>> one of which from beirut to jerusalem was a textbook and might middle east coursework as an undergraduate. tom's full bio is printed out here. now let us turn to our man of the hour, doctor nabeel khoury. he's a nonresident senior fellow for the middle east. in addition to reading his work on our website, you can read it

on his own blog, middle east corner. he retired from 25 years in the u.s. foreign service with the rank of minister counselor. no small feat. as last overseas posting, he served as the deputy chief of mission at the embassy in yemen. in 2003 and during the iraq war, he served as spokesperson at central command. he earned his bachelor's degree in political science. and his masters and phd in political science from the university of york and albany. he has published articles on issues of leadership and development in the arab world. in the middle east journal, and the international journal of middle east studies. when he was posted to yemen in

2004, i recall a conversation i had at the time with a mutual friend of ours, former ambassador to the united states - -. i told - - the u.s. was lucky to be able to send nabeel because of his fluent arabic and his understanding of the culture. but - - corrected me. oh no he said, the opposite is true. arab-american diplomats have a much harder time because everyone in the country expects the diplomats to do favors for them and make exceptions for them and they don't get the same respect as another diplomat because they say we don't have to listen to him. he doesn't know any more than we do, he's one of us. in addition, he says when your government does something the locals don't like, they hold the diplomat personally responsible for not preventing it. so we are eager to hear your thoughts on being an average american diplomat in the middle east during an era of volatile and vacillating u.s. relations.

the ground rules for our discussion are as follows. we are on the record. if you'd like to join the twitter conversation, use the # ac mideast. please come to the stage and tom, the floor is yours. [applause] >> thank you. this is a great audience. a treat for me to be here with you. thank you for that great introduction. by this book. okay? they are on sale and nabeel khoury will autograph it. we have known each other a long time. we stole horses together in casablanca, in baghdad and in yemen. i don't know much. i'm not a connoisseur on many

things but i'm a connoisseur on people who know the difference between the mirage and the oasis. who know the feel middle east. i was always drawn to nabeel khoury because of that. he really knows the region and it's reflected in this book. it's a fascinating perspective of an arab-americans perspective on american diplomacy. and his work as a diplomat in the region. particularly in iraq. during an incredibly heated time. so just for starters because everyone here doesn't know you as well as i do. tell us your story, how did you get from lebanon to its senior position in the u.s. state department? >> it was all a mistake. [laughter] first of all, thank you all for stopping in for lunch and for some after lunch conversation. really very special thanks to

tom for agreeing to engage me in conversation today. something we've done several times. over the years. including seeing horses. in baghdad. he stopped by a couple places where i was assigned. in baghdad, i would take him around like an morocco to meet people. i took him to meet a friend of mine. a very secular cleric. he invited us to dinner at his place. what we didn't know was he had the grandson of a --iman houmeni.

so we converse for a couple hours and tom came back and wrote - - and said how optimistic he felt that there was such secular people. back in 2003, was hot and is still hot. the book, occasion for discussion today, begins with a poetic verse from - - called you have your lebanon and i have mine. he expresses the contrast between his vision of the beauty of lebanon. and lebanon as a symbol of diversity, coexistence, harmony. and the reality back then, i hundred years ago or more.

he might as well have written this yesterday. the situation in lebanon has not changed. it's gotten worse. the corrupt political elite has not only ruined the economy and run it to the ground but they run the country to the ground physically. the environment is in terrible shape. he would say well, all this time and nothing improved. the book also ends with a short poem. by palestinian poet - - it's called the postman and he talks about himself as a palestinian poet in exile. he no longer knows who they

should go to and where. i'm still engaged and want to have an impact but sometimes, you wonder if you can still play a role and where and with whom. this is a way of saying, my coming from lebanon. gives me a deep feeling, not just for lebanon but the entire region. whenever i worked in these countries, i deeply felt the issues and i tried to bridge the differences, no matter how wide the gap. in baghdad in 2003, it was certainly wide. >> you were in, the title, bunker diplomacy. you saw a transition that i lived through as well of an

america whose presence in the middle east was deeply embedded, open and integrated with societies. to an america that stood behind walls basically. and i was there for the moment when it started. it was april 1983 and i was in my apartment. 6:00 p.m., a blast happened so powerful, not the transistor radio off my desk. a transistor radio kids, was a video about this big. i also had something called a typewriter. i ran out of my apartment in - - and i saw a smoke cloud in

the distance i ran toward it and as i got closer, i said, it could be. there was the american embassy blown in half. every member asking, i don't remember if it was ryan crocker who was a junior diplomat or somebody else, what happened? he said, a man drove a truck up the front stairs of the embassy and blew it up in the lobby. two things i remember about that incident. one is my shop. you mean he killed himself? it just seemed incredible to me that someone would commit suicide. and the other was, there was no perimeter around the embassy. you could literally walk up to the front door, ring the doorbell and there would be a marine inside who would let you

in. fast-forward, i was in istanbul. i know if you seen the u.s. consulate. think fort knox. only more secure. i was - - i had gone out there for an interview. our old consulate used to be in the heart of istanbul. an old building or of the marketplace. i was interviewing a u.s. diplomat. i said, look at this embassy. this is like a fortress. he said that the terrorists who blew up the british consulate and installable, they captured some of them and interview them. they said we actually wanted to blow up the u.s. consulate but it's so secure, they don't let birds fly there. i will a column called, where birds don't fly.

you lived that transition. from being open, integrated, a bridge from america to the societies to working out of embassies that are bonkers. indistinguishable from military bunkers. what was that like. what has it meant. so much the theme of this book. >> my first assignment was an open cultural facility. open door. we no longer have those. it was the beautiful - - there. we had just one sleepy policeman sitting in a kiosk. but what ever asked anybody. the hand of the muslim brotherhood for alexandria, that branch was supposed to be the tough branch. came to one of my roundtable

discussions at the center and he engaged a former congressman. after that, i visited him in his home and he would come by sometime to time. the discussions were always intellectual, friendly. never any sense of hostility. the only thing was, ambassador - - at the time was on a trip to alexandria and he said, i was with president mubarak this week. he said why is your culture receiving these bad people? i said, well, we are engaging in conversation. you want me to stop? he said, keep doing what you're doing. this kind of openness and atmosphere quickly changed.

and it starkly changes in the region. shifting to radicalism. arab nationalism, etc. and the turmoil that created. partly, the popular reaction. over the years, never seem to adjust or learn. i remember because i was a spokesperson, mainly with the arrow media. that's the recently opened the office of media outreach in london. i become a well-known figure in every never coming back from baghdad to london. and back that i literally had to carry guns. we would drive out of the green zone. people didn't have time to send a protective task force.

so my friend and colleague at the time working there worked for dot and he - - dod. he would always carry a gun. and he would say this is for you, just in case. you feel, what happens is, diplomacy has shifted. you feel the danger. - - rockets hit that building as i was hiding underneath my bed. you become a soldier. you say, people don't understand diplomats. they face the same dangers that

soldiers on the battlefield face. >> so many diplomats need permission from security to go outdoors. can't be spontaneous. >> can't come into the embassy to see you without an appointment without signing them through security first. you can go out - - can't go out without having on guard. in yemen, i just have not only bodyguard and a driver and a hard car, but also a yemeni security car with people with guns going behind us. i had my own personal car so i had to trick my own security at times and tell them i just want to go out. i want to meet people. don't worry, i will let you know where i am.

please do go out to the villages. i tell stories about that. i had a british friend, a diplomat. i would go in her car because their cars were not stopped when you exited. where's american cars were. the story here is, there is something special about american diplomats. because the french and the brits and the chinese, don't take the precautions we do and are not attacked and surrounded like our embassies are. so one has to ask. partly it's the image we project. and it's usually an image of - - stupidity and arrogance. that was people the wrong way. they feel, let's go after the

americans. why not the russians? why not the chinese or french. >> in reading the rock section, artist a melancholy attention between so many things that went wrong. some things that went right. ended on a note saying, the french revolution oscillated between - - and democratic ones. do you think that's what we are seeing? and amber world in different places, saudi arabia, tunisia, morocco you've got a version of it. struggling to find its way toward pluralism. >> i used that line when i was a spokesperson in baghdad. i would face very angry journalists. i didn't think the invasion of iraq was a good idea. but i did my job. as a spokesperson and i was lucky that way, i never went with official talking points.

i engage them as a person, as a human being. i listened and responded. the academic allowed me to go into broader areas. and not a, this is our policy. to me, as an arrow. detests the fact that most of the arab world is ruled by dictators. the arab in me identifies with what we see in the streets in beirut and baghdad. who wants to get rid of this oppressive structure. so i want to get rid of that. but at the same time, i understand that american soldiers in baghdad rubbed arabs the wrong way all over the region. from baghdad to morocco.

there's something about foreign troops marching into a capital that you react viscerally to it. so to look on the positive side. as a spokesperson, what could i say? we are villains?no. the arab world needs to revolt against dictators like that. many friends in morocco would tell me they didn't want to demonstrate against the u.s. i said think of revolutions throughout history. it goes to a very ugly period. in the french case, it was the french. not the u.s. coming on horseback.

whether it's a force from inside or outside, getting rid of the bad ruler like that, it has to be a good thing in the long term. in the short term, you will probably go through hell. >> what's the difference between - - and the kind of manifestations we are seeing in beirut and baghdad right now. they're quite similar and they seem to have - - was more about get rid of the tyrant. whereas this has real content. about what kind of pluralistic, secular society we want to have. is that a right or wrong impression? >> it's quite right. tunisia was a cakewalk compared to syria, lebanon, iraq. because of many reasons.

partly, they didn't have the same kind of diversity. but what you have in places like lebanon, the devastation that has been reaped upon the people. in places like lebanon and iraq, you have for the first time a genuine people's revolt. this is not about - -, israel or the u.s. this is about people thinking hands across religious texts. the christians are more divided than anybody else right now in lebanon. a genuine feeling that this corrupt elite, political elite. they want the whole thing changed. so the positive side of this is that this is genuinely felt

across the spectrum. the negative side is lebanon doesn't have a single dictator like saddam did. the lebanese state - - get rid of all of them. how do you do that? put them on the love boat and ship them off to cyprus or somebody? the problem is the various political interests get in the middle and scuttle what should be or could be a very serious, very thorough reform plan. somebody is wise enough in lebanon today.they could adopt the ãinstead of wrangling the shiite and this ministry and that. that's what they're arguing

about. i said forget about the person. you can put a - - in the position of prime minister. that's not important. the important part is present the people with a serious plan. this is how you change the system from sectarian, corrupt and futile the stick. to a proper democratic republic. that's our plan. we heard you and we will start implementing tomorrow. unfortunately, there too wrapped up, frankly each side benefits materially from the system as is. they don't want to get rid of the advantages they have. in baghdad, the problem is the militias, they haven't solved the problem of who runs the state and an arrangement at least. if you're not going to destroy militias that carry weapons,

you need to at least have a good political understanding with them. it's a very tough thing to do. especially with iran intervening. so there is a positive side. i look optimistically in the long-term. i think the arab use has risen. they are going to stumble. there's going to be counterrevolution. but i think they finally get it. they understand they are being abused by a corrupt political elite that eventually has to go. >> to you have any hope for what should i hope for regarding syria? >> oh gosh. that is such a sad story. syria, like some other places like yemen. which is a real disaster. started out as a hopeful - -

against the regime. it could have been helped. could have been assisted at the right time. i was in the first six months to a year. one of the faults of the obama administration. and i liked obama very much as a person and as a president. too much thinking. too much hesitating. before acting on something like this. after everybody jumped in. it was too late. the russians seen the americans weren't there, jumped in in 2015. after that, the u.s. had no part to play. you come to the table, you have to have something. otherwise you are not invited to the poker game. we haven't been to the poker game since 2015 i would say.

the russians have been playing as frankly. assad is very much in, assisted by russia and iran and has bella. without them, he wouldn't have lasted a few weeks without that support. he's asserted himself, somehow the humanitarian aspect will take time to fix itself for people to be able to just make a living and be able to eat and feed their kids. but then you need to go back to an established assad regime, corrupt, abusive. and try to take it down somehow. if you could do it politically, i would love to see one arab dictator say, i've had enough. i read the tea leaves. so come in young people and let's see how we can do this.

but it's not happening. >> i've developed a rules of middle east reporting and they are so politically incorrect, i will publish them post - -. do you think the shortest distance between two points is a straight line? if you answer yes, you can go to okinawa, korea, germany. who are the diplomats and military officers who you felt really understood the region and why? what was it they had that the others didn't. we met some that were completely lost there. others who, the region flowed through them. >> over the years particularly in baghdad and then again in

yemen, i had considerable contact with the military at various levels. also teaching at nyu and the - - i interacted with lieutenant colonel's. there's usually a positive, fresh look at some of our officers have that people in government, elected officials don't have. >> - - actually learned middle east studies in falluja and not princeton. >> i will give you one example of - - a lebanese american. he was the head of centcom when i was at the u.s. embassy. he came over for a visit. it was 2004 and the war had just started between - -. we were waiting outside to go

in. he said what's going on in the north? is that something we should be involved in? i said the short answer is no. not militarily. this is an internal matter. - - try to convince us that iran was there. we looked up and down and sideways, iran was not there. it's a rebellion of sorts that they should be able to settle. i said we can help. this is not al qaeda. we can help diplomatically. by trying to either mediate directly or invite friends to mediate. or economically. the system has to work for everybody. otherwise, if the government cites and fails to convince - - than the southerners will want

to succeed. in the whole country will break apart. it will be worse than afghanistan and then you may have to come in and intervene. he took that to heart. when he came back to washington, he lobbied on the hill for us to get more aid for yemen. he was someone who truly understood that force should be the last resort. and there are preconditions to why young people become radical in the middle east. that we should help governments in a friendly way, succeed. and become more democratic and observe their human rights. the problem has been consistently throughout, we never got out of the cold war mentality. which is get in bed with a dictator. with a military regime because of the security collaboration that's easy. then we can fight soviet

influence later on. other bad guys in the region. up to the minute that - - abdicated and signed off the gcc agreement, some of us and government, i don't name names. there were different points of view within the state department and certainly in the white house. we are still trying to convince people or trying to change the system. change the regime. let's keep the security establishment, often run by his nephews and sons.we work with them against terrorism. we were never able to let go. sometimes when certainly this administration, forget it. when it comes to understanding anything. very narrow vision. but obama, very intellectual

man. he understood the region and understood the transition in 2011 or even before. the need for democracy and what the young people want. he wanted to be of assistance. and yet, when they rose, he hesitated. he was afraid to jump in and he used that famous phrase, leading from behind. afraid of repeating the 2003 baghdad mistake. and more importantly, he stayed in bed with all the file security apparatuses in the region. i will never forgive him for what he did to yemen. which he handed the yemen - - and he facilitated the siege. the complete siege, air, land and sea on yemen.

which is starving yet many children. and spreading disease. - - yemeni children. realizing this is not what the young people of yemen want. so now we can blame president trump all we want for what he's doing. but the problem in yemen started with obama. i sometimes think of him as a trapeze artist who swings - - you have to let go of one to catch the other. you have to have the trust, the faith that you can leap and leech and grab onto the other bar. it's shifting. you have to drop the bar you've been holding onto which is all the bad guys who claim they are

helping you against terrorism. meanwhile they are creating terrorism. and jump onto a new way of dealing with the region. which is trusting the young people. working with civil society. the civil society i saw in morocco and this was in the mid-90s. really inspired me. when i went to yemen, i found reflections of that civil society. that's what we should be encouraging and working with. and look at the budgets and you'll see. >> - - why didn't you invest more in tunisia? the answer was there was no terrorism there. we haven't - - how do you put.

i have two questions about yemen. one reminds me of the line from the wizard of oz, are you a good witch or a bad witch? are the - - a good or bad militia? on the one, i get it. what gives you the right to take over the central government too? i don't understand that story well enough. >> sometimes they are accused by arab friends because i appear in the media a lot. i very harshly criticized saudi arabia and i don't criticize the - - enough. they tell me i'm a supporter. just like in egypt, i was accused of being a - -. this is not in my book because it just happened recently. i stopped in moscow. i met with - - leaders that

lived there. and can't go back and forth for obvious reasons. i told him, first of all, i was there to get to know them better. secondly, to see if i can advise them. point out positive things they can do. they made the first mistake of taking - - militarily. then it was after that, the euphoria and the thinking that they could move on and take the whole country. which was stupid. this of course provoked the saudi's into launching the war. first mistake. secondly, they have had control of - - and much of north yemen. they have not ruled well. they've been abusing the rights of the media.

there's no transparent system. either economically or judicially. i told them we were meeting, in their spokesman told. i said, sometimes people accuse me of siding with you too much because i expressed sympathy. at the end of the day, youare yemeni . it is this obsession with saudi arabia and the trump administration. that we are fighting a run in yemen.we are not, we are fighting yemen. i said your biggest mistake is that you are arab. you are fooling the area you control like any other party, dictator or militia. so they are certainly full of faults. the end of the day, they are not al qaeda.

- - is not to go out and kill americans. it's not to work outside their border. they wanted to control their country. that's bad because they should understand the tribal structure doesn't allow for that. they are now being forced into a corner when they started out. there were zero iranian interest in yemen. a lot of members of parliament in tehran didn't know what they were. ...

are after all invading amn. and i have been in control with them in the emirates most of the south. and what have they done? it is not a success story there either. so the end of the day, are they good militia red militia, their middle-of-the-road. they're not al qaeda, they are not the lebanese army. >> host: wasn't right for the administration to assassinate qassem soleimani? >> guest: know that was a very bad idea -- very poor judgment. first of all we forget the lying and imminent threat which was not the case. at the end of the id day it was a political assassination.

it means you picked a personality in a leadership position, and thought if you get rid of it, you would improve matters. the fact is you made matters worse by doing that. one, because removing a person is important as soleimani was, that does not change the picture. iran is highly institutionalized. and within seconds of his death, he was replaced. they have a good cadre of people who can run these organizations. for good or bad we are not talking value judgment, we are talking strategy and tactics. what is the goal? at the goal is to change their behavior for the better, you have done the opposite i killing him. i think partly they didn't understand -- your piece, your point is very well-made on he is an overrated general. but the fact is, for all his

mistakes and all of the bad things he has done, he is very, very important politically, militarily, culturally. two, the people we consider enemies now, but that we want to have to somehow fix a relationship with. i don't think the president understands that. and i doubt the people around him -- the people who gave him this option, then later said they didn't think he would take it. then why put it as an option in the first place. there is a certain psychological elements. i talk about the american troops in baghdad. killing somebody like that, who was whether we like it or not, very important, he almost had a halo around him for

people in lebanon and iran. certainly in iran. that's, you should understand is going to generate hatred and is going to generate acts of revenge. and i don't think we've seen the end of that, with just the bombing of the base there. i think that was just a token here we go fire off some rockets. i think we will see more acts of revenge. >> before we go to question we have had an hour of conversation we have not mentioned the israeli palestinian conflict once. where does it stand in the minds of the region right now? in the minds of u.s. diplomacy? in the minds of u.s. diplomats? how do we address that problem now? >> guest: first of all the conflicts between palestinians and israelis, it's at a dead end. and i felt it was at a dead end ten years ago or more.

i don't see any real hope over there, anytime in the near or future. as far as the diplomacy, the u.s. diplomacy, i always try to be as honest as possible as a spokesperson. i am when people would say what about the u.s. and israel, i would say the u.s. has failed despite many, many attempts to establish peace between israeli and palestinian. but if the u.s. is failed, the whole world has failed. and the people of the region have failed. so don't just criticize the u.s., and i fully understand. u.s. i don't want to say blind support, but unconditional support over israel over these years and now. it does not work, and even --

i'm israel all the time. >> don't let friends drive drunk. it's. >> guest: if you'd given the peace plan of this administration, it is not a peace plan. it's a joke and everybody sees it for what it is. there are some personal economic, commercial interest there and that is how it is seen in the region. and quite frankly, that is how i see it. so i don't take it seriously at all. it's b1 before we got questions i've one last one for me. i have a lamp and a genii give you three wishes for the middle east what would they be. >> for american policy in the middle east? >> host: you get to be king for the day you get to redesign our policy. what would you -- that is embedded in this book. give us the ultimate take away.

you get to redirect our policy. what should we be doing? >> guest: one of the reasons i started with poetry and ended with poetry in the book, is the need to understand -- you understand the world of the middle east much better through its poetry and through its literature. then to the speeches given by politicians. regardless of the color of these politicians. one of the strange things i did as a diplomat in the middle east and send cables about silly topics that were considered silly by some. i sent the poem about palestinian general children and he pokes about the heroes seven years old and ten years old standing up to israeli soldiers i summarized in a

senate and a cable to washington on poetry and politics. i said forget to the to our speech given, read this, because these people are the intellectuals of the world. of the poets, they are friends in egypt, they have their fingers on the pulse -- they understand a people feel. >> host: listen to the broader's b2 they listen to the culture. we've had very good diplomats over the years that understood the culture and read some of the literature first developed they are there they are not being listened to,. >> host: tumor wishes, quickly. >> guest: the other wish would be to finally abandon the autocrats and dictators.

and understand that the arabs, much like any other people in the world, desire freedom, desire democracy. don't listen to racist things like that that the arabs don't understand democracy, they can't deal with it. that is what young people want. they want to live with dignity. and for the large part they are not being treated in a dignified manner by their own governments and the security apparatuses which we work with. and so when they see us propping up these regimes, the anger is diverted towards us. i think -- i wish we could finally make the break and say we are in with the wrong crowd, and we need to cultivate a different kind of constituency. and help the people who genuinely want to improve the record of human rights and democratic practices -- do

away with the corruption frankly. that's my sec. i guess wish. >> host: and that actually aligns with my second rule the middle is reporting we always overestimate ideology and underestimate government. these are on the daily basis whether they pay bribes if they are abused that matter so much more than all this ideology. and i can tail is really driven home to me. i covered the last day of voting in the egyptian election. over time it was over a ten dear. and the last day, i went with our egyptian reporter to cairo a very poor neighborhood there. we went to an elementary school, it was all woman voting station. we stood outside, and interviewed women as they came out. everyone of them was covered. every one of them said they voted for the muslim someone said they voted for the waft.

when i asked why they voted for the muslim brotherhood. they said better sidewalks, more streetlights, more jobs, more healthcare, there wasn't one that said if i see another woman in a bikini on a beach in alexandria, i'm to blow myself up. it was just so telling a lesson of just what your point is. in afghanistan we are aligned with the criminal syndicate. that's all the people saw the government. is there any wonder that we consistently time and again underestimate the relation between governing government? it is so much more important than ideology, and that's actually what comes out in the poetry. >> guest: that is exactly right. >> host: let's go to questions on the mean number three later. >> host: just introduce yourself.

>> my name is charlotte and i am an intern at the german embassy and i am particularly interested in a situation in lebanon. i would be interested and first of all why you think protests that are so genuine and ongoing and peaceful are so not presence both here and in europe. second of all, how you think the rest could get involved in the third what he predicting for the situation there? >> guest: the problem, and i was explaining it bit earlier what starts out as a cross sector good terrien lines against the corrupt abuse that really ought to be changed it immediately gets polls in different directions.

but when they get something they wander the protest is about to give them something they don't once, then they pull those people out, or worse they send their people in to create chaos. they do that with the demonstrators. i think there still is a strong genuine desire for change, it's very tricky though. the americans have a moral obligation and they need to realize it's the last thing you want. especially in a country in iraq where thank you very much, we were in charge of the country. we were for ten years. and look at the mess we left behind. look at afghanistan. so in lebanon, i think we have to be very careful. sometimes well-meaning americans in lebanon start holding seminars and give

speeches, and here also. don't touch the people in the streets. you have to be very careful. when you poke -- approach a hornets nest you should be very careful what you poke edge. there better not poke it. i think advice is certainly behind-the-scenes this is not a place where we should step in strongly. a light touch is better. in the end, and lebanon definitely you don't want to provoke violence. and i have some friends in government, and sometimes we exchange views. and i said the last thing you want to do is use force against the demonstrators. because it will blow up into something far worse than what you have right now. i think, as complicated as the lebanese situation is, some

people and governments ought to have their own think tank, or invite some of the young people who are demonstrating. and really put their heads together and come up with a serious reform plan that may take away some of the ill begotten gains and everybody in lebanon has ill begotten gains. but that's the only way out, it seems that people depends what really matters to you you are running it into the ground. you really need to consider how to prove a system like that? sectarian system how do you stop worrying about if you have enough in the government. it's a difficult thing, but it is doable. the lebanese inmate tries to help, i send ideas to people

and sometimes they listen to me. [laughter] >> i am doing a phd unnatural relations. i want to define a pushback on the issue of democracy if imad don't want to -- this is for persians as well. if you look at the persians you always have somebody at the top who tells everybody you go do this and you go do that. and is still the same thing do you really think the middle east is capable of having a western-style democracy as we have an france of the united kingdom? or should have its own style of democracy? >> guest: all i can say is go back to history. like what he said about iraq and the revolution. the back to european history in the middle ages, and see

how western culture used to be. it used to be far worse. so look now you say oh the persians and the arabs, they don't understand democracy, that's not true. they are human beings. the need for freedom is very human thing. and everybody wants it, and everybody can get there. but the arab world, and iran are going through what your point through in the middle ages right now. and hopefully, it won't be as bloodied as the european experience. but i don't despair, and i don't say no to being told what to do. they need to be given a chance to formulate with one another, live with one another, and agree on a new social contract. you need new social contracts in a most every outcome.

>> the speak you give us a very excellent presentation. one thing you haven't talked about i haven't heard is economics, job creation. rule of law, because my travel to the region and i've been going to the region for the last 40 years, young people tell me island dignity but i want economic dignity. i don't want to keep begging. >> guest: absolutely and lebanon again is perhaps a microcosm and good example, supposedly the lebanese run out of money and could not pay their un dues. but after they were denied the vote because of two years in a row not paying their dues, somehow -- wait a minute i have some money here. [laughter] they just paid. so now the vote has been reinstated. there is a lot of money in

lebanon but it is in the wrong hands. the middle class has been impoverished, the poor people have been driven to almost hunger. it is very bad. rich people are doing very well, and many of them are in very helpful positions. what is needed is precisely, i think prime minister was banking on $11 billion from the confidence going on in europe to help save lebanon. you don't need an injection of cash. particularly in a corrupt company like lebanon. i insisted that in yemen. as a don't give him any money. do projects, encourage new industry, new businesses, at the more productive economy.

what you have is a pensée scheme at large, that banks and people exchange money have been shuffling money around and not producing new jobs. it's a very basic services, if you can provide the contra city and water the people need, it has been years since the war ended in lebanon. and they haven't been able to fix that, why? because they don't want to fix it. they can't even pick up the trash and built the trash. if you do these basic services it would be creating jobs. and nowadays it's technical jobs and that they require some thinking and expertise. absolutely need to move the economy from just moving cash around to producing things in agriculture, industry, business, and the people who are unemployed to work.

>> thank you. [inaudible] i agree with most of what you said but i am sub prize of your analysis of the killing of qassem soleimani. you think it's a mistake by he was admitted he was the mastermind behind the attack of the u.s. embassy in iraq. a few days on the demonstration. [inaudible] his killing actually gave a boost to the iranian reformists in their running government. of course it gives a boost for their city and people who look thousands of fighters on the hands of the militia of qassem soleimani. we know his last trip was meeting in lebanon before he was going to damascus and took the plane to iraq.

so probably getting rid of demand into symbolism. a lot of people edges and the middle east, are somehow -- it's very ironic that this dictate is you are talking about are benefiting actually from what started from tunisia to syria to lebanon are orchestrated and planned by the so-called foreign powers, cia and usa and all of that. you know very well to jen u.s. uprising. so my question for you, how do you think the popular uprising how does it affect the syrian issues? we see now economically the syrian pop pounds are down. do you think the limit and trend lebanese demonstration will affect positively or negatively on the syrians? >> guest: you can say as much as you want about qassem soleimani or anybody else, i am not arguing if he is a good manner bad men.

that depends on where you stand. so your symbol of evil is somebody else's symbol of the way to get to heaven. and part of the problem in the middle east is nothing god is on our side and we kill each other trying to prove it. so, good luck. killing qassem soleimani maybe he deserved to die, apparently he welcomed it, he wanted to be a marcher until he gave them that opportunity to become a martyr. but i hope it doesn't turn into a bloodbath for everybody else. so just because you think somebody's bad, does not mean you need to kill him. in a war, somebody facing with weapons of something. and when you pick on a person, and you say this is an important leader for these people i am going to get rid of him, does that change iran's policy toward syria? i doubt that very much.

you have to know whether you are fighting a war, then by all means put your resources and fight the war. or are you engaging in diplomacy to try to solve a problem and therefore don't go picking on people because they can do the same thing to you. and if he comes out, his successors come after american general of some sort that they consider equivalent, what would happen then do you think? that's a bad way to go. >> this is going to be the last question i would miss rippling time to sign books. >> owns a follow up with that question on qassem soleimani, we know that he has killed, what is the feeling in the world about his killing? and what is the positive and negative scenarios in terms of iran's retaliation?

>> guest: like usual as i was saying, if you are on his side, the so-called resistance access which includes a lot of parties and militias, individuals. certainly beyond. for those people, it is a tragedy, his killing and they want revenge. for the people on the other side who hate him and haley represents, it was a great feat. and that is normal. that is the environment you are in. in the way the u.s. unfortunately is very polarized right now. but thankfully it's now the weapons and explosives but politically. and if you really hates trompe l'oeil really love trump, on somehow you get rid of, and a friendly way, somebody from the outside, does that change anything? can you get rid of everybody

you disagree with? no. you have to find some accommodation out of it. in the middle east it will never end if you say you killed my grandfather i killed your uncle, it never ends. smack one of my lessons and submit a lease and the reporter, everybody wants to own you. if they can't own you they want to destroy you. no one puts our morale dunes as i really get your free think and analysis. i just want to say i really appreciate your free think an honest analysis. it's here in this book everybody else have a big round of applause. [applause] [applause] he will be signing books "after words". if you don't buy one, i know you are. [laughter] [background noises] >> you are watching book tv on cspan2. for complete television schedule visit booktv.org.

you can also follow along behind the scenes on social media at book tv on, instagram, and facebook. >> over the air but tv has covered several authors discuss in presidential impeachment. here's a portion of our them. >> first the president said well, there are no first-hand witnesses to this, it's all hearsay. then there were first-hand witnesses that defied the president's orders and came and testified of people who heard the phone call like vindman, and that has been crumbled. it also crumbled because there's no first-hand witnesses is because he was gagging them all. he said they were not allowed to. he took the bravery of people like doctor hill, vindman and others to defy that. and that is far apart. he then said well, it's about fighting corruption. which is a weird argument because trump actually, right

before cut the budget for fighting corruption in ukraine, but when he was asked if there is any other place the entire world what you cared about corruption, there's a hundred 94 countries, no one else in the entire world, this is the one magical place city seem to care about corruption was the place was chief political rival sun had an interest. then finally, the new one which is being spun in yesterday's house report, is that ukraine was a really corrupt country, and we could not get the aid to ukraine because it was so corrupt. okay, there are two problems with this. number one, the trump administration, just before the aid cut off had certified that ukraine was not corrupt and could receive the aid. so that was an official determination by the administration opposed to a determination by rudy giuliani. number two, okay think about it, if the claim is ukraine is

the corrupt country, why do you pick up the phone and call back corrupt country and ask them to launch an investigation into a united states senator? the very fact that it's corrupt, was part of the attraction, not the thing they were trying to avoid. that's why they are doing it. so that one is false. so now we have the other one, the impeachment process is unfair. trump does not have due process rights. so that one is a literal -- that was a tough one for him to make. and at staff because the way in which the architectural of the constitution works is this is the impeachment phases really like the grand jury phase in a criminal investigation. trump is complaining my lawyers don't get to participate although nevaeh been invited to, but saying i don't get all of those protections.

that's also true of the criminal side. you get them in the trial. sally got a right to be present, and a criminal trial and to testify and cross-examine witnesses and tell your story. absolutely just as you do if you're indicted. but that's on the senate side. so they will have all the process to do, it just occurs then. >> to access all the cspan2 book tv archives this is our website c-span.org/impeachment : welcome. the scheduling of this panel is certainly timely given the rising crisis with around. we will get to that subject mentally but the sign of the book entitled seve "steven pill"