tavis: tonight the conversation of breaking news from a number of trouble spots. violence now marks the bloodiest arab spring today. and fears about iran's nuclear capabilities. we are glad you joined us.

>> every community has of martin luther king boulevard. good >> and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. ♪ tavis: a quick look at our week ahead. first, tomorrow night we will be joined by one of the central figures in the nervous spring movement, google and -- in the arab spring movement, wael ghonim. he is out with a talked-about new muammar -- new memoir. tomorrow viola davis and

octavia's spencer as they discuss the foam. we will discuss the concern about the kinds of roles hollywood offers to people of color and the quest for hollywood storytelling beyond racial stereotypes. now after that i will be joined by suze orman. she believes she has come up with the sensible solution for every day americans. tonight we are pleased to be joined by chuck hagel. the combat vet earns two purple hearts. he was a member of the who intelligence committee. he serves of the chairman of the atlantic council. he joins us tonight from washington. good to have you on this

program. so much news i want to get to. let me jump in with syria. we told americans to get out. your thoughts on the deteriorating relationship with syria and what is happening inside the country? >> these are very difficult, delicate, and complicated issues. did the united states or any one nation does not have the ability to change or control of events, and i think we saw about over last 12 months in tunisia and egypt as well as libya and bahrain, but what we can do is continue to work with our allies representing the middle east, the arab league, the united nations, working with our very close nato ally and friend,

turkey pure against -- turkey. these are interconnected dynamics said do not present an easy way out. the only way to do this is continue to put as much pressure through every control we have to bring this to a peaceful conclusion, and i think the is going to require assad is removed from his position of power governing that country and hopefully bring new stability back, which will take time. >> there are some asking tonight, why not go into stereo? if there are 6000 people who have already been killed by that government, why not go into syria as we did with libya? >> we never went into libya. we have some of the nato

members use sophisticated of equipment like drones and air power to essentially debase gaddafi's forces, but the people on the ground were the people themselves. assyrian people are going to need assistance, but we are somewhat restricted now about what our options are. this is working with the alliance and the arab league and others about supporting the people. i think you also have to connect this to the situation in iran. the entire middle east is combustible and unpredictable as we have seen since world war ii and maybe ever. it is very interesting to me that in all of those countries

these are revolutions going on without a leader. they are leaderless revolutions. it is the people from the bottom that are resisting, and i think it points out once again the human dynamics will always control and eventually dictate the outcome of countries. it is painful, unfair, but we have to work through this in a smart way. tavis: they agree with your assessment of these and leadership revolutions. is -- these leaderless revolutions. is that something you agree with? >> the people are rising up. it is not mao or castro, but this is coming from the

baseline of the population of the people. they have had an off, and everyone of those countries we have seen rise up have been that way. that also facilitates more complications as well. again we do not have an identifiable leader. you have a mixture, and in some cases, there is a bad element, which we have seen in all these countries, so it makes the whole situation more complicated. >> what is worse? the enemy we know, or the enemy we do not know the amount >> in the end, we must always look to the future in the interest of individual freedom. the individual always must come first, and partly why i think we are in a situation we are in today in egypt and some of these

other countries, over the years, the united states and other allies have opted out to go for the security equation, rather than freedom, but it has to come from within. the united states cannot impose democracy. we cannot impose our will. we have been involved in two costly wars that have taught a lesson. we tried in vietnam. it did not work. eventually people will make the decisions they must make, so we must always be on the right side, and that is for the individual and freedom. >> you mentioned senator hagel, and i am going to talk with and one of the young people who was one of the people responsible for making this process go

viral. he was one of the early persons to put some comments out there that got people thinking and made these uprisings they gone on us. i hope to get to these tomorrow and night. egypt comes to mind. we have been a friend of mubarak's through six different presidents, and finally he deaths -- he gets toppled. talk to me about places like washington where one is trying to balance strategic needs with values and why so often the former bates of the latter. >> you framed it exactly right. there are many printed dresses,

and foreign-policy is never exact. it is also about the immediate versus the future. when you are dealing with situations that are uncontrollable and combustible, you try to stabilize the situation as quickly as you can and work toward democratic reform. that works only if you continue to work toward democratic reform and keep pressure on the leaders of those countries as those countries become more secure and stable, but the other part is the reality and the immediacy of the immediate interest, let's take that first interest we have and put a priority on that. and we will deal with the rest of the interest as we have time. there is no perfect way to do

this. in is very imperfect. we are juggling all the time competing interest, but in the end the country must know we are anchored by a system of values, a system of expectations and standards, that the people's interest must always come first. and we are imperfect, and if you look at the mistakes we have made since world war ii, it is when we have cut loose from those standards and moved toward a more immediate interest, but in the end, we will always lose. >> what are the lessons it appears we have perhaps learned these of these -- learn from cirio with the mistakes -- and

learn from syria with the mistakes of our government. they saw us on any given day, and they could not figure out if we were for mubarak leaving or mubarak's staying. but one thing we learned was that each situation is different. it is interconnected, and you deal with all of those uncontrollable, but in the end, if a nation's word is not believe, if a nation is not anchored by a set of values people can trust and know that is where we draw the line, then our policies will be very vacuous. they will not be taken serious.

you opt for a mean military solution. we cannot in every case, but working with various groups, getting ahead of what is coming, and anticipation of what is coming ahead. they are drawing from the middle east peace process. the israeli-palestinian issue is not going to solve every problem in the middle east, but it would certainly bring us to some high ground if we could make some progress. i use that as an example but \ /

always come back down to a dictator. mubarak was a dictator, so what is happening is a result of the dictatorship that we rolled along with. it is not our fault. the international community all have to take some responsibility, but those are things we have learned. >> i appreciate you are making my job easier. let me continue to follow you. the issue tonight is a perennial issue as we sit with this conversation. the issue is really about israel and iran and whether israel is going to strike, and if they were to strike, what would our

position be? your thoughts? >> i think the obama administration, as was the situation with the bush administration and the clinton administration and the senior bush administration have followed the right line on this. in particular, this administration over the last two years with regards to a round. i do not know of one individual who has had responsibility for intelligence in any serious way in the middle east or israel who has said an israeli strike in iran would be the best solution and we ought to look seriously at that. this is i think an example of an

international community coming together with sanctions, tightening. that is only one part of this. inside iran, there is great uncertainty. their inflation is 20 or 30%. iran is not a monolithic power. ahmadinejad says things but make no sense, but you have a different power bases within iran. it is my opinion and the opinion of most people in this administration that a military strike in iran would be a terrible mistake because we do not know what the consequences would be a. we could unleash a terrible

armageddon in the middle east. you look at all the options. i do not think we are there yet. to get to the answer to your question, what happens if israel strikes a round, i am not smart enough to tell you how about plays out, but as to how it affects the united states, it would drive the united states into a situation where we have relationship with israel. it would drag other nations into this, which could get completely out of hand. you are talking about hundreds of millions of people. these things have a tendency to get well beyond the ability of any nation or set of nations to control. right now the obama administration is doing the right things with our allies.

tavis: well we are walking on eggshells, we have to deal with what we already engaged in- house -- engaged in. defense secretary panetta has made it clear there is a new timetable as he sees it. how do you assess that new timetable? >> i know that has subjected the secretary and the administration to a lot of new questions, but i think we have to look at a couple of realities. this is our 11th year in afghanistan, and that reality is washing over a nation's ability to continue to sustain that war. it is pretty clear the american people want out, as do other natons that are now rour

allies. in the end it will tv -- it will be the afghan people who decide what they want to do. the other part of this you have not mentioned is pakistan. pakistan is the most important and critical element in the equation. oint they areis plac right about accelerating the timeline of withdrawing forces, and now because an international peace conference is probably going to be required here. when i say an international peace conference, i think you are going to have to bring the iranians into this. the government of afghanistan and others. i do not know how else you resolve this.

this is going to go on for awhile, but the continuation of the path we are on now is only going to make it worse. we have a situation in pakistan where we are right on the cusp of losing an ally in a very serious way. we do not want that to happen because we come loose of all of our diplomatic moorings when that happens. we still have 90,000 troops in afghanistan. iraq is having big difficulties. the entire area is so dangerous right now, so this is an example of how we have to be careful about how we spread our ways through this. think strategically, not tactically. good >> i am chuckling because you said, i did mention pakistan. i figured you might. let me continue to follow you on

the line of questioning you opened up to me so nicely. since you mentioned pakistan, let me mention a couple of questions. number one, what do you make of the fact president obama has used more drones, has dropped more man must drones in pakistan -- manless drones in pakistan, more than bush did, but just assess for me and what it means when our foreign policies are to rely on these drones, and we see the frequency of use like we see right now in pakistan. >> anytime you resort to a new can get it weapon or a new option, there is going to be

continued controversy, especially with the frequency of the use of those. what we have now, you may have noted the north korean have a drone. this is going to be a new dynamic of warfare from here on out. this brings a lot of legal questions, international law questions, assassination questions, so yes, all of those new sets of challenges and questions come with this force. >> one thing i want to point out, one of the challenges is what congress has to say about this. this is a new kind of warfare, and this has not been debated in congress, where you surf.

-- serve. i have not seen hearings as yet. nothing has happened to talk about whether or not this is the path forward, because i thought congress have something to say about declaring war, but that is what these drones have become, a new way to declare war. >> congress's absence of declaring war is not new. we have been absent the last 12 or 15 years. sticking to your point, everything you say is exactly right, and you are going to see congress open of hearings, because you are talking about the cia having control of drones. they operate under title 50, and all the questions you mentioned are going to have to be laid out.

the american people are going to have something to say about this, and it needs to be done, and it will be done. >> i have so many things i would love to talk to you about. we can do this again, but given we are in the midst of a presidential campaign, and foreign policy increasingly is going to have to be discussed on the campaign trail along with these issues. your sense of the nominee that your party may be putting up to run against president obama? it looks like mr. rahm name may be the man. your thoughts and? -- it looks like mitt romney may be the man. your thoughts on that? >> the issue will get far more serious debate which serious solutions and not these kind of a glancing blow, if i am

president i will not let iran do this or china do this. that is interesting on the campaign trail. that is not doing business -- dealing with serious issues, whoever the president is going to be dealing with. we need a lot more serious debate and high-level discussion than what we are getting, and i hope we will get that you're a good -- i hope we will get back. >> you chose not to run this time around, but i am always delighted to have your thought about these important issues. i thank you for your time. >> thank you for having me. >> good night from l.a., and keep the faith. >> for more information on today's show, visit tavis smiley

ast pbs.org. tavis: join me next time for a discussion with the former google executives on the arab uprisings. >> every community has martin luther king boulevard. it is the cornerstone we all know. it is not just a street or boulevard but a place where wal- mart stands together with your community to make everyday better. >> and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. thank you.