well it. looks like the shoot first and ask questions later military mentality is backfiring on the u.s. and whether it's a decade long war in afghanistan or a helping hand that extended to libyan rebels does the u.s. need to rethink its geo political strategy and you know backlash. the fleet will be a big somebody insulted your readers who say iran must be a bit so let's use the word through the seven year old boys pool and it was so old . and yet it seemed as if western countries are the only one throwing a temper tantrum when it comes to iran's nuclear potential and their sanctions are

working but not as politicians hope for will show you why the u.s. might not be considering the end game when it plays hardball. what the e.u. isn't singing the blues the bailout blues that is and they certainly aren't the only ones who are known to throw money at a problem from g.m. to greek bailout politics and it's changing the way economies function. good evening it's monday february twenty seventh seven pm in washington d.c. i'm christine and you're watching our t.v. . violence and unrest continues today in afghanistan much of it in response to last week's burning of qur'an that there have now been five days of riots all across the country two american soldiers shot and killed by an afghan soldier and another two killed inside one of the most safest places in afghanistan for americans the afghan

interior ministry in all at least thirty people have been killed and many are shocked by what's happening but many others say this was bound to happen and this particular incident has simply exposed a policy and a strategy that is inherently weak and that's failed both in afghanistan and elsewhere when you occupy a country especially one with an extremely different culture it will inevitably become a hotbed of tension of resentment and violence it's a lesson some say the u.s. insists on learning over and over again from vietnam to iraq to libya perhaps syria will be next so is it time to go back to the geopolitical drawing board i spoke with con holohan hell in an earlier he's a columnist with foreign policy in focus and i first asked him if intervention in afghanistan was flawed from the get go here's his take. well the first thing they did was that instead of coming in and forming a government that included significant numbers of passions were who make up the

a plurality of the country and are really the key to what happens in the south in the east and who have lots of support on the other side of the border with pakistan instead of doing that they recognized the karzai government which is really a northern alliance government made up mainly of it was their entire sheikhs so what they did they started right off they sickly supporting the government that the passions were not part of no one has ever won a war with the passions and you don't have to go back very far i mean the british or the russians or whatever the right back to the greeks lamont nichols no one wins that war so they started off on the wrong foot to begin with and then it's occupation you know t. lawrence lawrence of arabia had a essay they wrote in one thousand nine hundred called the algebra of occupation and he said he has six months and after six months. you're going to lose well it's

been ten years and we're losing and you know let's pull this a little bit out of afghanistan and kind of talk about the days of you aspect of this whole lot of people pointing to vietnam and iraq and mistakes the u.s. has made time and time again but doesn't seem to be learning from now on the other hand of course even some of the most hardcore critics of the war in iraq say afghanistan is different and was necessary to talk about these sort of conflicting points of view especially on the broader scale here. well there's a tendency for generals not to read history i mean it's sort of standard and i think it's above their pay grade and that's why general should never make decisions about going to war how you wage work separate should be really made by civilians and what's happened is that the generals have largely driven american foreign policy at least since the cold war i mean this should have been obvious there

no one has been able to face it no one has made a successful occupation of afghanistan and there are three rules of warfare one never march on moscow two never get involved in a land more nation and three never try and conquer afghanistan so this is something they keep coming back to but the reason is is it's very tempting if you could control afghanistan you could control the crossroads to asia the route to china route to pakistan and india the middle east central asia on corrector congress look at afghanistan and what they see is go they don't get it but that's what they see but what about this aspect and you know we're seeing some of this right now as we see you know these protests going on against the qur'an burning i mean this is not only a very different religion this is a very different culture and it seems to me you know there's a lot of understanding that wasn't that didn't happen and. terms of that and yet

there's still talk about trying to win the hearts and minds yeah i think they're kind of dropped the hearts and minds stuff you know that's that's basically for the press what they what they did is made a second mistake and this is the one that the obama administration made they went in they put a surge of troops in they increased the military pressure on the taliban they began taking out either arresting or killing taliban leadership and they stepped up the drone war in pakistan it was exactly the wrong thing to do so now what you've got is you've got both sides dug in you've killed a large number of the leading column on leadership so now what you've got are second leadership scattered all over the place most of them are more radical younger who either though she i mean this was the worst thing that you could do and that's what the obama administration did i don't know how they're going to get out of this keep in mind a lot of these demonstrations these are not in the east and in the south they're in

the north these are the places where we have our eyes on the old specks in the projects so as you say this is a culture that covers the entire country and we have just stepped on it and things like night raids of drone attacks am and assassinations and things like that this is absolutely stirs up the population and we're back to the algebra of occupation and we're just coming down the wrong side of that column of numbers and yet you know while this is going on there's talk of intervention at least of some sort in syria no one of course calling for military intervention but again you know the u.s. and many western countries using you know these age old reasons the protection of the people the need for democracy as reasons to get involved now of course we know china and russia both vetoed the u.n. security council resolution to try to force president bashar al assad out of office but it seems that there is no concept that previous policies and. previous

strategies like the one being proposed for syria aren't necessarily good ones running series a very good example because again what you have is that you have this approach that says that a military solution is part of the way you solve problems it's really not nowadays and i think what's going on in syria at this point is you've got a civil war going on here the worst thing you can do in a civil war is to arm one side or encourage it so instead of saying look let's talk about some kind of negotiations let's talk about some sort of way to back off the current situation that's going on in syria they do what they're doing in libya which is they want any and they declare regime change was there or was what they were after they charged the the libyan government with war crimes and then it became a fight to the death and i think it remains to be thin end both libya and syria exactly who these opposition forces actually are i don't want to be finding out

a lot of that in future months and years kind how and. how and scares me a columnist for foreign policy and focus do appreciate your perspective i know you've been following this for quite some time. well the question looms large and is often central to questions of foreign policy what must be done to try to force iran to stop its nuclear program for the obama administration often called it weak on its iran policy by republican counterparts the answer is thank ship and this week the latest round is set to go into effect it will target transactions made with the iranian central bank now later this summer sanctions directly targeting iranian oil are set to go into effect as well that law says that if you buy iranian petroleum you'll be locked out of doing business with any financial institutions in the united states and president obama it's a global puzzle how to hit iran where it hurts the most without upsetting our other countries especially allies who rely on iranian oil now iran has of course deny

that it's seeking to build nuclear weapons and has recently showed signs that sanctions already imposed are starting to have some major negative effects on the country but there's one area many people are forgetting to take into account when they tell sanctions as a solution right here in the united states it could mean a dramatic spike in oil prices here which would not only hurt consumers but could also severely hurt president obama's chances of being reelected in november let's go out of egypt director of international studies at trinity college in hartford connecticut hey there t.j. let's just start with this what's the likelihood this policy of sanctions against iran ends up hurting people in the u.s. as well as other countries. well it's not going to be. saying since regime iran produces a very large amount of oil it largely delivers that oil to you already and is yeah these are two big buyers of the oil including. and if the iranian sanctions

against iran wouldn't place for your trip that is going to mean that the united states is going to put pressure on saudi arabia or iraq or libya to deliver excess capacity or oil do your and to india and if this happens that means that there will be very lived through expect capacity for the united states if they want to have more supply on the market to bring oil prices down so it's very likely that if the sanctions go through by the summer or oil prices in the united states might that five dollars a gallon we don't want to touch upon something you said and that is the need to get saudi arabia saudi arabia involved i know back in the one nine hundred seventy s. there was you know a somewhat similar situation some are pointing to in which saudi arabia was willing to use its excess oil to sort of flooded into the market to keep prices down but

today i think things will be different a lot of people believe that's no longer in the best interest of the government in saudi arabia of course it wants to use its access to oil for its own population to keep them happy to prevent another arab spring from happening there i mean what do you mean when you say having saudi arabia sort of get involved as well. well the saudis have been going on a tour of european capitals and recently their major figure from the oil ministry was in new delhi meeting the indians and there have been making all kinds of promises of excess capacity coming out of saudi arabia to these markets in a sense to bring on board countries like india and brussels on side for the move to shift the sanctions regime into an embargo of course whether the saudis have this excess capacity is a separate question and that is in a sense a national security question you know the saudis have always given very inflated

numbers about their oil reserves it's very important to recognize that this shift from a sanctions to an embargo regime against iran has a great. benefit for saudi arabia so saudi arabia has been playing a and active role in trying to bring the world on one side to isolate iran and right now places like new delhi and absence i'm not convinced that they will be given you know is soft landing if these sanctions become an embargo against iran so it's not the kids that these places have entirely or not this saudi american position they have an embargo on iran would be neutral for them i think that the important point and you know you can talk about other countries they can get involved to help let's talk also about countries that may be hurt by this japan south korea you know they rely heavily on iranian oil russia opposes the sanctions

that china works kind of indiscriminately with any country in which it sees business opportunities and so you know you see china partnering with the u.s. you'll see china partnering with iran how does this play out with other countries that often are on the side of the u.s. in terms of diplomatic relationships. you know there are two very important points one is that it is not the kids that most countries are as enthusiastic to join the embargo of iran as the united states and the north atlantic european countries even the greeks of very very nervous tipped it was sent greece's oil usage comes from iran and when iran said that they were going to three m. didley cut off supplies to europe there was a great deal of pandemonium in athens where there's already an incredibly difficult economic situation let's the first or it is that many countries are not sold on the idea of the embargo on iran secondly because we rely so greatly for

a financial systems only yorick in the united states most financial transactions good through something called a swift network which is based in brussels you know when you wire transfer money abroad you need a swift court it's a messaging system for wire transporting of money this swiss network has said that they're going to now sanction the iranian central bank and twenty some iranian financial institutions so this is a very serious question because what it means is despite the appetite of much of the world to continue doing business with iran europe and the united states are making it harder to do business by removing iran from the international financial markets and that is a disturbing trend now as he recently spoke with hans blix the former head of the international atomic energy agency i want to play really quick what he said about

her of what a lot of the world are hearing are only options when it comes to iran versus what the options actually are. yes we have to push more for sanctions that we have run the diplomatic path on the sanctions remain and sound now we're talking about stopping all importing and maybe bombing but i think they're lost at imagination there are still things that can be done on the reward side but what do you think i mean do you agree that there are a lot of other options i think can still be done as opposed to implementing the thanks and well it depends on what those things up the united states and europe have taken a maximum position which is that iran should not be permitted to enrich uranium now violate the law by the loan for liberation treaty by the being which the international atomic energy agency has operated it's reasonable and legal for iran to enrich uranium as long as this does not get diverted to military purposes but

the united states has said that iran can never enrich uranium you know and so suggestions have come to have iranian enrichment happen outside iran there is a great deal of space for discussion here the problem is that the west needs to back down from its maximum position and come to iran with a very open suggestion that let us actually deal with what are your interests what are your needs and let us tell you frankly that we no longer wish for the destruction of iran a lot of people talk about iran's rhetoric israel but what we don't talk about is the west's rhetoric reserve in iran they threaten iran routinely so if the west arrives with less than the maximum position and with a clear statement that they no longer wish for the destruction of the iranian government the iranian regime then there may be room to talk. very interesting

they're not just not just about action sometimes it might entail a way of thinking that's changed all across the west the director of international studies at trinity college well earlier earlier today the german parliament approved a bailout package for greece one hundred thirty billion euros in the hopes this move will prevent a larger financial catastrophe for the eurozone this comes after months of back and forth wrangling and of greece being forced to make major cuts in spending what happens next could have a major impact on the economies of the rest of the world either for better or worse but how many people in the united states really understand what's been going on there it's a question laurie harshness with the resident dot net site to find answers to so she had the streets of new york city to find out. greece is getting another bailout one hundred and thirty billion euros is that

a good idea this week let's talk about that do you know what's going on in greece right now or do you no idea you've got the wrong person do you think a lot of people know what's going on in greece no greece you know iowa got more g.o.p. then then greece their boards out so what's greece is going to do to us whether they know or they're saved it might matter reform is the third largest. g.d.p. in the world you've got to worry about greece. they only got good olives greek olive i'm from germany and we have a strong. one for you all and the greens have a recall you all and so we should help because you're ok with that you don't feel like they should be responsible for themselves they should be less pond bill but we should help them if it was coming directly out of your pocket would you still be in support of the bailout no no and i hope. so as long as that other european

countries they're ok with that but really am i mean they will tell you that no time is it is that having to bail out another country say i think we have to start to think globally and we all have to build a chair out and try to get this thing back on track so that means shouldering other people's responsibilities are you ok with that. yes and no you know part of me says no i work hard i do or i'm supposed to do i've done how my parents raised me and work hard pay my taxes and all those things but if that goes then that affects me and affects my children too so sometimes not to quote hillary clinton but i guess it does take a village the bailout with the u.s. car industry sort of had an ok ending and i was skeptical about that so i don't know i don't think i'm quick to really say actually that's a good example though because you hear bailout and it sounds like you're getting something for nothing but it's an example of one that worked so maybe this will work whether it's a stepping in a european union or whether it's going to be someplace in asia steps in public

china china and us and them so is that a good thing i mean now that we're all globally tied and we see these kinds of situations arise is the global economy a good progression. it was a natural progression it's not even we could stop it when you have free trade we would i mean it's going to happen is when you have more interdependent countries at this point whether or not people even know what's going on with the greek bailout the bottom line is it's happening let's see if this one will make a difference. and from countries to companies there's no way around it the bailout has also become a political tool and on the heels of a presidential election it seems we'll be talking about them for many more months i spoke a little bit ago with max fred wolf a senior analyst at green cross capital from our studios in new york city i mean i

think just before we even get to how it plays down the road we should take a step back from what is kind of panicked need poorly informed rhetoric on a lot of parties side greece is not getting bailed out creditors to greece are getting bailed out the reason that we keep hearing the term fire wall is because you're building a wall around the country letting it burn to the ground and making sure that folks who've invested in it residing in other countries don't see the fire leap the wall and get to them so this whole debate has become somewhat reminiscent of the debates we had and never really understood to our detriment around bear stearns and around lehman brothers in which someone else is getting bailed out by giving money to greece which they then turn around and have to pay out to someone else but that's what you think your question don't you think with all this attention paid to greece . you know and i do understand what you're saying that it is creditors getting bailed out but don't you think that. the eurozone and some of the leaders in europe are going to make sure that the people of greece come out of this at least for the most part stronger than they are right now. i would love to think that i absolutely

don't i mean i think that the twenty percent unemployment the forty percent youth unemployment the regular rioting the hemorrhaging of the future of the dreams of a lot of people the near bankruptcy or total bankruptcy of a significant portion of the country's industries the changing of the constitution to make debt repayment a higher priority than all basic social services i do think greece will get through it it's a tough country it will get some help i'm glad for the help they are getting don't think this is primarily a moral decision but i think we should be clear and most of the analysts aren't that what's being done here is you're sacrificing a significant portion of the greek economy in the hopes of keeping the rest of europe and shoring up the creditors it's more or less the same kind of story we saw with the u.s. housing market here where what was shored up was the housing credits not the u.s. households and that's part of the reason we've seen millions of homes go through foreclosure that's an interesting comparison so let's keep it here in the u.s. then tomorrow of course the g.o.p.

primary in michigan and the auto industry in michigan of course big business general motors at one time was bailed out by washington under president obama and guess what the country just announced its largest profits ever despite what many would call a successful bailout i want to play really quick what rick santorum and mitt romney said at last week's debate in arizona he supported the folks on wall street and bailed out wall street was all for and then when it came to the auto workers and the folks in detroit he said no that to me is not a consistent principled position i have one i believe in markets not just when they're convenient for me governor. i think they wanted fifty billion dollars and i brought it up in the paper and i said absolutely don't write a check for fifty billion dollars all right so let's just talk really quick about this issue of bailing out the auto industry i mean do you think it was successful will be seen as successful down the road. now look at all whenever we have that

discussion we have to decide what we think is success i think the bottom line is for a lot of reasons including national security which both those gentlemen spend a lot of time talking about and saber rattling about you need to have an auto industry because the auto industry also makes your weapon systems in your tank something that nobody brought up in that particular discussion the bottom line is the auto worker has not done enormously well the city of detroit has not done enormously well the state of michigan has not done enormously well but there's no way you can say they would have done better with the larger bankruptcy of ford general motors and what's now part of their in the name of chrysler so do i think that the bailout was better than no bailout probably i also think that what history and the study of economics teaches us is there isn't just a choice that some one politician proposes and absolutely nothing that there's a world of gray zone is in there and we should have and could have had a debate and come with a better policy but it was that or nothing that i think it's pretty clear that what we did choose to do was a lot better than nothing interesting and so let's talk also about tarp of course

the troubled asset relief program in many ways it happened years ago but still wildly unpopular quite a few people today say this was the reason this what happened basically ensured that all of the too big to fail banks will be saved or bailout what do you think americans should draw the line in their support of the bank bailout. you know i understand why bank bailouts are unpopular and the tarp program kind of over promised and has massively under delivered so it's helped a tiny fraction of the number of people we were told it would help it's spent and lost more money in terms of some of the programs than it was supposed to although most of the money has come back i think the lesson of tarp or for trying to draw broadly here and a lesson of g.m. is we need major industries but we also need them to be accountable not just to their stockholders but to their stakeholders to the communities to the tax authorities that they need to fund we didn't ok job of rescuing some of our big businesses which was probably

a necessary evil but we attach no strings so we're now three or four years later the general public of the united states is poorer people keep losing their homes corporate profits are at an all time high in their all time high as a percentage of national income which peaks to a situation of we're better off with our big companies than without them but we should have attach some strings there's no strings attached relationship forged between taxpayers as givers and large corporations as pure takers has left us in a situation where some of us have very little left to give and other folks have got an appetite for taking well certainly for all these reasons you've just left the next it's no wonder then that the bailout has become a political tool at next fred wolf senior analyst for green press capital. well all has been quiet on the wiki leaks front lately the whistle blowing web site has been in some ways inactive do both the legal troubles of its founder julian assange and and also internal disagreements within the company but that might be changing the hacktivist group anonymous apparently gave wiki leaks

a whole lot of new material and the two organizations are sort of possibly working together to expose some pretty surprising stuff so the latest information has to do with stratfor stratfor is a company that says it provides strategic intelligence on global business economic security and geo political affairs though most say it's essentially a privatized cia that happens to work closely with some of the most powerful people in both business and government so wiki leaks now has five million e-mails obtained from the servers at stratfor and they've released the first two hundred and r.t. correspondent laura smith takes a look at some of the content included in those e-mails. this e-mail that wiki leaks has obtained from struct for secret files says that all iranian nuclear infrastructure has already be already been taken out they say that israeli commando forces and in conjunction with kurdish rebels already destroyed all of iran's nuclear infrastructure on the ground and i quote some weeks ago israeli sources

said in this in this string of emails that wiki leaks has released said the current let's bomb iran campaign was just a sort of way it was ordered by e.u. leaders to distract from the current financial problems that the e.u. countries are facing domestically now there is evidence that these e-mails were hacked from struck for by anonymous the major group of hackers of them past allegedly to wiki leaks in that way but it should be said and wiki leaks says this itself that it is generally great information that comes from struck for there's no response on this information from iran or israel so far but we should watch in the come in the coming days because wiki leaks is going to release more of these five million e-mails as wiki leaks itself and various media organizations pick through the details of them and from london that was our correspondent laura smith and that's going to do it for us for now.