatisfied with the verbal customs and traditions. by hitting the books by studying one thing that i

realized is this dichotomy to what extent it moves away from the sharia it is not a real. when simple fact. in the 1940's and especially in 1948 there was a committee and a french professor and they had the project first sent to all the lawyers and the judges to comment one it would recognize the name when that was 48 because he was assassinated 49 so as a member of the committee to look at the draft he says there is not stephen f. sharia you are going against sharia but he has to do that

for the european laws because of the nature of the egyptian society but on riverside people look at it as a political thing. i of not saying this to be difficult but he does look bad in the discussion the other looks more informed there's a lot that you have not studied look dash and when they were in power they started to realize the klan was accused of not being interested in a the sharia weather laziness that this question has to we impact what does that mean? of course, i had time to look this sow is obvious but if you are a medical doctor with other things in your life and where people sit together to talk about

religion and politics but it does not go far. there are a few people but i thank you ask a difficult question and i think the future will determine but you have time to change your mind if you think differently. >> someone right there. >> i am from egypt i have heard the word that to in the last month more than i ever heard of my life. when we took the streets streets, our demands were not that but with the military and i expect them to dislike them again it is not just about the ballot i also took the street again with president morsi did his

regime because social justice could change the freedoms but yet there isn't even intentions from the brotherhood to undertake them but the idea was when you see almost every configuration in the present do declare himself with his decisions and the decrease or nobody can sue him with the constitution with the military tried now they are tried now in the people have said don't do this. so many examples we could go through it but this was not

a coup and it is that to be adjusted by the military but these are the only available options but also i will rephrase from this moment there is no way the egyptians would take a military dictatorship or items are elective dictatorship even if they are voted for them. but given the couple of movements within the of the muslim brotherhood like cry without violence that calls for leaders my question is how far do think these movements in the don't know if they were some -- will snowball but will this affect the general structure

by the international movement of the brotherhood? >> the key for both the question and the comment. please send the microphone down there first we would get the reaction of the panel. >> another option is to wait a few months to vote in the parliamentary election and considering those 33 million people came out in the streets could have won the election in shape the country but now instead of having a constitution that gives the of military the right you actually have a military dictatorship. i am not entirely convinced it was a sensible course of action with what you have by american and i am not the egyptian a wave a fan of the democratic process i am not sure. >> with the issue of the muslim brotherhood against

violence, they have a with i have a suspicion they are in any independent forum if they do have a big impact that is good for the organization however i would pause and wait and see if it turns a lot of support. that is just my opinion. >> but if these groups that you need exist, but not every division will so ultimately we argue because i see circumstantial evidence. people were shocked how much

as happened in three years and there's still assimilating to think about it. we have to be smarter about this. but does not need a revolution fidelity to get into that but you reacted to the provocation that could lead to the revolution something in europe and could read something else in the united states but to mention two things that need to different things i amazed at how much literature comes out of the linguistic issue but we should not get into that's it takes energy for a

reason civic with the regard of increased violence is this the at one dash suez canal would be closed down because of sabotage what would be the reaction of nato? >> this is wild. this is beyond me. >> it is a highly speculative question and i trust that somebody in the defense department worries about such things and there are plans someplace but frankly it has been a long time since the suez was knocked out of commission and i don't think anybody seriously is anticipating that at this point. nor do i think it plays the market the in the way that it once did and that demand is to the east so i am not

sure this would represent as big of an issue as some people might imagine. let me ask the microphone to come down here to our leader of the middle eastern is a blood dash institute to make you have already introduced me i am also a retired service officer in one of the things we were told even as a junior officer was as a superpower the united states can never not have a policy i appreciate both of your remarks at very much did your answers are better but the doctor, as i understand it the united states will get it coming and going in the best approach would be to take a deep breath and

sit back and do nothing this is a very divided country but all sides are attacking the united states because we're not coming and what they perceive what their interests are some i'd like you to get into that for you have hit the nail on the head we are confused as well do we not to get involved? but can we not get involved? >> digest learned a lesson from you. i did not study this to think of the contingency that is my explanation i think if you were on the defensive even thuaprofessor i f

control over the discussions that i have you can never get it right in with this interpretation will always apply to what it does i will lead knowledge from the beginning it is of limited use but if you are in a lawsuit in the lawyer says don't talk as much you could be the expert witness not the adversary but it is in your interest because it will be misinterpreted because it is easy to get a wrong and contradict what you said before but now with knowledge and figuring things out i don't know what is usually done if it is about language talking i

would take that advice at all from the lawyer. and contradictions are not part we contradict ourselves as individuals i cannot go further. >> i am smiling because we know at the noone press briefing we know the you have to respond maybe not with policy the with the statement may be that is what gets us into trouble professor? >> i of a very selfish person i will be honest and live in washington d.c. and i think about those who want to blow up so i think if you look at the discourse to the '90s look at algeria, globalization in coming democracy is not a real avenue, they will never let us have our own islamist

government and i think that is supporting to back up that narrative and that scares me. i would rather say i would rather have the united states helped to shepherd the democratic process back into existence obviously not a return to president morsi but for the safety that would be more sensible i don't pretend to know how people would think. >> may be the microphone can go to that gentleman. >> i come from iran in just from that perspective don't

you think this problem is more serious battle of the other hand liz loans cannot find a way that it is not secularist they see egypt has been involved isn't that a problem next ? day think as an american citizen debt as americans get involved in the solution to gather all of them together to find a solution?

and i started some how to in this way spinet the first question if i am understand it correctly there is enough literature in arabic with other that say we discovered the islamic history have nothing to do with the language of the jurors that is correct that is undeniable anybody can see that. they are not associated but to see the connection so i agree. said to go back to what we said if those islamic actors are actually qualified to

get into this question of interpreting tradition i am biased they are not qualified it does not work like that. is my story it takes a couple years of studying the realized the questions are false and those that are raised rates also still fall short of the discussion people are entitled to interpret their traditions. so i piggery with the subtext of the question and i dunno where to go. >> i may comment briefly about the negotiated solution since that is my game.

i think it is quite clear the current position of the army and the brotherhood is no zone of agreement and that is quite clear. those positions are just positions in that opening gambit and what we're watching is in fact, a negotiation in then professor brown has offered a compromise with the idea to return momentarily to the point of the prime minister and that is that. that is one possibility but there are others as well. they think we're all watching negotiations but in my view for the united

states to imagine it could mediate that negotiation negotiation, that is heavy lifting kind of requirement and i gather it will be robert ford advising the american government efficient get into the game are not. frankly we have it fall of negotiations i wonder if we could be successful actually it is fair to say they are bargaining with each other for a long time. >> i mid-american egyptian as well as social to be deeply involved with the

politics and where it is headed but also a human

rights. why do we call on them to take responsibility for the nurturing and supporting the democratic process? we get the results that we want? we have at the egyptian military we want to manage them 60 more years? that is unethical for

washington to claim and that if i do anything i damage the pot but it is already yours. so now the question is isn't there an exit for example, if we propose as a nation that president morsi comes back not symbolic but to ensure the democratically elected president would be subject to the military? this is a deep feeling of the egyptian community here and in egypt that the military abroad to the people of the democratically elected president so they stole the wind of the egyptian people. is this insignificant? because the military and is all over the country?

>> you have passed some good questions. [laughter] >> a lot of what you have at least for me the united states should stick by the commitments i am an academic i am idealistic i think it is a good way to live but. i have been surprised a lot of times in the last couple of years to find the egyptian media much more accurate over the last couple months it is bizarre to see the american media more reasonable than the egyptian media? and then they read about the it released but now i thank god for "the new york times" because not to speak for

american people as a whole but there are a lot of reverence for the democratic process. people have the will to support that. but what the government does come i don't know how the decisions get made. >> to think about what you said in the beginning they are doing a lot at the risk of being reprimanded by the true professionals but it is not showing that degree of control or demand so people are talking a certain way but running the show. and is a decisive moment that is not able to do all lots of things talking to a

too many audiences, i could be wrong but i have seen that analysis in the united states is not control so if you are basing on the assumption that can exercise these sufficient pressure come i don't see that. it is launching to the extent maybe they think they can address certain knowledge but this confusion that exists with the population will an end to in begin to feel they agree on something to kill a few thousand people or they say i will kill one individual and we will have to figure this out was one of these scenarios that jonathan mentioned but it is just

like waiting and it will not work the people will have to decide something. >> davis mohammad. i have a different question. is the two events in egypt could be related to what we know as arab spring? and if there is such a thing is there any red is on its taking place in the middle east with a hundred years from now to look back? thank you. >> professor brown?

>> are we add a historical juncture? >> i think we are. probably more so they and 2011. i guess the big question is committed history of egypt will that move forward? is there a change of progress? that is not a direct route to is this something that will move forward or falls back? i think there is the absolute value for forward movement even if it is incorrect. i think falling back is a disaster in the least for egypt to become clear with of the things put to bet is the egyptian leadership and

the arab world everyone likes to talk about this but to combine that with the failure of the ability to be independent from the chili and politically what you have is a recipe for disaster because at no point will that interest be taken into consideration. you cannot have a country that can lead politically if under the population and but to be changed completely by adjusting gas pumps because of the gas lines and shortages idb tempted to go

back to the middle east to see that as part of the conflict. >> i tend to agree we are at a moment i talk about the fundamental change in three years. but that doesn't need that will let go back and forth. that like the european renaissance but all of these analogies are confusing. and egypt will begin to be seen differently.

so with that many new ideas you cannot predict but it is hard to imagine the people just forget about what happened but with the certain analogy for about the 18th-century i just don't see them repeating themselves. so the things that happened after. >> something will come out ahead with little parts of 2013 to imagine what the

century will look like. >> i am struck by the images people have seen themselves doing this before. it is striking. >> i am from the of the sea of egypt. i probably disagree with what you say because former president morsi was democratically elected but we all agree with that democracy to grab power in this is democracy. and with those forces it is not a democracy i am sorry to say it.

and why are you ignoring that second you portray what happened on june 14 military verses muslim brotherhood but ignoring on june 3rd they asked president morsi to the if but also his rendition of other groups. and it was presented from the non islamist group so this is how we have to look to egypt not just a vision of democracy for hundreds of

years. we're still establishing a democracy. this is what i want you to do. what is happening in egypt with that egyptian vision at the american vision. >> i am sorry to say this you are right democracy does not mean elections that does not mean you can do what you want that is what president morsi did not understand that was a big mistake that he made and people can write callus books about the bad decisions they made i have a problem with that but when you talk about choosing governments because then it is about elections there were 30 million or 5 million in the streets you have to have a way to count these people of that is what you have the votes and they get counted this simpleou

elections is about governance with president morsi is a terrible it is easy to have parliamentary elections are a lack of confidence ida's see anything in the constitution i will be honest i read the egyptian press and the constitution and i don't know where this power grab was. i don't see it like a figment that is thrown around he was a terrible precedent -- president. >> but to understand the e. egyptians are still losing their own democracy you cannot justify the american system or vision.

>> that is not the american system we did not invent elections. >> a good way is to have the means of countering that is very be basic to cannot count people you cannot say what the people want that is how it works. >> let me all-out another opportunity. >> we agree more than you think. i don't think nobody says the majority is not what you tell me but the majority is the muslim brothers but the majority the people don't like this but there is the assertion that as a john a sin is hinting is it becomes too much everybody has the intuition so it is significant to the extent i

do agree but maybe modified with the base land of what you say that the democratic participation is if we ask the majority of the people whether going out on the streets is as good as elections they would say say, maybe you have five elections the muslim brotherhood wanted but people did come out to the streets for a 5 billion people care about that is enough. you are right because it is such an early experience it bears certain interpretations and shifts that should not be judged by the aside -- the outside. but maybe we do disagree i felt in the context of another meeting but we agree more did you take -- think

the. >> i served in the government for a long time as part of the small group that set up the long-term security assistance program of egypt but when i hear today is all about islamism but i get this impression from the 33 million that showed up to participate that there is much more secularism rather than islamism but simply whether if the islamist will take over or not. what about the undifferentiated mass? that was referred to? >> with all ambiguity in the language because it means

different things to different people, i came up with a hypophysis that wasn't prudent on my part idea understand i had been here 14 years but i know egypt so well that i can tell you population wants is long flight that if we don't say anything bad about the profit but don't ask them to do prayer's. talking about the majority my intuition could be totally wrong but based on living there 26 years. at this moment people have to recognize.

[laughter] so this is the analogy. it is true we cannot just talk as if islamism or the army is more complicated. there are 90 million and we're not even sure it is just 19 million. >> i think the issue at hand to which decisions are made is crucial for progress. and again, your question brings up the issue that

said 20 or 30 million but these numbers are just numbers with no basis because no one said they had any basis. the three have no grounds for making claims then as long as they're not based on any evidence they will just be more claims. how can you come to any conclusions? >> one final question. >> i am just a retired economist wondering what those factions involved with egypt what is the thinking with the position of reforming society to eliminating property and raising the presence to a higher level of prosperity

and with the economic interests that prevent that and how does that factor into the current situation in egypt? >> professor brown? >> i am not an economist but i think egypt you could make a great example of a country that faces so many economic problems it is almost incomprehensible to imagine any improvement over short or medium term. but unsustainable an immediate and short-term and the reason why a lot of people came out people had not made money for two years they are completely miscible. the country has stalled totally and economically. if someone is not able

pothooks to improve that then they will suffer a fait unless the security services shutdown but let's get the economic future i cried a. >> of people said the study they did not really steady mainstream economics but they have to study beyond their field to get a sense of what is going on with egypt in particular so that country went through many waves of the level that they were so self contradictory that led to the problems but also of what people referred to as corruption with institutions at have a

mechanism so i keep hearing all these pessimistic things and one of my friends that was recently appointed to be in charge of everything other than the banks in the real-estate he says it is a big mess and it is confusing to ask the basic question in that would take a big team of people you know, allah and those that don't just apply them without thinking in the reflection of what might work and what might not work. >> professor brown to have a final word for us? >> pray i guess? i am not sure. [laughter]

>> the appropriate final word. professor? >> it was very enjoyable and that you have me thinking people when the brothers say you just wasted 60 minutes but somehow we managed to waste 90 minutes of your time. [laughter] >> we enjoyed it. we thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> from the hoover institution from the campus of staenford is the directoranfd cf arabian studies at f stanford and a fellow at the hoover institution where he is the co-director of the iran democracy project also the author of "the shah", dr. milani win was in the shah in power and how

did he get there? 194 >> 1941 and left 1979 gave th to the kohmeni and wi willingly with the revolution that i argue was hijacked by the clerics and was not supposed to lead that but was off of antagonism. he came to power because his father was the shah andthe pushed out of power when thelies forces occupied in 1941 witht the british and the soviet and they were worried the shah was a little too friendly to the nazis depending on who you ask 2,003,were german experts working in iran and when thethe

soviet army suffered the de earth the defeat but thatn which connected the persianconns gulf and allow the allied too resupply the end of not these became the central at the young and tender age ofly? 22. >> host: reluctantly? >> guest: i think so at that time he was not anticipating he wouldn't throne.to the he he was not anticipating hewouldd would go to the occupied country and finally he really wasn't by inclination , not someone who

had the drive that his father had that grabbed the throne. he was very weak in side butut also pretended to be veryto strong.b like in shakespeare he would roar like a lion but in that sense he was modernizing andpe came to power added very crucial time with the veryvery i critical piece of realt estate. iran comment truman, fdr, eisenhower, ken nedy, nixon, literally all the president's had said one of the most importantas one of t countries in the was a day of the cold war with0 kiloters 500 kilometers to the soviet would know how to getto

into the persian gulf so to keepi i ran out of the soviets hands was very critical.st so almost by consensus the cold war began.t so you have a young man with metal and tested comes to as critical drone in thewih troubled man in the communist movement so itade made it interesting. >> host: you have itica mentioned shakespeare a couple of times and it teay be 90 begin each chapter withpeare. quotations from king richard. why? >> i love shakespeare.

but when i read richer the second i found striking similarities between thefascinan authination between the authority and absolute an weakness.fr one going from one extreme to in-bother with almost no in between that is usually the. character that the shah has. from the heighths spending $250 million to invite all the heads of state to the march monarchy in iran to someone within a year in the half itld t cannot make a single decision without the approval of the ambassador. very much like richard ii.

his reign is the whole wh question of divinedivine legitimacy and if that couldined e. sustained phenomenon shakespeare had some brilliant lines you can killan me that god has anointed me and only god can take away the strong but people took away the throne that richard ii and the shah had.ar >> host: throw his reign t of those years, how many off them did he have to answer to the british sure the americans or anotherto authority prior to makingking bg that decision?uest: >> 1941 through 1964 or five in the words of the american th ambassador a ward of the

united states. he really has to answer torealld the british and the american brh center in little he can do prr without the prior approval tei with almostrough $1,000,000,000.1953 through 1962 it was probably theoba second of the first and whenper. you have the first to have the power to dictate and it loesn't know how much to in tel spend on military and ironically what all the money got him in the independence because first of all, it was the americans that kept advising him he should open the system ande

democratize to bring to the middle-class and when youwhhad l have all the money in thed world he didn't feel likeid not she could listen to the americans and furthermore, without money the fabric would change and now it is a large urban working class with ah conservative cultural values there is no force allowed to purchase a pate or mobilizethiun the multi-billion force thee y only force allowed to worke in these areas were the clergy so when the system went into crisis the surprisingly their the ones that would help to

essentially siva was hoping to create a democracy thaten t created a theocracy.h >> host: abbas milani didha he always had a tenuous relationship with theh mullahs? >> interesting question. on the one hand he would pick his fights in 1963 that is when kohmeni came andan -- eventually kohmeni will come to unseat him by the shah of the with the help of the clergy and the americans in the british coming he waswas ought brought back b to power so he

has a broad relationship and while he despised radical lik clergy, he felt they are his allies to determine at thetime th time that communism is the h main threat. and the potential ally of the united states. that is why he had thathadhe policy to allow them to continue to organize with high schools or elementary schools or camps and to create mosques on reading with every university before and after the revolution.