that nixon and kissinger used to pursue the diplomatic opening with china in the early one nine hundred seventy s. it's not their achievement was not based already talking to. the united states have been talking to beijing for years but it was this very narrow kind of dialogue very focused on grievance american grievances toward china and what china was going to need to do to to bring itself in line with american preferences nixon and kissinger flip that on its head they said we are going to convey to the chinese both in words and in actions that we we accept the people's republic of china and on that basis the rest of these issues can be taken care of that's what enabled this dramatic turn in american diplomacy toward china that's what we need to do toward the islamic republic of iran to accept it and then to

back that up with concrete actions in terms of rolling back covert action programs in terms of stopping economic warfare against iran but what are the chances for diplomacy i mean iran is surrounded by u.s. military bases by nato patriot missiles they have to sanctions that are crippling the rate in economy it seems there's more ground for blackmail now than for diplomacy unfortunately i think that is the american hope that we can still force coerced out that's what the united states has been doing really since the end of the cold war we have focused on coercing outcomes by as flynt said projecting enormous amounts of conventional military force into the middle east to coerce political outcomes and we were you know before one thousand nine hundred one we were somewhat restrained in doing that because of the cold war if we put in too many million many troops we were afraid that some of you know the soviet union would so. in

a sense that constrained us and foresee united states to really rely more on soft power more on having a narrative after the class of the soviet union the end of the cold war we i think left the left that out we put the you know under the table we focused entirely on trying to force political outcomes and what we've done in iraq and afghanistan has underscored the very important limits of that and i would add libya we were able to take out saddam and take out moammar gadhafi but what we're able to put in its stead what if everything fails what is your worst case scenario mr liberal and when i think my worst case scenario is that the united states. starts another war in the middle east to disarm another middle eastern country weapons of mass destruction that it does not. and that the damage that the backlash to this does to the american position. makes.

how much damage was done in position by the invasion of iraq makes that will quite trivial by comparison that's my worst case i want to ask you about the new face of the pentagon chuck hagel he allowed himself to say right attacking iran is a stupid idea and i believe you also called for direct negotiations do you think we could see direct negotiations any time soon with chuck hagel in the ministration well if he i think that that former senator hagel has taken courageous positions on iran on a range of issues and i admire them and respect them and the concern i have is that he is being nominated for the wrong job to carry out those positions his defense secretary if he is or if he is if he's approved to be as defense secretary he will not be the person in charge of creating or implementing strategies of iran or any other foreign policy issue. he will be he will be at the defensive. i mean doing

quintessentially defense secretary things in this environment which is to cut the budget and try to keep the united states out of another war now that peace try to keep the united states out of another war could have impact here but the problem is he what he could potentially try to keep united states out of another war without being able to either to offer a vision for another way to deal with this challenge the islamic republic poses a real challenge for the united states and a real challenge to israel in the region that challenges to significantly constrain both the united states and israel as preferred strategy for the region which is to project force whenever wherever and whatever degree we want unilaterally the islamic republic of iran challenges that not with tanks so that they go and park their tanks in other people's countries they challenge that with their narrative they oppose that viscerally at its core chuck hagel said some very unflattering things about the israeli lobby that they're quote unquote intimidating

a lot of people in washington and also they are to say american interests should trump israeli interests if they conflict and that is the subversive thing to say here in washington could be a career killer can you name some key points where u.s. and israeli interests conflict i think it is very much in america's interests it's not a favor to iran it is in america's interests to come to terms with the islamic republic to accept safeguarded enrichment of uranium as the basis for a deal on the nuclear issue israel's ability to impose its hegemony in southern lebanon is not an american interest it may be an israeli preference it's not an american interests i think american interests would be much better served by a kind of rational. political settlement to the palestinian issue that palestinians and other middle easterners will see as would. there is no way that open ended

israeli occupation of palestinian lands will ever be seen that way and i think that's you know very much against american interests and i think in a similar vein it's but i would take us to some living to a point laid out i know but i would take it a limit and more broadly it's very difficult for the way that israel is structured politically for it to accept and buy into and support what i think would be an american interest which is that all of the states in the middle east be able to have much more participatory political orders that can support even more broadly beyond its borders because a country like egypt which i think the israelis see today is very much a threat in terms of how it's developing if it becomes any more reflective of its population's preferences histories interests religion is going to become by definition less interested in allowing israel or being ok with the policies that

israel has developed to use force coercively whenever wherever it wants along its borders or with its within its own population palestinian population under its control and the problem is the united states backs it and so this is the contradiction he was back at the same time it calls for democracy in all those countries and so that's what rings hollow i think for many arab and muslim populations is that it's not a real call for the by the united states for democratization what the united states is just trying to do is so chaos and civil war like we're doing in syria we're not really trying to get democratization in syria or political participation in syria it's selling chaos and destruction i think that's how many people see it and that's how it is unfolding what do you think israel is going to do next what is their strategy with regards to iran i think they have more or less come to the position that if you lot is going to be struck it's the united states that's going to need to do it and so i fully anticipate over the next next yours so that prime minister netanyahu gives his government will be put. a lot of pressure on the obama

administration that iran is approaching whatever red line that you know who draws that it's time for the united states to step up to the plate and deal with this problem in a decisive way and even if they don't succeed initially in persuading obama because they'll they'll leverage it to get more sanctions on iran to get other kinds of pressure on iran they will try and keep iran. do you think president obama point to chuck hagel as a message to his throw that's difficult to say maybe we'll see but i'm skeptical that obama really is out to redefine be american relationship with israel and i would add to that in addition to the. point that we have the appointment of john brennan at the cia who i think is someone hill the israelis are just fine with who will continue what many of the covert programs of course are drone program but many of the covert programs that would be under his under his authority at the cia and

that would be very much to israel's liking that will serve to undermine any attempts or any possibilities for we all are coming to terms of the islamic republic of iran there is an argument often made in washington that bashar last fall would be a strategic victory against iran what can you say about an approach like that first of all at this point iran's most important arab ally is no longer syria it's iraq thanks in no small part to the united states iran's most important strategic ally in the arab world is iraq. even in syria you know bashar al assad is still i don't know it is imminent and even if you reach a point where he might feel like he needs to abandon damascus or something like this you're going to still have big chunks of syria that are effectively under good

control of his government under his security apparatus syria might at that point start to look more and more like a kind of. you know failing state with different regional warlords in different parts of the country but that is not a situation which is good for american interests first of all or a situation in which iran you know somehow doesn't have influence or or inability to act in ways to protect its interests in this situation the idea that somehow we can just have these short term marriages of convenience to arm train and fund really in that lane a sunni islamist jihadist groups in syria in syria against the islamic republic of iran that just this time it will work and that somehow secular democrats are going to come to power yeah that liberal secular pro-american democrats will come to power it didn't work in afghanistan and it's not going to work in syria thank you

so much thanks so much for coming q thank you very much. live.

live. live. the speed. you. will live live. live

. and realized. welcome to the big picture.