[inaudible conversations] >> good morning everyone. thanks for breathing the

aftermath of the cyclone bomb and polar vortex and everything else and on behalf of brookings and everybody joining through c-span at home. we have an extremely important topic this morning and what those interest should do and also have to have those debates with the division of what the world should look like this pertains directly to the most important policy issues regarding the middle east in recent years or

decades with t2 in play with the president about to make a decision and with the public of iran and those calling for a change. i will mention one more logistical thing # iran protest if you are tweeting about it. we are pleased and honored to have a canadian journalist with us as well as a human rights activist for many years 1998 through 2011 and another time that was reminiscent of this one and he wrote the new york times bestseller that

later a movie was based on that from jon stewart. the iran wire citizen newspaper very important source of information for many people to know that journalism is not a crime. on the panel will be the deputy director of the foreign policy program for middle east policy and is our iran expert and among her many achievements i just want to note an excellent book published in 2015 from cambridge university press she was formally on the writing

staff and now one of our leaders here at brookings susan's international affairs columnist from the new weekly podcast and her list of accomplishments is very long and also the editor in foreign policy reporting from congress and iraq and the soviet union as co- bureau chief and for a variety of different outlets and we are extremely happy that you are joining us. please join me to welcome our three panelists to the stage. [applause]

>> thank you to all of you for braving the cold we are grateful and cannot think of a more timely event i am a little bit exhausted by 2018.

[laughter] and certainly it is a good reminder the outbreak of the protest question already. i cannot think of a better panel to figure that out but a lot of us are starting out this morning with questions is this an interaction report remarkable but litter -- little understood. that is what we will talk about throughout 2018. but of course the timing is remarkable because here in washington we see the convergence of one of our internal foreign policy debate that president trump faces that deadline next week

whether to certify the nuclear deal and to call that into question not to withdraw or proceed with any other with the outbreak of those protest and how do we understand? so when it comes to this or other foreign policy issues so what kind of information do we have? it surprises just about everybody not only here in the united states so what have we learned as a result? i cannot think of anybody better to start off that

conversation not only with their deep experience inside of iran but the project that has invaluable accounts from inside the country what is going on right now. so let's jump into that. it has been incredible how much we are so self absorbed and we spent half the time discussing and debating what we did 2009. >> is this the end? >> thank you to organize this and thanks for coming.

i want to say people from iran with the organized foreigners it would be a bad decision. because to go between christmas and new year where people are off. so that in itself can show it was not organized so from what we know the 20th of december there were some demonstrations. and circumstantial evidence that there was a demonstration organized by the government

itself. but in order to protect the economic policies and unemployment. so 3000 people gathered in the city and i would like to translate the names of these places when you see the demonstrations they are up against the freedom monument it is interesting to understand that as well. so there was a small organization organized by the government then we saw demonstrations all over the country.

and then of course it was more widespread than three nights ago there were at least four cities some counted up at 70. so we do not know exactly if they say they do they are lying because nobody knows exactly. but it seems most of the demonstrations are because of poverty and unemployment and the economic situation. more people are arrested during the protest are young average age is under 25 so that means the oldest of the people arrested are 17 in

2009. and did not even have the right to vote at that time or even take part. so there were different slogans chanted during the demonstratio demonstration. and for the first time to bring down pictures of the commander of the forces and different groups within and outside of iran had followers and taking part in those demonstrations.

that is why you saw in certain cities they would champion for the monarchy the father of the shaw also and also with his birthplace people said is is only about the economy. so with that picture we see it does show there is a fertile ground for protest and widespread discontent and even the government if you go beyond what they say then you are admitting there is a wide discontent that can be

triggered by anyone as soon as there is a measure of the space or the people. >> in the last couple of days we have seen organized demonstrations by the government itself they have narrowed the bandwidth and shutdown the gap so we have seen less protest maybe. organized by the government itself. interesting to see what will happen later on today. >> you are right to highlight

also the question of leadership like in 2009 so to have a very specific set of political leaders and demands. what you make of that political context of which this was occurring. they are not joining these protest as we understand. >> one of the key differences that are worth coloring and snoring but the last of the organizations. heading in so far as we actually know is distinct from

those prior periods of protest and it bears noting that with labor strike or. of significance unrest are localized over economic reason credit to demand back pay or labor you and to happen so quickly within the first protest would ever spark that first one may have been orchestrated as an attempt to undermine president ruth connie and his reform agenda

it morphed almost immediately into places all around the country, 24 cities then continued to mushroom. but also quickly moved from slogans focused on economic grievances to what could only be seen as very radical and deeply alienated slogan throughout the government. but this should be asking the government to respect the rules without anti- islamic

republic messaging. they cite different critiques or slogans but most will agree basically they are not asking for government reform. and for that in the past that has been going on. as part of the system in 2009 that was it. asking where are my votes?

but to say he is wise but for that movement they do not have a clear objective people that say they are not happy with the system. but i have not even heard 11 clear example.

especially major cities to identify with those professors we do not know what they want. because of that situation there is some violence so for example a person this country for that reproach meant he is a former game show host as you

could imagine howard stern. [laughter] because they are desperate for change and those that don't want to be associated to have iran leading to become something similar. to take an vantage of people's fear they have lack of security and in the early 20th century with chaos in the

country people could not travel between cities and the shaw took over the country he established a certain rule on law that people were happy with for a long time. then in 1853 they seem to be out of control. but at the moment to fear insecurity in the country and then to portray the demonstrators to be manipulated by outside forces. >> so let's talk more with

those causes one of the thing most commentators have remarked that it does not appear to be upper middle class like the iranian version of trump country who have supported former president dominic shod -- on the dinner shod when a smaller class of country with those heavily religious cities. what do you make of that different geographic map? >> one of the most interesting features is the fact so many people know iran didn't know anybody as part of these protest. the numbers are different from this time around talking about

40,000 hooligans that is their estimate how many people have been participating in these protest even if it is off by a factor of ten it is still significantly smaller but it is still that question of deep alienation of people who are expected with the legitimacy of the islamic republic and consistently thought to enhance its legitimacy by talking about social justice with the disenfranchised or the with those economic policy through that revolutionary period. but if they lost that constituency and prepared to

repudiate it has to be deeply unnerving and if we have a question if that is happening what is the next bar cow cannot be anticipated and then try to inoculate that comes back to the playbook. so that is what is coming out of iran today.

and i was struck going back recommending there is a prepared quality almost from the beginning of the green movement for how they would communicate as the outside agitator. and to play a role in the bridging and for what had occurred. in two be directly what happened in 1997 with a pro- reform candidate that took conservatives by surprise.

that they saw any possibility of a peaceful change with the supreme leader. they will support him four years later and he became president. and the second four years so they tried to gather information to reform and with the paradigms especially former soviet union and to prevent that from happening again. that is why he saw the mass murder of the intellectuals

because those that were interrogated at that time with the leaders of the movement. to get rid of that in the futur future. >> so the revolutionary guard prepared themselves for another wave of reformers. and at the same time they proved to be very ineffective and people became disappointed in reform that is why they wanted change because they voted for ahmadinejad in and the revolutionary guard had the scenario for its protest

but that protesters are led by certain people who are directed by others so if i was arrested for example, may be 90% of my interrogation is not what i did but they wanted me to confess. they would ask me to keep the details and something that i had not even ever met. and they said other people are confessing and i was saved because of that but this time around i think the revolutionary guard and people

in charge of the foundation support 10 million across the country many pride themselves to be in touch with the poor and many conservative leaders and religious leaders around the country as a result the revolutionary guard came up with the same theory about two or three nights ago. on iranian television and also going back opportunity to settle scores to say that ahmadinejad was involved they

did not mention him by name but high-ranking former official. and then the revolutionary guard was interrogated two nights ago on iranian television that the americans sold the israeli plan and came up with the strange idea that each adr plays a role for american intelligence and it is supposed to be a messaging service. >> they are struggling. and with all of these slogans as well. and some of these will again almost four years after the

revolution were in support of the shaw. i haven't had a chance with the revolutionary guard but why do we have 40000 hooligans in the country? except there are 40000. how come we have not been able to have anyone willing to risk their lives to be killed? what is the economic background? so as we have journalists that are struggling with questions the revolutionary guard themselves is also struggling the answer isn't easy because

they protest that economic condition from the past 40 years. people have different types of grievances like one of the poorest areas i have ever been to and there are people who have lost their investments with banks and. schemes in financial institutions so there are different layers of grievances. >> right. >> maybe they have to do with the revolutionary guard involvement as you know it

isn't just the military force they have some of the biggest industrial contracts in the country. some of the biggest industries or the companies are run by those institutions under direct supervision of the supreme leader and cannot be fully audited. and you can see the depth of corruption for the government that he himself admitted only one third of the budget is in my hands. he cannot do anything. >> but that is a good one to pick up on now he is perceived

as a moderate with the nuclear deal for further reforms. one question that i have for both of you if we see rouhani coming up with that reform that is possible mentioning the soviet union or the collapse something to be avoided but i was thinking fatal half measures. is that what we are looking at with rouhani? because he is not able to deliver? what does this tell us about the future of reform?

>> my theory very much what you just suggested. the last best attempt to moderate the islamic republic with an ongoing effort so that was even baked into the construct to have more moderate and representative institutions and authoritarian institutions that there has always been tension with a more moderate path and outcome for the islamic republic with the further domination and after the seizure of the embassy in 1979 and then the attempt at the end of the war

to do as much as rouhani two reform the economy with a reformist movement in many ways is one of the most ambitious and optimistic reform attempts we have seen during a presidency seeking to emphasize that precept that does call for a rule of law and representative government be outflanked and what we have seen is a series of successive failures i was optimistic

about rouhani thinking this could be a path forward to focus once again on economic reform and to engage with the world in a way to bring the rehabilitation partially and he succeeded to bring about the nuclear deal with no small accomplishment that ultimately he has run up against limits of what is possible because economic reform package is necessary if iran will create jobs to address in a quality that is such an obvious issue those are politically difficult structural reforms are long term changes but at the same time to attract foreign investment to overcome

the problematic business environment it wasn't a transformation it was a transaction and didn't bring about an end. it was sold that way to iranian and one of the questions we will all be watching is to what extent were those expectations raised with the nuclear deal with this element that has been deeply alienating. but my guess is even if the protest dies down, rouhani challenges are greater than ever making economic reforms more difficult and then policy will loom large for investors maybe not in one month ago.

>> the washington part of this narrative first of all how have we affected things so far mentioning the government has decided on this narrative as another cia plot which is usually a pretty good course but president trump made a very decisive move on twitter to jump into the fray and here in washington we've had a debate about president obama not doing that. he said in your own tradition or inside your own family whether it is right to intervene publicly but president trump just jumped right in.

did he handle that correctly? >> i think he handle that correctly. a lot of people don't like trump in the city and country but but to the protesters, 2009 or 2017 with sexual harassment the rush investigation, healthcare reform, none of those really matter. they want to hear from the president of the united states. it was disappointing for people not to hear from president obama 2009. i know he had his reasons didn't want to taint the reputation, but i think that is wrong because whether obama is quiet or vocal you cannot

blame america for everything anymore. but in this case trump was correct and he retreated trump's tweet for the first time and he never thought he would do that so i think that was a cracked decision and i think by the hand of the month when there is an opportunity to renew some of those that is another good opportunity for president trump. i tweeted this morning i have been asked the question several times what should america do? there are a few things that can be effective and one is to

lift the travel they because that has created anger and disappointment with the american government and it is unnecessary and it is wrong. the other is not to renew that waiver but as an organization under the direct control of the supreme leader is one of the main instruments of suppression. it isn't a broadcasting corporation but it is a whole audience and it is important

to put sanctions on them. also it is very important for the united states to condemn violence right it is wrong for the iranian government to suppress protesters or just asking for food or a better economy, even if they champion against the government they should be listened to and not suppressed. at the same time it is wrong for anyone to incite violence or ask people troy buildings. and i think that should be condemned by the united states and international communities. >> first of all what do you think will happen here in washington with the next round

of decisions but the development of the ballistic missiles so what will happen? tell a short perspective that is interesting of the rearview mirror that we are talking about whether obama screwed up 2009 mac starting with the last question i defended the obama administration at the time and continued for a long time and i understand the calculations that went into that decision. perhaps all the way up to the president himself even secretary clinton said it was one of her greatest regret but i think it was a reasonable calculation of the time that

an american embrace of the first serious legitimate uprising that but anything that we did so perhaps the administration also clearly focusing on the nuclear issue. it wasn't that strange fixation and well some way complicate the prospect in effect is a higher priority to serve the interests of the iranian people so i understand what motivated it but i don't

think it is defensible in retrospect because it didn't protect the protesters or the leadership. it didn't advance opportunities for protest. or facilitate initially to appear optimistic before we could get to those negotiations producing a nuclear deal. we should never stay on the sidelines. as the leader of the free world. those that are asking for a better life and it is the

right instinct to be out in public. >> and your point is well taken and with the president trumps tweets. to have anything constructive. the trump administration has deemphasized democracy and with human rights. and with the auto crass in the region to openly take the side of saudi arabia.

is this undermining american promotion democracy by appearing to be opportunistic when it involves one of your adversarie adversaries? >> we have always been opportunistic as much as i would like that to change putting that solely on the trump administration so that which appreciated the risk outside of iran but to that extent it is right for the american president to speak words of support because they pay attention and they listen but i have been accosted by individuals who said where

were you? where is your government 2009 when we needed you? i don't think it would have made the difference of the outcome then or now but sometimes simply have to do the right thing to do to help those that took the ris risk. >> even before of that. not only the monopoly you were not very good at it. and the iranian government are shedding tears for protesters why they deny many people in their own country and their own citizens of basic rights. so to talk about palestine

they have been silent but what happened in chechnya and china. talk about hypocrisy, yes of course there are different standards but that they are not that innocent. >> that is an excellent point. but we have not talked about policy in its own region and what role that could have played in that protests the millions or billions of dollars spent with that involvement in yemen or lebanon. with the question if that is a backlash or perhaps those

reforms inside saudi arabia to cause them to look critically how repress women continue for example. >> but that foreign policy abroad plays in the backlash. but elsewhere in the middle east to make iran great again. >> but also remember what iran is doing now is very similar to the shaw's policy before the revolution. and that which was promoted in

order to keep the enemy away from your borders and have alliances and that is why israel had good relations. in order to contain the surrounding areas. and also iran intervened with other countries. . . . . more people are unemployed. they knew that have, one out of 70 lives under the poverty

line. when they see that iranians are helping the lebanese whose houses were destroyed by israel, it just creates a resentment. it just creates a resentment of their own government, but also in what is happening and also they look at the more sophisticated argument of what is happening in syria and the way iranians are helping to torture its own people in gas its own people, that creates resentment. >> does it create fear or doe do you think they will do those same things at home if necessary to suppress any outbreak of civil war or revolution. is the message you don't want what's happening in syria to happen here and work willing to use those tools here. >> i think this time what we have done is people come,

several people have been killed in the past several days. there might be more than the government statistics, but think we've seen people who have nothing to lose who come to the streets. according to the government, 40000 came to the streets. they have nothing to lose. they are desperate. they are poor. they don't care whether they're going to be killed or not because they don't have anything to lose. >> i will get back to one of the questions you posed and i inadvertently. [inaudible] iran's regional adventurism plays into the trump administrations rationale for the opposition to the nuclear

deal. they declined to certify iranian nano on largely because of this conviction that everything else they are doing is somehow violating whatever technical compliance there may be in the terms of that agreement. over the course of the ten days we will see expiration of the waivers and suspension of all the u.s. sanctions that were required under the nuclear deal. the president will have a much more meaningful opportunity next week, even as compared to what he did in october. he really will have an opportunity, either to continue to abide by the nuclear deal to take action to do so or to explicitly pull the united states out of that deal and declined to continue the actions that in fact are in compliance. it's all very technical, but fundamentally what the president does will determine

whether or not we are in compliance with the nuclear deal and i think at this stage it's really difficult to predict how he will act. it might create some sense that the president has achieved his aim through decertification and that might give him an excuse to continue the waivers that was the sort of game plan, but they won't have the legislation ready or passed by next week, and even if they did, is that sufficient? has trump seen what's happening as sort of a confirmation of his own narrative that the regime is fundamentally one that should not be dealt with and look iranians themselves are saying it as well. my guess is he continues to waiver and the nuclear deal continues for another three

months, but i think even that uncertainty is going to further erode business competency in the iran and further complicate the rehabilitation and with that, let me just make one final point, there are a lot of people out there, including in this country that they think trump had helped precipitate the event by not abiding by the deal. that's not true. we've done everything we were supposed to do. we have kept the letter of the law on the nuclear deal. we relieved all the sanctions, suspended all of the relevant sanctions, what we haven't done is go out and try to create new opportunities for iran and that is something that the obama administration was torn about in its final months after the importan implementation of the deal. and it's important to ensure that this narrative is being fostered mostly by the iranian leadership that somehow this is all the united states fault , it's fundamentally not

true. >> all right. let's bring in you. you have some questions? we have some microphones, the only thing i would say is identify yourself and please do make a question so we can get the benefit. >> in the back. >> i have two pages of comments and as you said i probably couldn't use all of it. >> my question truly is whether or not it's the curse of geography for the iranian people. is it comes to the question of the soviet union and the policy and how do you differentiate between 2009 green movement demonstration

as opposed to what it is now. group green movement was basically getting another religious group into power and he used to be up prime minister in a run doing the worst kind of suppression and persecution of the opposition. during this time, people are not asking for any more. they are hungry, they want food on the table, they want freedom, they want security. how do you differentiate. actually, talking about doing away with the islamic system, why the opposition doesn't see that, i'm really baffled. >> i think we spoke to this a little bit, but if you want to elaborate on the key different

from 2009. >> you think we talked about it. >> okay. please make it a question. >> is it on? okay. so there's so much information. >> can you identify yourself. >> i am gavin hawkins. there's so much information to the media around the middle east in the last decade that i've been conscious of politics, but it seems that there's so much information that people form an opinion before they form any real historical understanding or context around an issue, or average individuals that is. if you are to explain the middle east and iran to a child or someone who didn't really have an opinion on the subject, how would you give the most basic understanding to someone who really didn't

understand any of the topics at all? >> how would you describe brain surgery to a 4-year-old or 5-year-old. it's a very complicated question. i'm joking, but i think it's a comp located question and 4-year-old children and people who think as simple as children should not be in charge of making politics for the middle east and we need more sophistication, understanding of the comp located history and complication of different people involved in different interest. because of geography, that lady said all that has to be understood by someone in order to make the right decision. unfortunately, especially in the past few days we've seen many people who have very simple answers, maybe a child can't understand, but those answers are usually wrong because they are simple and i think simplicity and

simplifying things really is not the answer. >> did you want to ask a question. >> you mentioned earlier the soviet union and the marker democratize asian leaves fractures that precipitated the fall. i wonder if you can talk about the potential. is there much of a difference between what we call the reform. what is the chance of these demonstration would later feed into the true faction. >> that's a really interesting question, although here i think the analogy might diverge a little bit in the sense that one of the defining characteristics of the protocol establishment of post- nuclear iran is that it is fractured. further schisms can happen and we saw this after 2009, a really important schism that for a time appeared to be

putting into question the legitimacy and continuing functionality of the iranian government. they managed to come back together after 2009. there is even, to some extent a coalescence around president ronnie, he was elected not just because he was a good campaigner, not just because he managed to co-op reform in the fields people who had been disaffected in 2009, but he also benefited from some kind of elite maneuvering in which he was a leader and figurehead for the reform movement and came together with a number of more centrist conservatives to manage the election in a way,

it was some consolidation in that came only four years after the serious uprising. these the call into question how they relate to one another. they are not rushing to the barricade, they are not endorsing what's happening. in part because some of the slogans are explicitly targeting them saying we don't want any of you, throw all the bums out. we will have some impact but i'm not sure fracturing the elite will be the answer.

>> i think one of the clearest similarities are the resources to security and military and that is what led to the demise of the soviet union because every resource was allocated to a resource. after a series of protest, i think that will happen, there will be more intelligence officers trained, there will be more presence of the police and the guard and the procedure the different cities, especially cities where we saw the protest. already we see more security forces and also the smaller cities around the country and

also at the same time we will see more protests by citizens as soon as there is a measure of space available to them. that can be a demonstration after football match. they're going to play in the world cup this summer and they may play three matches with us portugal, spain and there will be demonstrations. part of a demonstration will lead into protest against the government. >> there might be a funeral as we saw of not a very popular singer. imagine a michael bolton dies. there would be a demonstration after his funeral, that happened two years ago and no one knew who he was.

his death led to funerals and protests and that's actually how it iranian revolution started. it started in 1978. some came and demonstrated. there were funerals for those people, every 14 days or demonstrations and that led to 1979 revolution. i'm not saying this will lead to revolution but i'm saying there are similarities between what happened in the soviet union. >> my name is adam. i would asked the panelists to speculate if and how and to

what degree the conservatives elements of the iranian power structure are capable of and inclined to reform, just for their own survival, in other words the honeys tried, these are the elements that blocked them. is there a possibility that in this moment of self reflection and analysis they say we've got a loosen up or take some measures to prevent this from happening again and rather than just do it with the iron fist they find some other more concealed or evolutionary way to do it. i know it's a longshot, but you think it's possible? >> great question. >> i was talking to an analyst

a few months ago and according to him who is very close to the reform cap, according to him the best scenario would be something like a group of revolutionary guards come together and understand that in order for them to survive and in order for the regime to survive, to a certain extent they have to understand that making money is better than making war and chaos. then they have to do something against the radical elements. the revolution guards against some of the more ideological cohorts, but that requires certain action and he has someone who has very good knowledge of what is going on, he could not see someone like

that in existence at the moment. but, that can happen, that has happened. some groups of officers, some groups see that the situation is not tenable. they have to do something radical and they do it. we'll see. , but at the moment, i don't think people would be happy with reform. at the moment i don't think ronnie is capable of creating any reform and again, going back to history, ronnie was the first person who called the money in september 1978 and you know, he has been part of the system since then and even before that he was revolutionary. through difficult to expect him to become nelson mandela of iran and it's not going to

happen. i think if there are some logic within some groups of the system, they have to understand that the situation is not tenable. that may happen even after he is dead. that is possible. >> i think it's an interesting question and interesting scenario, i guess my response is it conceivable but it would require a transformation in terms of both ideology and the processes of government and the manner in which the islamic republic defends itself at home and within the region. don't think they need revolutionary change, but evolutionary change isn't going to be enough because as we see, people are fed up. it may only be 40000 this week but 40000 over time,

particularly with other precipitants can turn into 400,004,000,000 very quickly. my sense is that we've had at least this 25 year experience with trying to reform iran through economics, political and social efforts and has always proven insufficient. at each time some have peeled off and been supportive of some aspects of reform but fundamentally there is an unwillingness at the core of the regime to reconsider the absolute authority of these supreme leader and there are other elements of the ideology that are just fundamentally fixed at this point and so unless there's a willingness on part of a conservative front to rethink those core elements, the ideology reforms will continue to prove and

build up. >> also goes back to my expectation of condemning violence. in order to reform themselves, they have to have some assurance of no retaliation and no violence in the future. i think it's only through peaceful nonviolence rivet resistance that we can see some better future for iran. for that to happen we need some people within the regime to jump ship and change their position. when people call for the execution of the revolutionary guard or say that cannot happen or that's counterproductive. >> there is a piece we iran that said the islamic republic is doomed and of course it was written by your husband.

he made the point that the crackdown is inevitable and the cycles that we've seen reform followed by reactions mean that the regime is in capable fundamentally of reform. that seems to be sort of the question challenging that premise. where do you come down on that. >> i've been on a different place and my husband, including right at this moment and where he speaking across town. i think that i would say this, at a time where many people in town were comfortable with the conventional wisdom that the regime is stable, the country is consolidated, there isn't a possibility of anything revolutionary taking place, there were people in this town

who were saying the opposite and they were often condemned as people who knew nothing about iran despite the fact that they have great capabilities in that regard. guess where i come down is fundamentally a think we are seeing the end of a certain episode, the latest reform episode. i don't see how there is a different strategy of evolutionary change that satisfies iranians at this time, i think it has to be some kind of transformation. ideally, if we understand what iranians as a whole broadly would prefer, it would be to some extent gradual. but it has to be transformational. they can't be biting around the edges. iran has an incredibly young

population. those were engaged with the world, this is a powerhouse country in every respect except that it's led by really problematic government. there is a push for accountable government. there's a huge amount to be optimistic with respect to iran, the islamic republic has, in many ways sacrificed so much of what could make iran great again. i don't think they will ever find a nelson mandela but it needs a political leadership that can help lead the country to a better future.

>> i think we have time for one or two more questions. >> hello. you brought up some of the different layers that fed into these protests including some of the ethnic groups in the border providences. we haven't really seen as much going on in other regions. i was wondering if you could speak more about that aspect and how it's played in and why it hasn't taken off more. >> to tell you the truth, i do not know. i don't think anyone has provided the answer. when you look at the map you don't see that many similarities between different groups and according to some

people, if the demonstrators are poor, there are no four or more oppressed people than the people in those areas but we have seen demonstrations sometimes. we've seen violence, but my guess is that because of the leadership with the spiritual leader of the sunnis in that area and many people respect them in that area and they have been under a lot of pressure by the government, maybe that has played a role, maybe they have asked not to come out and protest. that is the only reason i can provide. but, it is a puzzle.

when you look at it people talk about unemployment. yes there is a high rate of unemployment in the cities of demonstration but there's cities with higher unemployment we have not seen demonstrations in those. >> thank you. my name is tom and i'm a graduate student at georgetown university. earlier we talked about how the protest had singled out support for what's happening in syria and yemen. do you think they will because to be scaled back. >> i think the iranian government will stop bragging about its victories in syria, yemen and iraq and that is

just really bragging about their foreign involvement and that's a relatively new phenomenon. up to ten years ago we did not hear much about it but it was only after their victories in iraq and their alliances that the iranians started to talk about the territorial involvement, especially in the past two years with the victories they've had in syria and sending troops, not only iranian, but afghan and pakistani shiites that they have started to brag about this involvement. i think they will scale back their publicity about the i

don't think will scale back their real involvement in those countries. i think we will see less of hezbollah and those in syria but i don't think they will scale back their real support. >> i have the same speculation. fundamentally iran's regional activities have survived even in times of significant economic pressure. you didn't see iran retrench from the region. it isn't an expense that the speed state can't bear, they won't need to shift their posture as a result of the need to move money and devote more resources.

i do think the optics may change and there are some studies that there was a deliberate attempt. [inaudible] precisely because they liked much of the rest of the world including the united states but they were slow to pick up on what was happening with the development of this group and the guard needed to reestablish at home. the point is, this is done on the cheap, not just financially but also in terms of iranian boots on the ground. there are a few hundred iranians by most estimates on the ground in syria but commanding much larger forces from hezbollah, iraqi militia and most interestingly, the

bert gates of afghan and pakistani shia who have been mobilized. that has inflated the iranian population from a greater extent from the casualties of war but what's been happening recently is there have been more publicity around and support for those non- iranians who are fighting these battles and so you have been public funerals for afghans killed in syria, many had embraced the families publicly, there had been a much more direct discussion around those who were killed and i suspect it will cause some sort of shift in the way the leadership talks about these engagements. >> all right. think we have time for one more question. >> my name is marina, i'm an

african-american journalist. my question is about the rule of the role family of iran. i heard you several times mention that the protesters, although we can't precisely narrowed down exactly what the motive might be, we can see that they are poor and they have nothing left to lose yet i heard you say there is an appeal that we are calling for members of the royal family. if that were to evolve further, can you tell us whether you think all of uranian society would actually have an appetite for return for a modern monarch. >> i can easily say that all of the society does not have the appetite for the royal

monarch but there are some people who are nostalgic about the era. they are people who are nostalgic about the image that they have and the fact that iranians are well respected around the country in many. [inaudible] but of course, that image is not accurate because there were many people who were not and there were a lot of suppression and oppression going on. so, i'm sure that whoever is part of the dynasty who has a role in the future of iran like many other countries, but i don't think that the majority of iranians want to

return to pre pre-1979 time. at least that's not in the cards now. >> have you been surprised by this? >> i think it came as a surprise, surely and that being said, you could always find reservoirs or just in particular the founder of the dynasty always seem to command a great deal of interest in respect among ordinary iranians in the sense that he was someone who was seen as the father of the nation and also someone who managed to assert control at a time of chaos and threat and to some iranians, the prospect of the great man who could do the same at a similarly ink insecure time is appealing. i don't think that translate to any real prospects of any

kind of anarchy but i do think it underscores the fact that you heard people chanting monarchy slogans and at least among these current protests, some agreement about what they don't like but very little positive agenda or forward agenda that they are aligned around and that, in many ways are parallel to what happened in the mobilization that led up to the 1979 revolution. there is a very clear sense of agreement among the revolutionaries about removing them there is no clear agreement about what would come next so if we ever get to a revolutionary time in iran, we're certainly not there yet. i think building that positive agenda will be a crucial factor to see if there's any type of a better future. >> i see the same sentiment amount many iranians to reject

everything that this government stands for including the islamic republic, they want to return to the different era. they want to return to islam itself. there's a big movement to a pre-islamic religion, many who are just not religious anymore. and also, i think there is this image, but also i think another group that's involved in these protests that although i think at the call and i don't think they are capable of running anything including the country, there are some support for them and it's mainly the responsibility of the iranian government because they killed so many of their members in the beginning of the revolution.

10000 members were killed and imagine 10000 families who have lost someone and, in many cases they were tortured to death, in many cases they were, there was no hearing for these people and that has created resentment among many iranians who have lost a member among their family. as the government has actually pointed to, among the people that have arrested, there are some people who were executed. at that the list of grievances that the iranians have as well. >> i have to say, i guess we'll have to reconvene a year from now at the 40th anniversary of the revolution to see what comes. i want to thank both of you for starting off with a well-timed conversation around some significant events that

are happening inside iran. thank you. thank you very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> this weekend president trump will be at camp david. he is expected to meet with republican congressional

leaders to talk about the country's infrastructure. house speaker paul ryan and senate majority leader mitch mcconnell are expected to attend. on the campaign trail, president trump mentioned he wanted to work on if the structure built within his first 100 days in office. c-span "washington journal" live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up saturday morning, wilson center discusses rising tensions with north korea after exchanges between president trump and north korean leader kim jong-un. stars & stripes veteran reporter nikki when lee talks about the potential changes to veterans benefit in 2018. then david rubenstein discusses his book the day the presses stop. history of the pentagon papers case. be sure to watch c-span "washington journal" live at 77 saturday morning. join the discussion.

>> sunday night on "after words", federal appellate judge john newman looks back at his 38 year judicial career in his book benched. he is interviewed by kinetic democrat senator richard blumenthal. >> as a judge of 45 years, having gone from the active life of making decisions and going to court and advocating a case to judging, was that a difficult transition for you? did you ever miss the life of advocacy so to speak. >> it wasn't difficult. it has been for some who i've known. i've known people who have become become judges and so disliked the decision-making process that they left the bench. i was an advocate, i was glad to be an advocate. i found the decision-making process, while difficult, and honestly challenging and satisfying. gotta say, i love being a judge because the opportunity to resolve disputes, large and

small, they all matter to somebody, but some of them have a large public significance and that's a very satisfying role. >> watch "after words" sunday night at nine is turn on booktv. >> at a recent reagan national defense forming california military leaders discussed national security in the armed forces. in this portion, marine and general robert muller spoke with new hampshire senator jeanne shaheen and other officials about military readiness. the discussion iran a little over an hour. [applause]