destruction of libya or the failure to achieve any of the american objectives in syria how come that the two years of the. administration which you can argue have an inch of much but didn't do much harm in terms of lives lost are described as an ass show but the obama policy doesn't quite rise to that when it comes to the middle east term policy is not that much different from that it is very much expressing the increasing opinion in the american public that it's time for the us to get out of the mideast the middle east as it is seen by the majority of the americans as being if a teacher is that we have spent blood and treasure in it over years decades and we have not gotten anything in return and so what trump is doing today in syria with his decision last december to disengage from syria of to withdraw from syria is very much a continuation of the obama policy when in two thousand and eleven he decided to

also and. what matters in professional circles is not intentions but the results of that policy and it's quite clear that in terms of the results trunk the traumatization hasn't yet done as much damage to the region as the obama administration did willingly or not is it fair again to describe. the term policies in such profound ways and be so civil and polite about the obama's resolve look i will disagree with you in terms of what obama has done personally i think he has not done enough that's my problem with obama has is that children have to learn to not i think in syria for example in two thousand and thirteen when there was a threat of and we knew that the assad regime was about to use chemical weapons on a wide scale like he has done in. and already in two thousand and twelve obama has established that line in the sand about the use of chemical weapons i think in syria in two thousand and thirteen the obama administration should have responded

with force and eliminate the capacity of the syrian regime to use helicopters and other if forced to draw better bombs of people said that is a mistake i think it was a mistake for obama for example to exit in iraq in two thousand and eleven when iraq was not dead yet or do iraqi military and police were not dead yet to deal with what we knew then an emerging terrorists threat which eventually happened in two thousand and fourteen when asked if the all that or more so that's still not enough to call it a show it's still a balancing game no i think it is a balancing in terms of its intent but in terms of its outcome it was catastrophic specially in syria and iraq that i would not disagree with you but in terms of the iranian gulf in terms of dealing with iran i think the iranian deed was the right course to pursue because it eliminated its threat of nuclear weapons from the equation and created in opening forward in new the set of the relations between the united states and iran relations which until now have been you know marred by

distrust by by a conflict if we can put it now the americans are usually blamed russia for interfering with their designs in syria and judging from your twitter and you express that here as well that you believe that the obama administration could have done more to push a little bit against russia's actions what exactly could washington have done while . the russians made a decision to enter syria think my argument is that america could have done more in two thousand and thirteen there were two points in the conflict where an intervention could have adverse effect of the conflict and opened the space for to a negotiated settlement of the conflict but eventually what became known as you know they were actually thought you were three but they obama administration rejected all those up a chair just because they wanted to have a side out as the precondition well in terms of the conditions of the conflict and that there are two times when the conflict and when the syrian government could have an intervention could have pushed the syrian government syrian regime to

a negotiated settlement to negotiate a settlement and it wasn't was it was as it is being pushed all along i mean from the russian point of view the syrians were open for negotiation all is not as long as they keep calling all the opposition terrorists i mean for them all the positions that while the other side meaning washington calls the elected or the legitimate president of syria the murderer of his own people i mean he is a murderer of his own people he dropped out of bombs you c.w. against his people but definitely i mean i don't know you know this is in dispute this notion especially in this city i mean that when it comes to the use of better bombs and chemical weapons spent over the last few years and using the same kind of weaponry in syria or in iraq and they are using chemical weapons in syria then they don't all kinds of bombs dealt using chemical weapons in syria and you know that russia does not agree with your position that chemical weapons were used by the government forces in syria you know there's a disagreement there of course this is a game but there are just recently it has been you and commissions which have said

that ninety nine percent of the chemical weapons were used by the city of sheep i mean i'm not say a message i'm not using you as support i'm saying you and collateral in the lead let's not waste our time on that kind of argument because we will never agree on that but what is more interesting for me is this idea that washington could have done more to repel the russians and you know that the russian eric. if here is that there to fall to the jihad this that narrative was actually corroborated by secretary kerry later on if russians had not done it if they remained on the fans why would have become of syria by the by the way agree with the negatives that want us to intervene in two thousand and fifteen and that was what i was referring to second time. the regime was definitely on the ropes and there was if there was a possibility of a. takeover by she had to groups i am a proponent of us russian collaboration in the middle east i mean inspection in syria and i think we have missed

a number of opportunities. where there was possible for the americans and the russians to work together. in the conflict and on you know moving if there was some kind of negotiation and again we're going to disagree on that many times when when there was when there us push for deescalation when there was was for negotiation the sat is you by the syrian regime is to basically lay siege to opposition area to starve people and you know that either to kid or starve that has been the strategy and we have seen so far from the from the stall geneva negotiation process is that despite the push by the russians it is a positive push for prosecution of committee and that is something that has to be you know appreciated by all despite the push for negotiation we are seeing is that is increasingly the cult sits and to engage in he has negotiations with them that there are the syrian regime is actually pretty cooperative at this point of time

but i want to ask you something else you mentioned in the beginning of our conversation that you see the obama policy as a balancing act and russians to think that they're engaged in some sort of balancing act not only in syria but within the broader region conceptually what's the difference and how the kremlin and the obama white house approach that game i don't know if you you can see it in syria russia is engaged. unbalancing i mean that's what it is that you did not think with one side of the conflict but with all due respect i think even nonprofessional observers could see that the difference in my opinion and tell me if i'm wrong within the russians and the americans is that the americans managed to aljunied that allies but the russians managed to build some sort of a relationship with their adversaries the turks you know a few years ago our relationship was very bad then the saudis they read tarot eason and everybody else that's how can you say that russia has no them gives them the balancing advantage couldn't it but at the same time russia is having problems with its own allies in syria and probably difficult i mean it is very difficult and i

think you know primarily it's with it ons and it oncet all in syria i think that russia and iran do not share the same objectives about the future of syria i think . a lot of the future of syria is a secular state was strong state institutions whereas i think it on your perspective about the sutured of syria is definitely not a strong state rather it's a weak state where you have groups that are aligned with iran that have you know the overall the power to be able to play in interest in politics we see the same think with it on the same goal you non-playing in in iraq we are seeing the same rule iran is playing in lebanon with the support of proxy parties that are non-state and that are on some i will definitely ask you more questions about iran but let me ask you one question or two perhaps about the trump of ministration policies because you are so critical of it and so colorful in your criticism of a. clearly has a very different approach he is actually supporting one side here there is very

well when it comes to his policy a lot of unpredictability you yourself wrote that he essentially wrote. threw a wrench into the iranian russian turkish x. is that most value so much if you'd asked something that to disadvantage russia is that actually no. a good policy as far as the americans are concerned look i think i'm the last one to defend the top administration especially asleep at will i'm trying to yes and he doing something else something good if you are considering that not from the syrian point of view not from the original point of view but from them american point of view if you see a russia as an enemy if you don't want russia's influence to increase isn't he actually doing that i mean the trump does not see us as an enemy we have to make them reality as many arab believe the six are between and between the rest of them a state a but i and you would probably not want russia to strengthen its position too much in the region so do you see russia i don't think to be very honest right now

especially if we take the american public that make up it does not as i said earlier wants to get out of the region does not see that is that if there are a lot of people in washington in the academic and think tank and it was to punish russia including for its roads into syria don't you think they should celebrate what trump is doing what trump is doing in a way i mean there are different camps looking at trump's kid there is one camp that celebrates strong decision to exclude itself under the east and that's very much the base of trump that is the traditional republican party that sees it all for america. and it is also the base of the trump approved israel that did not want to run to extricate itself from seed in fact there are this is a camp that's pushing trump to either delay indefinitely his the withdrawal of u.s. troops from syria or at least to keep some presence of military presence of u.s. military presence in studio like the example in the tenth because looks like this

is exactly what he has been doing because it's been more than sixty days since here made that announcement and from what i hear from the russian military officials the them herrick and the american troops are still there and there is no movement in terms of relocation correct but i mean i am the way i see it i see the whole think it war and so it's so unpredictable because with the trump policy maybe up it's a bit and dignity is part of this. that is you don't know yet but what we have what i can see from my bush in washington d.c. is that definitely that is this debate on going to be about the timetable of withdrawal how much do you draw would definitely find that with the role but what i see us moving because of these competing camps inside the decision making process in the next state is that eventually there would be it would draw lead but i don't see it as being a total withdrawal that there would be so to meet the president kept his always there i mean it was there even before there wasn't as us but i mean the number of present the number and the bases the number of bases that are present i think

they're going to be shrunk definitely we are going to have some presence that's my prediction that i've seen we have to take a very short break now but we'll be back in just a few moments. with norm a guest manufacture consent to public will. when the ruling plus a summer project over. the final. listen to the woman. who ignore middle routes to. relieve.

my matches up. so there was a building also up. in the him about nutrition about how they. look . on the food of the little guy. at the moment the more not him i don't worry about. such isn't really. a mystery just. one of the dogs went. on to a show full stomach we had been done on the more. you'll get a little warmth and you know what.

shall i. go for this i know. what holds its institutions and. i put themselves on the line to get accepted or rejected. so when you want to be present injured. or somehow want to. have to go on to be close this is what before three of them or ten people get. interested always in the waters of how. things should be a. long

time back to one's apartment brad doesn't leave a director at the middle east in search of madam slim since mia started talking about. the trumpet ministrations policies in syria already let me ask one more question just. the other day trump twitted death here asked britain france germany and a number of other european allies to take back more than eight hundred isis fighters they americans have captured in syria and put them on trial which made some people in washington and many people in europe go completely bonkers what's so wrong about this kind of request and if there's anything wrong with that kind of quest i think the countries of origin of this fight so should take them on trial and it's not fair for the syrians and the iraqis who have suffered to basically now have to you know give them in i think it's only fair that these people be taken

back yes you know where well but there are there is a very strong official opposition to not only taking back those fighters but also to the return of their families that wives their children were they fear of. being radicalized and this is an interesting i think human rights issue because if you're really concerned about human rights you would want those kind of civilians to be taken back i mean especially the children i mean you cannot blame them for anything and they have i've seen many many reports in canada in germany in the united states expressing a very very strong opposition against taking those people back and i think that's shirking their responsibilities i totally agree with you children should not be you know should not pay for the sins of their parents and that there should be a separation between what needs to happen to the children who need to be brought back and between the husbands i mean between the fighters and their wives i think again we should not be as the union would wife's just because they have supporting

that husband they knew what they were doing there are other parts and so and of course the need to be separate issue between the who killed today to. versus the wives you know there's of course securing them foully it would be almost impossible but it because it's very difficult to collect evidence don't you think that they would present a serious security risk. they were definitely present a secretive sort of. to the country of origin but also these countries have had mechanisms in place and have had policies in place to be able to deal with security threats but saying that these people are not going to be back and we have these areas and they have lavish you have and we're going to keep them in syria we're going to keep them in iraq you know or we have to especially now we're going to keep up with the kurds i think that's not fair for the people of the region what i've suffered you know from these people now let me ask you about the recent past and the process in sochi there was a major meeting just recently which show that there are still major disagreements between the parties especially on the fate of the italy process but the russians

say that this will have to be solved one way or another by the real question is whether it can really be solved without some sort of a military intervention. coming more and more to the conclusion that military intervention is going to be to sort it live but as of now is like ninety percent of it is overtaken by the most and it's a failure i think it's going to be very hard to find it was she to solution with with them stop now then to there might be some limited intervention by to russia in its lip to try to limit or to try to diminish the military presence of japan and that could be done you know in some way i'm skeptical whether that is can be done and it seems to be a we are heading towards some kind of a little intervention but the price for that is going to be tremendous i remember when the russian offensive russian sarin offensive on the on the leper was ongoing people in the west and western countries were extremely extremely concerned about

the human rights even though the russians would tell you that they have the utmost care in order to limit the scope of that involvement do you think we are going to see the same kind of well i would say fake concern for the for the lives of civilians especially given what you said before that the western countries and not really eager to take civilians even though that own nationality back into their own . but i think i disagree with you on this idea of i think there were well i don't know years where he made those go where in the real you need to for facilitate some sort of solution to how those people yeah i agree with you and then and then the problem is going to be how you do that you know and the problem that now in it which is a very complex issue and that's why i understand the reluctance basically of the party especially of us and to keep from indorsing in military intervention which by the way has been pushed by the regime and iran for a long time and russia is the one ted has that has put the brakes on on this rush. to head on to do in military escalation and they continue to do that well the

question is that how can it be done in a way to minimize as much as possible civilian casualties the delay has been cause not only by russia but also by turkey. it's saying that it has difficulties separating the terrorists and up as well even that distinction really says i mean that putting that aside do you think it is genuinely difficult for ankara to do that or is it perhaps using those delays intentionally to push against russia's position in that i think. about this about the question the daylights facing it live. but the inability of the factions that they have backed you know inside the city in a position from pushing back against. again the question is that eventually a military approach seems to be the only one that's availing itself and if so how can it be done in a way to minimize as much as possible civilian casualties but also for us is to

minimize as much as possible the floor for refugees but i mean after all remember we have now close to three million syrians who have been pushed out of their areas in different parts of the mask by the syrian regime starvation and whatever. regime offensive against there is groups i don't know let's not know that important crowd of all women and children in debt are not. no no terrorism is an error to say that i women and children. who had gassed by that is i'm a man i mean you know you know the region very well you cannot argue that there were no other terrorist presence in that country not trying to force the syrian regime there but let's not pretend that. everything that assad was doing is just to kill innocent people for his own pleasure he was not a doing that you can criticize him on the conduct of his military offensive that's fair but saying that he was doing that for his own pleasure out of she was because today i'm not saying pleasure he was doing that to keep himself in power for the political survival because his job was and i wouldn't normally buy the so-called

moderate opposition kemal i saw in syria where the bioterrorism group all come on come on the first six to eight months of that if you should if you don't literally is light years after that i don't know i agree with you there was militarization of the opposition later on and there was islamisation of segments i'm not going to quibble with you with that but what started to the strategy by that is shimon us killing his way out of a crisis of legitimacy and governess in two thousand and eleven that was said to gee they can intentionally by as said and his clique in two thousand and eleven way way way way before that before that evolution became weaponized and way way way before they will usually get someone even if that was the case since then they sat in the assamese you was not the only government that reacted in a very hand having handed way to progress in its own kind using chemical weapons and battle gumps well. in daraa at that time there were no chemical weapons come on

no barrel bombs all the time there were children tortured i think that everybody knows that but they were in the chemical weapons anyway it's just that i do it especially when the weapons were starting to be used by this unit as you know in two thousand and twelve and they are now you and commissions that the court did that i'm not saying to defer to my deport or whatever i'm saying whatever macon's are saying the food to you and commissions that were formed by deny. nation investigates the use of chemical weapons who used it when when did it in the united nations does not exist in isolation and the united nations as you know better than i do in russia is a member of the united nations to get us up salute is these commissions are established by agreement by one of many overlaying r.c. of the ilo the international law as the basis for intervention americans are really you know they good position here but i don't want to spend our time talking about that because i mean those have been discussed so many for so many years i want to mention something that really struck me that i've never heard anyone articulate and

that i saw in your analysis about the iran's strategy for regional expansion you suggested that it is actually mining for opportunities from the awakening of the state structure in the middle is that has been going on for the last twenty years can you elaborate on that i mean if you remember the first intervention of iran's since after the islamic revolution and it's into that he was in one nine hundred eighty two when that at the time opened basically the gates of damascus for the iranian revolutionary guards to come to the north east in lebanon to train what eventually became his beloved but after this three invasion in one thousand and two and since then and one has to you know look at it and in the end it's a what iran has a shift in the region and really say they have been quite effective in expanding their legion presence i think there are two factors that have provided opportunities for iran to expand itself in the region and you don't use these

opportunities very well one fact to our blunders and mystics done by outsiders in their interventions in the region but example the aftermath of that you know of the u.s. invasion in iraq in two thousand and three the saudi you know intervention in yemen for example created opportunities for iraq to really embed in self in the region and iran has been opportunistic about that but this. eggen as you pointed out is this weakening of the state system which which created opportunities for iran to find allies inside each of these countries with which it has established these kind of relationship and empowered them to create both political presence as well as a military presence in the but this weakening of the space charters was. not only happening due to the obvious deficiencies of those states they were also actively aided the american policy actively went after the state structures both in iraq and later on in syria was it something that the americans recognize from from the start

of or perhaps they were absolutely ignorant of that i mean did they accept that as a as a necessary sacrifice i do with you that outside intervention as i said has contributed to this weakening of the state system but also i am i'm from the region and i think the major problem that has contributed to the state system is. up and of the social contract between citizens and government that was put in place in two of the region after independence you know in the different countries and different regimes so the uprising of two thousand and eleven where a continuation in a way of uprising that happened in two thousand and nine in iran when again people came to the streets to basically protests that they were having problems living with and coexisting with i think the same thing in the arab middle east that middle east all these uprisings where basically about saying you know the source of covenant the contract that we have had years and years of under does no longer work

for us citizens and we need to change it and different countries react differently and right now the success of the counter-revolution the movement whether it's led by states or non-state actor does not mean that this this need to revise and to come to a new negotiate a social contract has gone away while i'm out of them have loads of more questions but we have to leave it there thank you very much for your time it's been great pleasure talking to you thank you very much i encourage our viewers to keep this conversation going on our social media pages. same place same time here i will depart.

must need new software why is no good keep the slime due order for me do. you still . want. to see into the. most good movie in. the morning. that. no one.

heard the answer as a shot across asked strum ten years ago our stuff will happen now is so what's called deep globalization i'm sure they caused it but that's what's going on a lot of deed dollar as if. we came here where did you work before you came here when you live. in many us states capital punishment is still practiced convicted prisoners can spend years waiting for execution but most of the time the victims' families they are very much in favor of the death penalty. some people. have given up the right to live among us. through and. before we as a society realize this is not working and we actually do something about. the

. warnings that russia is ready to respond to threats with this new missile system. by targeting western capitals with. a confrontational step confrontational speech. a democrat questioning the nature of u.s. . sensitive nuclear technology. nuclear. threat to global peace.