hello and welcome to crossfire all things considered i'm peter lavelle manufacturing consent for determining a foreign policy consensus who in washington in the halls of power in western capitals drive foreign policy decisions particularly when it comes to iran israel and syria is public opinion constructed to fit the interests of special groups and lobbies and is american foreign policy in the country's own interest. to cross-talk american foreign policy i'm joined by my guests in washington judith kipper she is director of middle east programs at the institute of world affairs and we also have flynt leverett he is a professor at penn state and author of the new book going to to run why the u.s. must come to terms with the islamic republic of iran there's just the two of us and

myself could cross talk rules in effect that means you can jump in anytime you want and i really encourage it flipped if i can go to you first what drives american foreign policy towards iran very simple question maybe a complicated answer i think that what really drives american foreign policy toward iran is a post cold war determination on the part of the united states to dominate the middle east to to play hegemonic role in the middle east to micromanage political outcomes in key middle eastern states so that those states strategic orientation is subordinated to u.s. foreign policy preferences and the middle east has a regional order which is essentially run by the united states from that perspective the problem with the islamic republic of iran is that it won't play along with this with this kind of hedging monic ambition. it said it's very open

to improved relations with the united states but that has to take place on the basis of equality and american acceptance of the islamic republic that's not the washington agenda for the middle east and it drives this very hostile posture toward toward iran judith agree or disagree with what we just heard please. i partially agree and partially disagree i think that what drives american policy in iran remains the fact that the iranian revolution was hostile to the united states we lost a key ally it was very costly to the united states and the revolution like so many revolutions turned out to be quite brutal. the memory the american embassy hostage is that were taken is still very fresh in our minds so i think that that's probably one of the really major

factors that shapes thinking and policy in the halls of power here in washington but right now the united states has two major problems with iran which are quite urgent the obviously the iranian nuclear program and secondly iran's assistance to the brutality in syria that is being perpetuated by the syrian regime in order to get iraq as cooperation is flowing to say we need to accept the islamic republic of iran we need to recognize though we don't like the reach that iran to like any sovereign state has legitimate security concerns and we need what we negotiate with the iranians be it in the group of six or face to face or indirectly or through the swiss we need to make it very clear that

there's a package on the table that incremental steps will result in the incremental removing of saying shin's and. capacity to be part of the international community ok so flow into iran has to be a good boy and everything will be fine. i think that is very much an agenda you know on both of the. fair fair enough but i think on both of the issues that judith raise though if you look at the american position on the nuclear issue the nuclear issue could be solved diplomatically in a matter of weeks if the united states would recognize iran right to enrich uranium under international safeguards what the but but that would mean the united states was accepting the islamic republic as a legitimate political entity with legitimate national interests and the united

states isn't prepared to do that instead it keeps insisting that iran has to surrender that right for diplomatic progress to be possible if you look at the position on syria you know there's been the meeting between secretary kerry and foreign minister lavrov in moscow and people are looking toward the possibility of a conference but you know already the planning for this is getting balled up because the russians quite reasonably think if you're going to have a conference on iran you need all of the relevant and important players there which means you need iran there and the united states is already ball king at having iran take part in a conference on syria that is just not diplomatically serious it's privileging this ambition to have gemini in the middle east over really serious diplomacy judas would you like to reply to that. well i think that

a good part of that is correct but. the problem of iran is very very complicated it hasn't kruse huge impact on the entire region and i think that the carry law for a meeting was a good start but it's not enough a conference raises expectations and doesn't usually accomplish very months very much it may not hurt anything but i'm not sure it's going to help in the end i think that. that the u.s. russian cooperation and coming to a consensus between the two powers on what needs to be done yet makes it easier to . be there and should should around be at the table during this conference should when. all the party all the party should be at the table but all the parties will posture all the parties have of said agenda and so far we haven't

seen any willingness on the side of any party to move toward political solution so the u.s. and russia needs to move in very powerful ways to be more persuasive and include the european community the arabs and others of course iran in moving toward a joint position that is held by both moscow and washington because that will be a very very powerful way to approach the problem but i don't think that's going to happen i don't think iran is going to be invited. you know i think i think the u.s. is really digging its heels on this which which means if you go ahead with the conference it's going to be a sham it's going to be the charade and i think i would differ a bit with judith in that i think that you know russia iran china

the players that are usually associated in common parlance as in in some ways be being supportive of the syrian government i mean if you look at their position and even the position of the syrian government they have been open to a political process to having a dialogue with the opposition aimed at some sort of political settlement which would produce a different kind of political order in syria but it's the opposition elements backed by the united states which have been sisted not just on preconditions but in effect on pretty results from a meeting where they have to have a front commitment that assad is going to step down before this process even gets going that's not a serious diplomatic position you know if you want to stop violence in syria you have to get all parties to the table you can't have these kinds and you have to get

down to the business of diplomacy i think russia frankly china iran have been trying harder to do that trying the harder to get that kind of process off the ground than the united states has been because to do it for the united states to do this means it's it's acknowledging it can't just dictate outcomes in this part of the world it actually has. other party's interests as to accommodate on the ground reality due to jump in go ahead judith. ya i have to disagree with with what said though i have great admiration for his views on on iran i think that the united states right now for a lot of different reasons that we don't need to get into here doesn't really have a middle east policy so this notion that we want to patrol things and guide all the internal affairs of all the countries i think is silly and it's nonsense we can't

do it we know we can't on the part of china russia and iran. they may make pronouncements from time to time but there is absolutely no evidence that any of those powers are willing to put pressure on the brutality of the assad regime what does the brutality of the rebels what about the brutality of the rebels can the u.s. led the way. no no no one is the government still though it's not governing all of its territory there is a ragtag different groups of people and let's remember two years ago when this started more than two years the syrian people went to the streets peacefully it was the government that began to shoot and that can never be forgotten the government has killed most of the seventy thousand people who have been killed so the violence

and the western powers have chosen iran and western powers have chosen the side in giving them in training correct. these are islamic groups i think it is not only important point i mean i going to say the arab world has most in the arab world most of the world except for iraq and china and russia have had given up on our side he is not able to govern his country and he has to go because he also ruled an. adequate no i don't think so this syrians are tearing it apart but the outside world is doing nothing to help. a lot of trouble in the outside world they made it there i have to jump in here a tear i apologize i have to jump in here we're going to go to a short break and after that short break we'll continue our discussion on american foreign policy in the middle east stay with hard to.

believe. you mean speak your language. programs in documentaries in arabic in school here on the t.v. reporting from the world's hot spots fifty i p interviews intriguing story i used to. live in trying. to find out more visit arabic t.v. dogs called. hold it. hold it. i

live. a good speech. if you. wish i. think it's a good. thing. to just see. it and. i can almost run i'm a better little.

i. see british.

markets. come to. find out what's really happening to the global economy with mike scott brown no holds barred look at the global financial headlines tune into the report. welcome back to cross talk we're all things are considered i'm peter lavelle to remind you we're discussing american foreign policy in the middle east. ok flinty got a bit heated in the first half of the program where you want to pick up go ahead.

yes i think that you know when you when you look at the situation in syria i mean it's obvious that that many many innocent people have been killed and that is that is a profound tragedy but i think that the narrative in the west that this was basically a peaceful protest by syrians that was responded to brutally and these people took all of this violence until you know a year later eighteen months later they had to start responding by only i just i don't think that's really the way things played out i think from very early on violence was within zeke's. grasp breaking out that yes and that and that i think that outside powers the saudis others were pouring money and weapons into syria from a very early point the agenda was not to bring democracy to syrians i don't think

the saudis care about that frankly i don't think the united states cares all that much about about that the agenda was to topple asada as a way of hurting iran's regional position ok seventy thousand dead syrians later this project has not worked you know that was the agenda and it has been a strategic failure and now now countries like the united states face a choice they can either you know except that this project of toppling asado hurt iran has failed and they can get serious about a diplomatic process that might produce a political settlement and end violence or if they keep doing this if they keep supporting the opposition we're going to be looking at literally years years of continued violence and who knows how many more tens of thousands of dead syrians that is that is the choice ok that's an interesting scenario when you think about

what we just heard. it's interesting but i'm sorry to say it's really wrong i mean i think flint is really so iran centric these days that the fact that the syrian people took to the streets as they did it need to gammon tunisia and elsewhere in a peaceful way to make change in the country and at the beginning they didn't ask for us to go is only much later after the government was so brutal syria is syria we have to think about the country of syria twenty five percent are displaced or refugees the humanitarian problem is really really catastrophic it has strategic implications for the region iran syria is a different thing the u.s. certainly didn't start this didn't support the rebels in order to get rid of assad

it all happened by itself and in the end outside powers can meddle but they can't really do very much internally which is why the u.s. but one russia forty. society that continues to support. how do you know that it assad retains the support of about half of syrian society what about them. judith go ahead that's what you think that's what you think but that's not what you what we know we don't know a lot of people worked for the bureaucracy a lot of people are in the intelligence the army is totally practically of the verge of collapse the brothers fourth division of course they have to be loyal to the regime because their paychecks their lives and the future of their families depend on it i don't think there's any way now to measure who is real lay

in support of this brutal dictatorial regime which has really hampered syria's development and growth we have no way to know that. we past a certain point now because you know it seemed realistic a year ago to have negotiations with the folks on the ground don't want to negotiate now now the people that the saudis are supporting for example. yes and as long as opposition groups have outside supporters like the saudis like the united states who are in a sense egging them on they have absolutely no incentive to face political reality and to some kind of negotiating process i mean you're absolutely right about that they don't have an interest in doing that because they're outsiders who will help them keep the violence rolling along indefinitely ok that's what puts talk about

the role of israel know that a lot ok go ahead judy if you want to reply what's the point of the program let me just say a word here i don't know the last time that that slate and sat with syrian syrians i happened to be with a group of people who are very active in the opposition who are in touch with everybody there and you know nobody is risking their life because they are being egged on by the united states or by saudi arabia or anybody else they have nothing they're being killed as a very good piece in the new yorker this week by dexter filkins who just returned helicopter gunships are killing them left and right and they have absolutely no protection not to fight don't you think what are the saudi arabia or anybody else don't you think one of the problems is when you say the opposition who are the opposition who are in the opposition if you want to mention ranks of if you want to mention mainstream media and n.p.r. had this very interesting article about. saudi jihadi it's going there ok being

paid to giving tickets ok how do you feel about that is that the opposition you're talking about there are many many syrian groups that are that are fighting and there are also now because it's gone on so long a lot of foreigners from mainly from the region but also from europe we have c.b.s. news that are coming there to. work with the opposition if we could if russia had not had not. said it would veto a un resolution two years ago maybe we would have made all russia it's all roses all isn't it no member if they remember a libya. member may have finished go right ahead maybe maybe it maybe if the us had had taken the steps that were absolutely necessary when the violence started in the regime was using aircraft to have no fly zone it probably

would have been zero right now so i think all sides external powers that have an influence there have made strategic mistakes which have been deadly for the for the syrians you know flint i think i've always wanted to. go always been a very curious when the americans say someone has to go and it's usually a strategic mistake go right ahead. no i absolutely agree with that and you know your reference to libya is very important i mean the russian and chinese veto is at the u.n. come against the backdrop of both russia and china having left the libya resolution go through in march the libya resolution which authorized the use of force to protect civilian populations on humanitarian grounds but which the united states and others then turned into basically

a regime change campaign with nato aircraft flying missions where they're out to kill gadhafi and you know from a russian perspective from a chinese perspective i think from a decent international legal perspective that is and it does say the least an extremely problematic scenario and russia and china were not about to let this scenario repeat itself in syria and you know as far as you know the united states doing quote unquote what was necessary early on i mean there is this small matter of sovereignty there is this small matter of international law that says you only get to use force when the security council authorizes or under a fairly narrow interpretation of self-defense in the un charter the united states has no right it may have a hedge of monic parag it ever think it does but it has no right to impose no fly zones over sovereign states in order to get rid of

a leader that it doesn't like ok judith when you want to reply to that. first of all of no fly zone wouldn't that be an international effort secondly it wasn't to get it would not have been intended to get rid of the leader it would have been intended to protect the syrian population seventy thousand of whom are now dead we don't know how many are wounded and maimed and twenty five percent of the country's displaced or internally or are refugees so it would no fly zone would have stopped the violence and i believe there have been a chance for negotiation yes i know that russia and i know all of the russian policy makers on the middle east they are absolutely allergic upset worried that the u.s. will again take use nato as an instrument in syria

and this is i think the main reason for russia's reluctance to work positively the end this conflict because of the libyan experience what russia has been for now i'd like to point out. russia has another. solution for two years the only major country to go right now how why don't they see it now saying negotiation to go all the way back to geneva last year best example go ahead flynt yeah yeah i think that a lot of talk in the matter is the i would i would i would challenge judith to find one case in which the united states applied military force stance of bill you for the protection of civilian populations in which part of its agenda was not also regime change in that country i mean if you look at the balkans if you look at iraq if you look at what we did in libya if we look at what we say we want to do in

syria and every one of those cases you know the argument for you man. tarion intervention is an extract of lee bound up with the argument for coercive regime change and you know frankly i think i think russia and china are eminently justified in and saying they're not going to do it we've run out of time and judith won't have time to reply we've run out of time i'm very sorry many thanks my guest today in washington and thanks to our viewers for watching us here at r.t.c. you next time and remember cross talk to us. please.

secret lumbered tory tim curry was able to build a new most sophisticated robot which on fortunately doesn't give a dollar amount anything tunes mission to teach music creation why it should care about humans in the world this is why you should care watch only on the dot com. modern russia was built on coal. fuel for its factories. coke for its steel to mark gold is it hot and heat for its people. join me james brown to meet them in to spend their lives underground and work in one of the world's most dangerous professions. would let's you. hearts of coal on naughty.

real damage and complexity of this oil spill was not something you can grasp just by looking at dirty birds we have between four to five million people in this directly affected area of the coast and it's pretty clear why it's not being reported because b.p. can't afford to have a reported all along the gulf coast are clean they are safe and they're open for business if b.p. is the single largest oil contributor to the pentagon the us war machine is heavily reliant upon b.p. and their oil this is a huge step backwards for the marker c. it's a step forward oligarchy carex it is toxic is a look a lot like spraying in vietnam it was it was not a picture the. either the government or b.p. really wanted to have out there i don't want dispersants to be the agent. of

this bill's. hunger strike despair pushed to the limit. for millions of days nearly one hundred guantanamo detainees are screaming for justice. where is the end for.

a top story on a massive kills at least fifteen people including children outside a hospital in the libyan city of benghazi. police in the u.s. hunting for a group of gunmen who went on a shooting rampage during a mother's day parade in new orleans injuring nineteen people. and spyware made by a british firm has allegedly been used to snoop on activists in bahrain and here for the rights campaigner who's raising the alarm over the intrusive surveillance methods being deployed in her country our top stories this hour.