host mark speed and the book club continues this month with more next on book tv, shibley telhami met here on c-span washington journal to discuss his new book "the world through arab eyes." this is about 40 minutes. ..the situation in syria we turn to -- host: to continue our coverage of the situation in syria, we have shibley telhami, author of the book "the world through arab eyes." -- to start with your take on the agreement on syria's chemical weapons. you agree the obama administration was successful in what they were trying to do?

wast: whether or not this an accidental agreement or intended, it almost doesn't matter. i am prepared to give president obama the credit for it. i think in the end, this is the best he could of gotten. i think war was a risky option, especially without internationally -- >> you can country, you open up the possibility of a prolonged war. and here was a case where, since of president made his case the nation specifically on chemical weapons and the assad regime's violation on that issue, a military strike had no chance of taking others, go weapons. it would have been dangerous. the president did not promise that. he promised that as punishment to prevent him from using them again. goalsdid it achieve the -- the line gu

guest: obviously the devil is in the details but it is promising. number one, international cooperation without war. eliminationpossible of syria's a chemical weapons, something the war option never promise. if it is implemented on that issue -- it does not resolve the syria crisis, obviously, because that is bigger than the, go weapons issue. this was a horrible weapon. obviously the world to get rid of it if it can completely. but for now, this is the case the president made, and i think it was ways, whether accidental or not, it is something he can take credit for. host: the book you wrote this year is "the world through arab talk about how arab eyes are seeing this deal on chemical weapons. guest: interesting to compare public opinion in general now -- because we talk about public opinion and sometimes we don't understand how different the public is sometimes from

governments. for example, it is clear that on , i have tof syria divided at the strategic level and level of government. for example, the government of the gulf region, saudi arabia and other members of the gulf cooperation council, who want to see an intervention in syria. they say it privately, less publicly. have beenhe saudis bolder. they want to see an intervention, not so much over the chemical weapons, but they have been asking about it before because they see the theory of conflict as a big strategic confrontation between them and iran being played out. in syria there is a sunni-shiite divide that plays itself out in syria. and yet our public opinion by and large really ever since the uprising, which did not like assad, they favor the rebels mostly him and nonetheless they don't want to see an international intervention. they don't trust the intentions in particular of the u.s.

they think we will be doing it for the wrong reasons that nobody really believes that we would have intervened it would be over chemical weapons. they see what happened in iraq. by and large there was a public that did not want to support it, and that is why the arab league institution could not formally supported despite the pressure from gulf states. and then you have egypt, which obviously is the most populous arab state, influential historically. it is going through a lot of transition. certainly does not like assad and has criticized him. but after the overthrow of the muslim brotherhood in egypt and the overthrow of resident morsi -- president muslim, you have a sentiment in egypt that is so anti-muslim robin hood it trumps anti-assad. criticism in the united states about the president setting a redline in syria and whether he would back up a redline.

a red lineissue of as it is issued in the arab world. is there a credibility issue that is being looked at? credibilitynk a issue is always overblown, in my opinion. the u.s., when you talk about credibility, what is the credibility we are talking about? it is a question of the message. if people don't believe that what you are doing is in the first place over chemical weapons, how is it an issue of credibility? if in the first place people don't want you to intervene, if you intervene, how is it a question of credibility? moreover, when i look at the president's statement, in some ways he allowed his opponent into find his words. it is red line is crossed, i am going to intervene militarily without international support. he never said that. he could have certainly framed differently if he wanted to, particularly taking it to the international criminal court, work -- working more with allies to find options. i think the issue, the

perception in the arab world of american credibility is very different and i think that is what the message is. in any case i think historically, if you look at the issue of credibility, people forget the 1950s when after n sc68, 1950, credibility became defamed that blurred the interest between vital and nonvital interests to the extent justified in the and an escalation in places like korea and vietnam, particularly vietnam. so i think the notion that you can talk about credibility without justifying what the immediate interest is today, that is a problem. i think you have to at least the answer that stake today worth at least the next possible escalation? i don't think anybody has answer that question in the debate. host: we are talking this morning with shibley telhami, peace and development professor at the university of maryland and also the author of "the world through arab eyes."

what is a peace and development professor? guest: i am a political scientist by training. i came to maryland after teaching for a long time at cornell university in new york as a political scientist, and i am still in the political science department. but the chair was named after the former president of egypt, anwar sadat, for peace and development legacy and muscle it commemorates that. but in athens, i am a political scientist. phone lines are open and the numbers on the screen -- host: if you are outside of the 3883. 202-585- also take questions over twitter and e-mail and facebook. let's start with diana from naples, florida, on our democratic line. diana, good morning. you are on with shibley telhami.

caller: good morning. i have just been listening -- usually i listen every morning and was trying to call. i was just listening for the last 10 minutes or so. but everything he says -- i can't say his name, i am sorry -- but i agree with. it is very sensible. i think a lot of americans like myself who lived through a depression and world war ii and all of these other wars and all of his political stuff that is going on, following everything, i agree with everything he is saying. it is very sensible. and i think obama -- everybody has a criticism for somebody or can't imagine i him, him and senator kerry, what they are doing is the most sensible thing to do. had to live through this ridiculous ungodly thing, which has brought us to this -- this again -- this ridiculous benghazi thing, which is brought us to this. some of these people, nonsensical, it is horrible.

what he is saying, the way he is putting it into context i think is very well. and i agree with them. now to dan from berkeley, california, on our independent line. good morning. caller: hello? host: go ahead. you are on with shibley telhami. i would like to -- can you hear me ok? host: yes, go ahead. ,aller: mr. shibley telhami i've a question for you -- i have seen interviews with you and i follow you. first, i would like to know, whether your family is sunni or shiite and secondarily i would like to ask a question regarding analysis on the whether you the united states would have been better off ending up on the

shia side of the fence in terms of the cold war allies? we ended up on the wrong side of that. developing a stronger relationship with the iranians. there was a cold war element. host: talk about your background. guest: thank you very much. i am speaking in berkeley next week. i lived there for some time. i am neither sunni nor shia. my family was christian. i am a secularist. i am neither one of these. andsunni tribe is real invented. you can see it in various

places, particularly among religious fanatics. we have witnessed what has happened in iraq and in lebanon. it is also invented in the sense that that division has not explained wars or peace over the years. extremists always use this device for their own reason. you have a fanatical fringe that is the finding it. -- that is defining it. you see that in egypt where egypt is mostly sunni, 10% christian. and yet they are fearful of the muslim brotherhood. seea, they do not want to the fringe or the mainstream

muslim brotherhood win in syria . conspiracy theory about a possible american invention in order to save the muslim brotherhood in syria. that is the sort of stuff we are talking about. israelifter the lebanese- a shiazbollah is organization. context of the competition in lebanon. yes, there is a divide. it doesn't always explain political position. host: the book is "the world through arab eyes." opinion.t arab public

are americans seeing the true arab public opinion? we have notn egypt, had any public opinion polls of late in egypt. we have had an overwhelming media that is now controlled by is pitchingnt that one story, that the muslim motherhood is a bad guy. we do not know until we have public opinion polls. this book is based on 10 years of public opinion polling in .gypt, rocco, jordan, lebanon every year we had up to

4000 people interviewed representing the population, principally in the cities across the arab world. what got me thinking about it was after the iraq war where i was on leave from the university to advise the government on the middle east. i noticed that most of the people in the middle east -- i was mostly talking to eli tes. i do not have a good sense. i did not do that with confidence. it was after that i started thinking about the possibility of designing public opinion polls. now we have a lot more. we have a good sense. not in every country.

givennot do it in syria, the circumstances. i did not think that was possible. in other places, it is. host: we are talking with shibley telhami, professor at the university of maryland and taking your calls and questions. helen is up next on our democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for making your comments. didink that president obama a wonderful job and is doing a wonderful job in reference to syria. their work power leaders out there from russia, iran, and china who could have gone to syria. they did nothing until president

obama got involved and he did not rush to judgment. he wanted to prove and then he announced his plan. putin got involved. as a power country, we should look at these actions when they are taking place because they affect the entire world. those are my comments. i thank the gentleman for bringing this forward. i thank president obama for not going to war at this time. host: james on twitter has a different take. was ano you think this accident? guest: it could have well have been accidental in the sense the

administration from the outset when they made the case for a strike against syria never put forth a clear demand for what serious could -- syria could deliver. when the secretary of state was asked what would syria do to avoid it, he almost said it off the cuff. to james bakerg about the 1991 war. he told me he was trying to make the conditions for saddam hussein impossible. ts interestst i would not be served. was probably trying to do the same thing.

the russians exploited this. the syrians saw benefits to following up. we will never know if it was accidental. maybe we will at some point. i do not care so much. the president accepted this option. he could have rejected it. parts of the option were put on the table. it takes two to tangle. it is not just russia. the bigger question goes back to the first caller from hyattsville who said it is the threat of force that generated the diplomacy. in some ways you cannot argue with that. once the u.s. threatened to use

force, it got everybody's attention. in the case of syria, syria is a little country with little resources. their allies had a bigger capacity to retaliate. learn the threat of other countries may be the same where they are now facing the same environment that syria is. to argue this could be extended to some other diplomacy is a mistake. i think it is a case-by-case basis. eight general lesson is something we have to think about much more carefully than start congratulating ourselves. host: here is chris in alabama's take.

i agree with that. host: let's go to angela from california on our independent line. turned down your tv and go ahead with your comment or question. caller: i have two questions. is al qaeda on our payroll through saudi arabia? didn't we give chemical weapons to be used on the iranians when there was a war and we never said anything about it? the american people did not know about it. guest: on the chemical weapons, chemical weapons have been used before. iraqwere used by a rock -- against the kurds and the

iranians. nobody made a big deal about that. that is why we have the debate about double standards that we hear. in the middle east when i asked people across the country's what they think motivates american foreign policy, the top answers , oil and israel and secondary maybe weakening the muslim world. rightshan 10% say human or the terrorism issue. the reason there is suspicion --ut american intentions analysis has to go far beyond that. is ridiculous to

think america is backing al qaeda. estqaeda is america's bigg enemy. perhaps since its inception. the u.s. has been at war to try to weaken it. fearroblem is the indirect in the u.s. about what happened in afghanistan. of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. that islam ise groups including members who joined al qaeda and formed al qaeda to fight the u.s. were the enemies of the soviet union and supported by the u.s. to help bring down the soviet presence

in afghanistan. you had something that came back to haunt the international community when that 6 succeeded. we have seen this from the beginning. some of the most respected fighters and perhaps the most effective fighters have been al qaeda and their supporters. is the u.s.ear cannot manage supporting the good guys from the bad guys. we have heard a couple of days ago the deputy chief of the cia saying the only institution that can defeat al qaeda will be the state institutions in syria. we do not want to break these down.

how do we support the opposition enough to force efforts to a diplomatic settlement but yet not break down the institutions in a way that will allow al qaeda and their supporters to take over in syria? it is a tough balance. host: you talked about your travels through the middle east as you wrote your book. arab-uld you classify the based government? question -- is no the arab uprising started with public and that was a empowerment against entrenched ruling dictators for a lot of

politics, domestic foreign politics. the whole process of the uprising has been a public empowerment against those entrenched powers. we are going through the process of change. not all are equally repressive. they very quite a bit. some are much more moderate in treating their people or providing services. where you had overthrown governments as in tunisia and egypt, they are going through a process, a process that is very difficult and painful. is it isnk my own view not going back to where it was.

you might go through periods of going back. you have a public that is empowered for the first time. it is only extending and not going backward. i think people expect more and know more. they know how to organize without the need for social institution because of this new instrument. we are going to watch upheavals. the secular and the religious get empowered. that means we will have turbulence. host: we are talking this arning with shibley telhami, professor at the university of maryland and also works as a member of council on foreign relations and served as an as aor to the u.n. and

member of the u.s. delegation to the trilateral u.s. anti- incitement committee. we are taking your calls and questions this morning. michael is next on our republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. opinion on how the average citizen throughout the middle east feels about the american people, not their government? thank you very much. guest: this is a fantastic question. we know going back decades -- latin americans or africans or people in the third world who were frustrated with american foreign policy. peoplemired the american

and loved american values. what we see in the middle east -- we hadt decade what we thought was a clash of values. when you ask people, name countries where you find most freedom for their people? they wouldry identify would be a western country, including the united states. when you asked them what do you want to study, the u.s. was always high up there. overwhelmingly they say policies and not values. point after some the election of george w. bush

that people started asking that question, maybe there is no difference between the people and the government. how could they reelect george w. bush? we started asking specific questions about their attitudes towards the american people versus the american people. there is a gap. they are warmer toward the american people than the government, but that gap has narrowed. from new's go to ted orleans. you are on with shibley telhami. caller: thank you. , you arer background you mighthe panic -- also be familiar with the wesley that video that states

with a general friend of his -- he was talking about an encounter he had in 2001. a general from the pentagon mentioned that we were going to invade iraq. general clark asked why. the general answered, i do not know. six weeks later he ran into the general again. iraq?till going into we are going to invade seven countries in five years. one of the morem influential institutions out there informing public opinion and propaganda. you say that obama did the right thing here.

wereee that the instance the internet and social media is taking over. brezinski says we are in a lot time wele -- the first have a worldwide awakening to what we have been doing for the past 400 years. is nowanglehold you have being broken. it wasn't so much obama saw the light. i am 66 years old. i have never seen the american people over 90% on one issue in my life. guest: the iraqi war is a big story. i happen to oppose the war. i thought it was a bad idea.

issue that webig cannot tackle right now. i want to say something about nct.president's insti this is a president who do not want to see entanglements. in, he escalated afghanistan. his instinct is not to intervene. we know he was reluctant to intervene in libya. he is not itching to intervene for sure. it will be interesting to see how his thinking on syria has evolved. that are a lot of people are human rights activist in his administration. some of them thought it was the

moral thing to do. it is a difficult issue about the morality of intervention. i think there are people who make the case for it. there have been episodes where to u.s. has been called upon intervene since the beginning of the syrian crisis. whether that played into his thinking and he could i thinkentalize that, we can get away with it and neighbors he thought it would relieve some of the pressure on him to do something more about iran. that is an issue he wants to resolve diplomatically. member of theud council.

in the up of people foreign policy arena, scholars, former diplomats. it is basically a group of people. the organization has become a think tank where you have the scholars who produce policy analysis. counciliation with the is only as a member. i am with the brookings institution. host: robert from west virginia on our democratic line. you're on with shibley telhami. turn down your tv and go ahead with your question or comment. we will go to craig from california on our democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning.

finally the united states of america, the people were heard. gave a no on syria . do you believe or is it your opinion the real directive comes from israel for all of our controls and actions in syria and palestine? question issrael always important for the u.s.. america support for israel is one of the cornerstones of the foreign policy. ask the you do, question about the consequences for israel and consult for israel on matters that have importance. israel is a big factor in all this, including syria.

israelry kerry is in briefing the prime minister with the deal with syria. on the one hand, if you look at global public opinion, almost saw it play we itself out in the parliament. that was the only place where the majority supported a strike on syria. on the one hand, it pertains to syria itself. what might happen. they did worry about chemical weapons. the syrians were probably using -- it was perceived as a poor man's weapon of mass distraction. now they were using chemical weapons more internally.

the israelis are worried about them falling into the wrong hands. they have real issues. what will be the consequence for what they see as the biggest strategic threat, which they see as youiran. they supported the president's strike and lobbied for it in congress. when the deal was announced about the chemical weapons with russia, you found they were supportive and saying it was a godsend for israel. to make ahe argument argument that we now need to make a threat on iran. host: what does the deal mean for israel? israel is one country suspected

of having some stockpiles of their own. does that put more of a spotlight on israel? guest: i think it does put a spotlight on them. they did not sign the treaty prohibiting chemical weapons. soyes, yes, it does. so they have to do that? host: they signed the treaty but did not ratify it. let's go back to the phones. good morning. you are on with shibley telhami. caller: good morning. i am looking forward to downloading your book. i assume i can get it on kindle. i want to get your analysis on the president's speech last tuesday night.

the generally accepted critique --that the comment by kerry that this compromise on chemical weapons and the destruction of the potential-- destruction of those weapons. the president made a comment and implied that perhaps this had been in the works prior to kerry's comment. i am interested in your analysis. immediaterote and response about the speech for politico. i do not know if the president was trying to take credit for it. i would not doubt the president was exploring diplomatic options with putin again.

the president's instinct was not to strike. he was exploring every conceivable option, including some compromise with putin. never do we have such a sweeping proposal of syria agreeing to disarm itself with chemical weapons. it, i thought it was one of the impossible things that was put on the table. the military strike never promised to achieve that. them andd only to hurt possibly to degrade their possibilities. attacking chemical weapons is a problem. , there ise russians

no question they were very clever. -- chemical weapons of syria here is one thing we have to understand. i know everybody talks about their competition with the u.s. or their commitment to a debate in syria. they are worried about al qaeda in syria. putin talks about this issue. it would be a nightmare for them if there was a collapse in syria and those weapons fell into the wrong hands. i think they have something to gain from it. host: the book is "the world through arab eyes." the author is shibley telhami. you can catch up with him on twitter.

>> [applause] we are delighted to have dr. get is with us here on the campus. welcome. our c-span viewers as well we are delighted.