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 middle the. at least two to play a 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 improve 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

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 hedge 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. 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

cover for destabilizing syria then moving on to try to destroy hezbollah law and weaken the islamic republic of iran. the latest leap of violence in syria comes as the top u.s. diplomat arrives to the russian capital with moscow and washington deeply polarized on any peace plan for the syrian standoff the mission of secretary john kerry may become more than challenging artie's alexia joining me live here on r t with more details on this program alexey good to see you this morning i'm hearing right now here at r.t. that john kerry's plane has landed at this moment at moscow's airport i'm sure he'll have a variety of issues to discuss with the top russian officials one of them perhaps no one might expect syria well clearly we understand that john kerry is in moscow to seek russia's support in resolving the syrian conflict but experts are at dismay as to how exactly he's going to get this support given that the stance of moscow and washington have been fundamentally different on the syrian conflict just twenty four hours before john kerry landed in moscow a spokesperson for the russian foreign minister

cover for destabilizing syria then moving on to try to destroy hezbollah law and weaken the islamic republic of iran. now the latest leap of violence in syria comes as the top u.s. diplomat has arrived here to the russian capital with moscow and washington deeply polarized on any peace plan for the syrian standoff but the mission of secretary john kerry may become even more challenging. to shift as more. u.s. state secretary john kerry is in moscow to seek russia's support in resolving the syrian conflict but experts are added dismay as to exactly how he is going to get that support given that the positions of moscow and washington on the syrian conflict have been fundamentally different just twenty four hours before john kerry landed in moscow or the spokesperson on the russian foreign ministry alexander said that russia has been concerned with the militarization of the syrian rebels by the western countries the u.s. have been expressing their regret all along that the syrian conflict has been going on for more than two years now with so many people dead at the same time the initiatives are which a

cover for destabilizing syria then moving on to try to destroy hezbollah law and weaken the islamic republic of iran. well the latest leap of violence in syria comes as the top u.s. diplomat heads to the russian capital but with moscow and washington deeply polarized on any peace plan for the syrian standoff the mission of secretary of state john kerry may become more challenging than ever artie's alexia share skin are joining me live with details on this looming visit here in moscow alexi good to see you not impossible to imagine that syria will dominate the talks. well it's kerry's first visit to the russian capital after becoming these day sacred united states and of course he's got a very busy day ahead of him many issues will be discussed in the u.s. russian cooperation with clearly and that's not a secret to anyone that the syrian conflict will dominate the talks that's where washington and moscow have been having very different opinions on how the conflict should be resolved we understand that kerry will be trying to persuade more of that there was a chemical weapons attack by the syrian rebe

must come to terms with the islamic republic of iran there's just a.

cover for destabilizing syria then moving on to try to destroy hezbollah law and we can be islamic republic of iran meanwhile in the u.s. senate says how the gnostic can see that providing weapons to see iran rebels a bill allowing the move will set tonight said despite claims by a senior at you an investigator that the syrian opposition might have already resulted to using chemical weapons on his correspondent in washington going to chicken house cities have. washington is inching closer to arming the rebels this monday the chairman of the senate foreign relations committee introduced a bill that would provide weapons to quote some varied groups of syrian rebels the chairman of the senate foreign relations committee also said the u.s. must act to tip the scales in favor of the opposition so we see washington trying to decide the outcome of the civil war in syria this monday the white house has basically brushed off the latest findings of the u.n. human rights commission wish that the syrian rebels may have used the deadly sarin nerve gas here is a leading u.n. investigators saying she was quote st

cover for destabilizing syria then moving on to try to destroy hezbollah law and weaken the islamic republic of iran. well the latest violence in syria comes just as the top u.s. diplomat heads to the russian capital but with moscow and washington deeply polarized on any peace plan for the syrian standoff the mission of secretary john kerry may become more than challenging artie's election or chefs the now joining me live more details on this good to see you might imagine though the issues with syria taking center stage with john kerry's debut visit to moscow today. well we understand that lots of different issues will be on the table because it's the first visit of john kerry to moscow as the u.s. state secretary but clearly it's no secret to anyone that syrian conflict will be talking the agenda of the talks that's where moscow and washington have been having some serious fundamental differences on their takes on how this conflict should be resolved understand that first of all in the first place russia's concerns over the latest militarization claims militarisation calls in syria will be discusse

i think the difference would be just that egypt 30 years later and we have the iranian islamic republic of iran as an example of a fundamentalist state can look like and it isn't necessarily so pretty. an economic basket case, very unstable and so even though the islamist right now are cementing their power over politics in egypt, i wonder if they are going to go quite so far as the iranians have and i wonder if there is at least some extent to which that mantle deters them from absolute power. right now it does not look very good but the big difference is also that the people in charge of egypt now are not clerics. they are not members of the theocratic regime. they are members of the muslim brotherhood who have appointed themselves to be defenders of religious politics in egypt. i think that also colors the situation a little differently but for the moment of course it does not look very good. >> host: in a way everything is relative because we go from iran to afghanistan which has an even more tragic narrative over the last 30 years and it depends in many ways with the soviet tanks rolling i

of who makes decisions in today's islamic republic. who can we negotiate with? and that is another striking thing was the internal division of the highest level and how we should approach this much more threatening iran, and from the very beginning you chronicled how the secretary of state had one point of view very much in favor of negotiating the more conservatory stance. brzezinski at the time, national security adviser to president carter to combat a harder line if you change names in history you can be talking about writing a story on today's front-page about the internal divisions. >> guest: i think those things are very similar to the. the thing what was new and then of course is that nobody had ever encountered an islamic revolutionary movement like this. people didn't know what to make of it. people at the time were looking for all kinds of comparisons. there were people comparing ayatollah khomeini ghandi peay it was that simple. when you look at this policy few, that isn't putting too much on it, between the secretary of state, the national security adviser at the time you see competing views on what this means, what's going on here, and because a was very hard to understand at halftime. o

think the difference with egypt is that egypt is 30 years later, and we have the iranian -- islamic republic of iran as an example've what a fundamentalist state can look like, and it ain't necessarily so pretty, right? it's an economic basket case. very, very chaotic, very unstable. and so even though the islamists right now are cementing they're power over politics in egypt, wonder if they are going to go quite so far as the iranians have. i wonder if there isn't at least some extent to which that example deters them from absolute power. we'll see. right now doesn't look very good. but of course, the big difference is also that the people in charge in egypt now are not clerics. they're not members of a theocratic regime. they're just members of the muslim brotherhood who have appointed. thes to be the defenders of religious politics in egypt. so, i think that also colors the situation differently. but for the moment, of course, it doesn't look very good. >> host: well, doesn't look very good. in a way -- we go from iran to afghanistan, which has an even more tragic narrative over the last 30 years

and there's a lot of resentment inside iran even among people who support the islamic republic as a regime there's a lot of resentment about the fact that there is a crass of society, people associated with the revolutionary guards, people associated with the regime who do very, very far, very well economically and live very well and go around throwing their weight around when there's people who are suffering. so that legitimacy is gone, wasn't -- it was there at the beginning of the revolution. the beginning of the revolution anybody who had a mercedes kept it in the garage because they didn't want to be seen to be wealthier than anybody else. today there are due catties in iran and ferraris in iran when people who, you know, can't even feed tear families. so that legitimacy's gone. the only legitimacy they have left in iran really is this legitimacy of an independent state that's going to fight for the iranian nation's rights regardless of what the regime is. now, for the people of iran we are always, as americans, we're always interested in other cultures and what the political systems

that was right after the islamic revolution inside iran and that fed what we've seen since 1979 in the rise of the islamic republic. we have seen them really try to spread the influence. levitan and the palestinians territories and a rock and syria. -- iraq and syria. you see them try to push back the influence. that is why it is such a nasty conflict. it is a secretary and regional conflict, that has ethnic and tribal elements. the united states is in the middle of it. it is not something that will be solved in a few years. it has been playing out for a long time and is likely to. when secretary gates talked about getting involved in the cereal war, it is more than the just that, getting involved in a regional conflict. and how much can we really shape it. and a lot of ways we are still trying to police it. because of the religious element, there is no easy answer and a lot of ways. host: david from arkansas. you are talking to jay solomon of "the wall street journal." go ahead. caller: as an individual watching things happening in washington, i would never forget when barack obama made a statement that i did not

huge gap in wealth between the haves and the have-knots and a lot of resentment in iran, even among people who support the islamic republic as a regime. there's a lot of resentment about there's a class of the society and people associated with the revolutionary guards and the regime who do very well economically and live very well and go around throwing their weight around when there's people who are suffering. so that legitimacy is gone. it was there at the beginning of the revolution. anybody who had a in other words kept it in the garage because they didn't want to seem to be wealthier than anyone else and today there are bugatis and ferraris in iran for people who cannot make their -- can't even feed their families. that legitimacy is gone. the only legitimacy they have left in iran really is this legitimacy of an independent state that will fight for the nation's rights regardless what the regime is. now, for the people of iran, we are always as americans, ear always interested in other cultures and what the political systems are and whether the dictatorship is cruel and the people of regime want the regime to be in

that was right after the islamic revolution inside iran and that fed what we've seen since 1979 in the rise of the islamic republic. we have seen them really try to spread the influence. levitan and the palestinians territories and a rock and syria. -- iraq and syria. you see them try to push back the influence. that is why it is such a nasty conflict. it is a secretary and regional conflict, that has ethnic and tribal elements. the united states is in the middle of it. it is not something that will be solved in a few years. it has been playing out for a long time and is likely to. when secretary gates talked about getting involved in the cereal war, it is more than the just that, getting involved in a regional conflict. and how much can we really shape it. and a lot of ways we are still trying to police it. because of the religious element, there is no easy answer and a lot of ways. host: david from arkansas. you are talking to jay solomon of "the wall street journal." go ahead. caller: as an individual watching things happening in washington, i would never forget when barack obama made a statement that i did not

that was right after the islamic revolution inside iran and that fed what we've seen since 1979 in the rise of the islamic republic have seen them really try to spread the influence. levitan and the palestinians territories and a rock and syria. and syria. you see them try to push back the influence. that is why it is such a nasty conflict. secretary and regional conflict, that has ethnic and tribal elements. the united states is in the middle of it. it is not something that will be solved in a few years. it has been playing out for a long time and is likely to. when secretary gates talked about getting involved in the cereal war, it is more than the just that, getting involved in a regional conflict. and how much can we really shape it. and a lot of ways we are still trying to police it. because of the religious element, there is no easy answer and a lot of ways. david from arkansas. you are talking to jay solomon of "the wall street journal." go ahead. caller: as an individual watching things happening in washington, i would never forget when barack obama made a statement that i did not really quite understand,

of iran's immediate neighbors across the water. it is known that several arab governments have a problem with the islamic republic in tehran. but what if the public opinion over the last decade we have polled on this issue regional attitude towards iran and its policies have been an issue that we have explored now going back ten years culminated in 2012 with this big study we polled 20,000 people in 20 countries, 17 and up and turkey, azerbaijan and pakistan. and that results are in the book looking at iran. it's available on amazon indian ebook form but i have copies for sale here but if you want to go on and on and get the e-book form, i would appreciate it, my brother would appreciate it and my family will appreciate it and i think that you will learn something from it. i want to talk a little about the results today and the attitude towards iran, its people and its nuclear program in particular. there's been some dramatic changes on what we find out. we also find out that drivers behind the changes, for example when we pulled on the nuclear program and attitudes towards iran and the broad policy in the region in 2006 ir

iran has the oil money, the islamic republic is not alone with this in the united states. this is benefiting us. they don't have to see any change. they will go out of their way and in addition to that, there are no benefits to the islamic republic. we remember what happened in 1917. they remember the war and it is not that they like this, but they are very much afraid of any institutional breakdown. especially if they don't see another alternative. and they are happy to see some change. rather than a big institutional change, probably instability or violence and then going to what they did 35 years ago. >> i thank you very much. i would like to open up the questions from the audience. we have a microphone that will come around and if you could please briefly say your name before the question. we will start right here in the front. >> okay. my question is what is the significance of the election and the negotiations. particularly into non-a lot. especially in regards to what you suggested that i show a round of hands, so i will take a few questions and then we will take questions as well. >> thank you so much for having such a political system. in r

iran had the oil money. the islamic republic does not need to get lost in the united states. so it has the money to buy equipment, to create its own force ofbesiege on the revolutionary guard. the besiege on the revolutionary guard are benefiting hugely. they don't want to see any change. talk a lot of their way to suppress any pro-democracy protests. in addition to that, there are no alternatives to the islamic republic. iranians remember what happened in 1879. they remember the bloodshed afterwards and it's not that they like the islamic republic, but they are very much afraid of any kind of institutional breakdown, especially as long as they don't see another alternative. boost re: was the mandate that could bring some little change and they are happy to see some grassroots slow change rather than big institutional change, probably instability and then going through what they did 35 years ago. >> thanks very much. at this point i'd like to open up the floor to questions from the audience. we have a microphone that will come around if you could please vapor the microphone and if you could briefly state her name and affiliation. we'll sta