was an increase in. muslim hate crime but it didn't actually really start to rise up until during the obama years when you had a republican party that was very much using a language of islamophobia now you have a president who got elected on a platform of islamophobia so it is quite predictable that when you have leaders using language of that kind in essentially giving a green lights for these types of bigoted sentiments that that is going to lead to these types of crimes in society but others a lot of people as a kid trump of spring anti muslim sentiment across the country but research from the pew research center shows that a growing number of americans are actually becoming more sympathetic towards muslims as muslim discrimination a part of the u.s. mainstream media stereo or is tom's anti islam rather exemplary i don't know maybe having a reverse of fact i think is having a reverse effect because a lot of people are starting to see the discrimination against muslims in the

united states or people from middle eastern background a lot of the people that are being discriminated against are actually not muslims but they're being perceived to be middle easterners and muslims there's a lot of people who started to realize that that's no different from the discrimination that earlier and continuously is taking place against the african-american community or other communities and as a result it should be opposed in the same way but while the number of people who are opposed to islam before you have increased it doesn't mean that islamophobia attacks and crimes will not increase that small minority that hold those views feel emboldened and empowered by the rhetoric and by the policy initiatives of the trumpet ministration i think that's the reason why we're seeing an increasing number of such crimes so we are now witnessing a rise of the extreme right or america white supremacist groups filled by racial

tensions do you think this stand of is going to be strictly left versus right. versus neo nazi or are muslims in danger as well. well i think we first have to recognize that while there is a minority that is perpetrating some of these crimes and while there is a political. element centuries of white house itself that is. to certain extent allowing this to happen and even from owning it through their policy initiatives the united states as a whole as your own statistics showed is actually starting to unite against these types of crimes we saw people were protesting at the airports when this was happening we saw how the courts have shot down president trump's efforts to institutionalize discrimination against muslims and middle easterners through the travel and the muslim ban for instance so i think the elements inside of the american society that that actually can battle this and i can bring about

a much more tolerant society definitely are there i think actually they are having momentum on their side but the reason why we're seeing this is because they don't have the presidency on their side right now and then there's the other side of islamophobia the fact that it is brought up any time someone says anything critical about islam. do you feel that the non muslim majority has concerns and fears aren't being addressed properly since people who raised their voices are branded bigots and so. i'm not sure if that's the case i don't know if i agree with your premise but i do believe that you have this scenario in which if you want to raise question marks etc there's a way to do it and there's a way not to do it if you are essentially putting all one billion people in the same category or you're essentially treating ice's as if it's a representative of one billion muslims and clearly people are going to be raising concerns about bigotry and quite correctly so if there's an academic conversation

about a theological conversation of islam that would be a completely different thing that's not what we're seeing what we're seeing is that if there is an attack by someone who's been radicalized in the united states which was the case with a terrorist act in manhattan a two or so weeks ago that immediately the political establishment on the trump pushes for new immigration measures that are completely unfounded but when you have a gentleman go in and massacre people in churches we cannot have any conversation about gun control i think you see that this is a political problem this is not an issue in which people are shutting down debate or that we cannot have a conversation about islam. those conversations have can be had but not if they are put in the language of bigotry then that's completely self-defeating for those people raising it like there's that in the recent terror attack in new york was

conducted by and radicalized in the united states are not of boston bombers as well as they were attackers were u.s. citizens so was the latest terror attack seven being done by a homegrown terrorist tell me why are american muslims radicalized and. well your question right there is false you say why are american muslims radicalizing you're speaking as if every american muslim is radicalized that's not the case you have examples of people being radicalized in the muslim community you have examples of people being radicalized in non muslim communities and we saw an entire march of neo nazis in charlottesville those were not muslims who had been radicalized in the united states so when you mention that you know we can't talk about islam without being finger pointed of being bigots well if you phrase the question the way that you just did then that is not a fair way of asking that question that is frankly

a bigoted way of asking that question ok exactly and the moderate muslims american muslims are trying hard to spread the message that islam is a religion of peace however the actions of radicals the radical people one hundred times stronger and perswading the public otherwise can you blame americans who are feeling scared of muslims. first of all i am myself not a muslim and i think this question is actually not about islam for say we're not having a theological conversation in the united states about this i think is media is presenting perpetrators of terrorist attacks as representatives of an entire community or an entire religion then eventually you're going to have politicians who will try to benefit and further advance these bigoted notions and use it as a political. platform for themselves that can get into the presidency that's

exactly what is happening if we don't want to see these things happening it should also start with the media having a much more neutral and much more academic and correct view of looking at these things because you cannot on the one hand promote the notion that any act that is taking place is a representative an entire community and then be surprised that people might become scared of that community that there's a very logical link in between those two the question is are there networks out there are deliberately promoting these types of views and then there's always also the use a word terrorism. that is used on cautiously i believe towards muslims because the where is surely moderate shootings done by near nazis in america are in classified as terrorism by the authorities a white supremacist rams a car into a crowd and then the president blames both sides but a similar attack done by a muslim is immediately branded terrorism which it undoubtedly is of course but why

the discrepancy it's a great question why is it if so even in some cases in which there has been american muslims who have been radicalized in the united states or in some cases may not actually have been radicalized but may be suffering from completely different other issues and then just use isis as. it were. of justifying their horrible acts that they're doing even then we're very quick to call that terrorism whereas when we have examples in which someone even walks into a church and expresses political motives which is what happened in the south of the united states not this recent attack in texas but the previous one in which he said that he wanted to have a racial war he expressed clear political motives it was still not categorized as an act of terror in fact as the police arrested him they made sure that they can stop by at burger king and make and feed him to forty continue on to the prison these are clear discrepancies and these are some of the things that are causing

a lot of people a lot of concern about whether the law is being treated equally but i can share a break right now on what we're back we'll talk about the future of the nuclear deal with the parson the lists the obama administration's informal role iran advisor during those historic talks stay with us.

it's the cradle of jazz. very good we. took those disjuncts feeling. a city of climatic catastrophes of alligators on the loose of poverty and crime to use by the at least twelve members of my family close most. of street racing in the heat of the night this is new orleans. the best place in the word.

kids. does she don't consume don't tell you that in talking to them joking their own posting them on the bus from that equal distance is awesome into what he calls a stance make that connection don't. don't pretend to know him do they deal with that to those wooden ministers solicitous of us at all to the sitting on. the.

our back was trade up r.c. had of the national iranian american council who was also an informal adviser to the obama administration during nuclear talks with iran discussing president trump middle policies but first i still want to ask you a few questions about. what happened the tax. heaven tacker said he was radicalized in response to u.s. bombings in iraq last year or londo klopp shooter said his attack was a response to u.s. bomb makes in afghanistan i mean the logic of terrorists is of course hard to explain but is it maybe not today we're into saying that there would be fewer terrorist attacks in the us of us didn't bomb all those places in the middle east

certainly their views inside of the us government itself. memos which former bush officials made it's quite clear that they believe that their campaign is producing more terrorists than actually eliminating terrorists so there's definitely elements there. which is that all of these foreign interventions. tend to radicalize people and as a result bring some of the terror all the way back to the united states but there are other elements as well such as the u.s. support for saudi arabia centrally turning a blind eye to the tremendous. funding and other forms of ideological and logistical support has been provided by saudi arabia to terrorist networks and because the saudis are allies of the united states the us essentially has continuously turned a blind eye. to we're talking about double standards how can trump say

whatever it is that he's saying about islam and muslims then you know go on trips to saudi arabia and do you like great business with them you are no stranger to diplomacy tell me are things like this just being me to good by diplomatic language . certainly not i think we this is a double standard this is something that a lot of people here in washington are also quite concerned about that the united states currently on the trumpet ministration have essentially written the saudis a cast of launch in which they can do almost anything they want and they can count on u.s. support what is happening right now in lebanon is causing a lot of concern because if here is to be such that the saudis are preparing for a military confrontation in some form of a coordination with the israelis and whether they have received the green light from the united states or not they appear to believe that they have it or that they will get it and i don't see how that actually is advancing stability in the region

nor do i see how that is advancing u.s. interests in the region but the u.s. and saudi arabia have recently scolded iran for helping us in yemen and trouble israeli friendly with the saudi leadership the seaview iran through saudi glasnost i think trump had almost no perspective on iran prior to running for office and at this moment it seems that his perspective is almost exclusively one that is informed by the saudis when it comes to iran and again it's not to make the argument that the saudis don't have legitimate concerns they do and so do the iranians the question is where is the u.s. perspective in all of this the united states is not and cannot be a proxy of the saudis because they have their own interests and they're pursuing them right now so i can understand why the saudis perhaps thought that this is a good moment to escalate tensions i don't understand why that would be a good thing from the u.s. perspective and that's where

a lot of concern is coming in which is is donald trump pursuing u.s. interests here or is he essentially just being led around by the saudis on this issue and of course the iran nuclear deal your big topic trump is now looking to sabotage seems to work seem to work ok. they under obama and the u.s. didn't get a nuclear iran iran got the sanctions lifted why is this white house team so how band scuttling this still isn't good for the u.s. i certainly think it's good for the u.s. you have the secretary of state the secretary of defense to chairman of the chiefs joints of staff. i believe even mcmaster all recognizing that it lies in the interest of the united states to continue with the nuclear deal they may have some concerns about certain aspects of it but that does not mean that a complete sabotage of the deal or a killing of it is in the interests of the u.s. this is entirely driven by trump himself and his motivations are not entirely clear

there are a couple of contending factors they may be mutually may not be mutually exclusive such as the fact that he simply opposes anything that obama has achieved and as a result he is adamantly against this nuclear deal for no other reason that it has obama's name on it you have the israeli and the saudi factor again the saudis and the israelis want the united states to come back into the region as a strong military dominant military power and reestablish the balance of power that existed in the region prior to two thousand and three necessitates no diplomacy with iran no deal with iran because any deal with iran would actually resolve some of those tensions between the u.s. and iran and the saudis don't want to see that happening they want the u.s. to come back in and provide saudi arabia with security and balance saudi arabia's own rivals in the region that is part of the reason i would say the main reason as

to why does sound he's have been so adamantly against a nuclear deal so what do you think will have never hit his feelings about the iran deal but he never openly vowed to scrap it he said the deal needs to be actually did then he said what do you rania's go for it all he actually said. no one will go for renegotiation the russians will not go for you negotiation the chinese dirani ins and the europeans made it very clear during their visit here in washington this week they will not call for any renegotiation. and trump said at his press conference that he wants to see congress change the terms of the deal if congress doesn't do so he said he will terminate the deal himself that's the words he used he said he will terminate it so how far he and occasionally incidentally on how far will he go to kill if he can go the full distance he could in december decide not to renew the waivers the u.s. sanctions have not actually been lifted they have been waived which means that

every ninety or hundred twenty days they need to be re waived the next deadline for that is in december mid of december if he doesn't do and then then the united states is in clear violation of the deal and we're one significant step closer to or seeing the deal being killed so what level of health style action is a going to take for iran to consider the deal cancelled and its nuclear program if . trump does not renew the waivers and if it leads to a lot of companies not entering the iranian market a potentially even leaving the iranian markets then the benefits for iran to be compliance with the deal which they currently are will essentially have been evaporated and i doubt moment i fear that we may see the iranians taking the first steps towards restarting the nuclear program which will only further ratchet up tensions and further increase the risk of war thus the big danger here this is not just about killing the nuclear deal this is automatically putting the united states

on a path towards a military confrontation in the region well like you wrote when obama was trying to make a deal with iran he had a choice of nuclear iran a war since trump now wants to cancel the deal does that mean he wants war. if he counsels a nuclear deal he will likely end up only facing two options war or accepting a nuclear iran since it's clear he doesn't want to have a nuclear iran one has to ask oneself is he doing it because he wants to drive things towards a war but from a security standpoint with us involved in iraq and afghanistan want to war with iran be a disaster for those two complains and how's it going to be better for american security situation it will be a disaster for the united states it will be a disaster for most of the region it will be a disaster for the iranians obviously the instability will spread elsewhere potentially all the way to russia i think the only ones who calculate that this

could be beneficial to them is the israelis and the saudis who believe that iran has become too powerful day themselves are not capable of pushing back iraq or reducing iran's influence so they want the united states to do it for them and trump seems to be more than willing to play along with the game but besides these two countries and potentially the u.a.e. i have a hard time seeing anyone calculating that this will be to their benefit i also happen to believe that the israelis and the saudis and the u.a.e. are miscalculating i think it's going to end up being a disaster for them as well i don't see any winners in this war tell me and show me the logic what is behind the american establishment of iran i mean american gulf allies have no fear of human rights problems or foreign policy mishaps than tehran letting alone like you yet have to show me like a she muscle in terrorists has blown up something lately everyone who blow something up lately are from the other side yet it's iranians who are seen as the

face of evil it seems quite irrational to me why is that happening who benefits from this. you mentioned something we looked at the state department's list of terrorist organization recently and forty plus of all of the organizations on that list are sunni or wahabi organizations with one connection or another to saudi arabia only to have direct links to the iranian government yet as you mentioned all of the focus is on iran and we're doing everything we can to turn a blind eye on the very very negative activities of the saudis why is that you know washington is a city that is susceptible to a lot of foreign influence and clearly there has been a lot of saudi foreign influence in the city we saw in there obama that there was a deliberate effort to be able to reduce america's dependence on saudi arabia now we're going in the opposite direction but i do believe that obviously there are

historical reasons for the iranians and the americans to have about relations and it goes both ways there's a lot of people inside of the iranian government the still cannot let go of the united states as an enemy but what we're seeing now is a deliberate effort to ratchet dees tensions up to ratchet up these images you've hit it on the nail and tell me briefly america's distrust of iran is neutral right to set your iranian leaders are also saying that america is iran is number one enemy etc etc is any sort of tween these two nations just an illusion briefly increase. no on the on the contrary we had a deal we had the nuclear deal it was put together by the us iran and five other countries it was a tremendous success up until this point there's been eight reports by the i.a.e.a. who have stated clearly that the iranians are complying with the deal if doubt diplomacy had been built upon if it had been continued we could have also seen

a reduction of tensions in other areas i don't think the united states and iran ever would become partners or allies. at least not on the current government in iran but they could lose each other as enemies they could tactically and strategically collaborate in areas of common interest and then compete with each others in areas where they don't have common interests but he wouldn't be characterized as a relationship characterized by enmity it would be simply a much more complex relationship that opportunity to lose each other as enemies is the opportunity that donald trump is destroying by going down the path of killing the iran deal. all right thank you very much for this interesting inside trita parsi were talking to have you or are you still iranian american council and obama's administration informal adviser during talks with iran discussing president transmittal is certain policies on the future of the iran daylon that's it for this

latest edition of surfing call see you next time. thank you. they all. will this is all the roots. lifts. leg.

lifts. child slaves same wrong. clothes just don't call. to shape our. lives to add to it and it. equals betrayal. when so many find themselves worlds apart. just to look for common ground.

cut cut. cut cut cut. cut the. kid up last. time. commanding him. don't see don't consume don't jail you've been talking to the whole joyful there in the pacific on the first song that are equal when it's on to some songs on what he calls a still small farm going to. consult on the downswing the will move up to those all morning as the silence is a downside as it all took to sitting on. a

plate for many clubs over the years so i know the game and so i got. the ball isn't only about what happens on the pitch to the funnel school it's about the passion from the fans it's the age of the superman to just kill you narrowness and spending to do the twenty million one fly a. book it's an experience like nothing else on here because i want to share what i think what i know about the beautiful guy a great so well paul transfer. and thinks it's going to. when lawmakers manufacture consent to stoop to public wealth. when the

ruling classes protect themselves. in the final merry go round listen to the one percent. we can all middle of the room sick. the real news room. whenever you buy russian products. you're not just going to get some quality. for the little visit soon as we.

look. at. the last leg of the dole trumps asian tourist sees the us leader in the philippines for his visit has been met by violent protests but you know it will be a true group moratorium on the us president is again offering to help mediate in the region's conflicts us he delivers into the side china sea disputes we look closer at his arbitration efforts. unprecedented deal between russia and the kurdish military helped bring dozens of children safely home from syria after their parents joined islamic state. plus this hour it depicts is sparked in front so as officials propose to lower the age of consent to thirteen after a month is acquitted of.