and and this cannot be good for the rest of the world when the energy supplies in the middle east are going to be controlled by one bloc of powers and can therefore threaten the rest of the world with by cutting them off on the energy supplies so therefore this is something that is dangerous for the rest of the world and. ok i mean i think we all agree that saudi arabia is an important any to be a supplier but jason. what about the fact that it the united states in all three of us on this program agree about energy but so he really looks at it through religious prism ok sunni against shia in isn't that going to drag the united states into making choices that we you've already agreed to that are not convenient choices based on our values. peter it's an extremely messy world and it's a very messy region and the united states has very difficult options and sometimes very problematic friends but i think that given this very complicated equation that the united states has to play with and not just the united states i think that it's it's generally been on the right path of trying to su

what does this say about america's standing in the middle east in the future of international law. to cross out the ongoing conflict in syria i'm joined by george samuel in new york he is a fellow of the global policy institute of london metropolitan university and author of bombs for peace nato's humanitarian war on yugoslavia and in washington we cross to jason isaacson he is the american jewish committee director of government and international affairs all right gentlemen crosstalk rules in effect that means you can jump in anytime you want and i very much encourage it i want to make sure our guests understand and our audience that president obama has not decided at this point time as we're sitting down to regard this part of a program to attack syria so let's please keep that in mind george if i go to you first hear what you believe is the most important trend you see going on in the arab world from tunisia all the way to a as we speak right now with the situation the united states and syria what's the most important trend in your mind well i think the. most important trend is.

we begin with the middle east and tunisia. as aljazeera reports, the country where the arab spring began is in the middle of a new political crisis, with opponents demanding as they did two and a half years ago that the new government step down. >> the rapid overthrow of the president in january of 2011 acted as the spark to the tinder box of revolt in north carolina africa and the middle east that became known as the arab spring. protest and conflict reacted. tunisia's transition initially looked like it could be conflict free. a political party took the majority of seats in a peaceful election. the government was given one year to establish a new constitution, and hold elections. it didn't happen. the government called for imposition of sharia law and said women would be complementary to men, not equal, stoking fear among the middle class. after popular opposition leaders were killed in almost identical slayings in february and july, protests swelled to the thousands again, demanding the islamic government resign. >> we are d

sunni muslim strength in the middle east and thereby. iran and i think that what happened a few years later is the direct result of this and any the odd thing is that it was in libya they had actually pressured gaddafi to release the various islam is who he had imprisoned largely at the behest of the united states as part of the war on terror the extraordinary rendition program and so these very same people that got huffy had released and then joined forces with the united states and nato and sold to topple the regime and much the same is going on in syria where again the united states and saudi arabia got into bed with the muslim brotherhood there a few years before the uprising still plays ok jason it looks like intentional instability for the entire region it doesn't work out very well for american or western interests does it. thank you peter i just i might add my breath is taken away a little bit by george's last comment so let me just provide an alternative explanation for what's been happening across the region for the last couple

the part of the map that could be carved up was the middle east. the reason that was, was because -- in a case of really awful decision making, the ottoman empire came in to the war on the side of germany, on the side of the central power, germany, u.s.a. -- austria, hungary. if nay -- they won, germany, they would economically and politically dominate the middle east. after the war, if britain and france won the war and russia, the triple -- they were going carve up the entire region. and as soon as the ottoman empire entered the war, the british foreign was a, -- office, say that started referring to it as "the great loot." that's what -- it's going to be just a looting that was going to happen after the war. i just want to briefly talk about what the ottoman empire was like. one -- and again, this goes to today. it existed for five centuries. it was nibbled away at. one of the -- probably the unique future of the ottoman empire and the key to its surviving. economically and politically and militarily it was always weak in comparison to any of th

now the threat of fighting in the middle east brings up images like these from the 1970s, cars stretchedound the block and waiting for gas, but the u.s. is not as dependent on middle eastern oil like it used to be. today cars are getting nearly 25 miles per hour, and oil production in the u.s. is up as well, and that means the country is importing less from overseas. the chief oil analyst at the oil price information service and he says the u.s. is less reliant on the middle east than anytime in the last 30 to 40 years. >> producing about 2 million more barrels of crude than we were in the first arab spring in 2011, and more crude than 2003, and our canadian neighbors to the north are sending us 2 million barrels add day. >> christiane, some speculated long-term this will reduce america's diplomatic footprint in the middle east. as somebody that spent so much time in that region, do you think that's true and are we seeing it already? >> i think we are seeing it already, and i think certainly this administration telegraphed a sort of moving on from the middle east towards asia. you rememb

but peter why is the middle east on stable right now and really what is the u.s. how much of that has to do with the u.s. policy was the fact that there was such repressive regimes for so long had a lot to do with u.s. policy the united states armed these governments these dictatorships we supported them politically and militarily and so for years they kept a lid on the people there and all of a sudden things unraveled in such an unpredictable way this twenty six year old tunisian street vendor had had been insulted one time too many and set himself on fire and then the middle east unraveled and it was unpredictable it was unpredictable to. american intelligence u.s. intelligence they didn't see this coming and they spread from tunisia to one country after another and there's an obviously a yearning for some kind of freedom and dignity and economic and intellectual and political freedom in that area but the but there's not much of a tradition of civil government and it's not much of a tradition so what you've got are extremists who are oppressed for a long time an

i was deployed a couple of times in the middle east. i understand the importance of our national defense, the importance of national security. it's because of that importance that i am coming out in opposition to these limited military strikes because they are not only not acting in our national interest but they will be harmful to our national defense. >> tell me what happens. we lob cruise missiles, 150 of them or so, into syria. after the cruise missiles hit the ground and 24 hours later the dust settles what to a see happening? >> that's a great question. that's the line of questioning that i have had over the past few days as i have gone through the briefings and hearings speaking with officials. i think there are two things to be concerned about. of course i look at this from a military mindset. when you take military action, you have to have a tactical objective that's achievable. a clear strategy to execute. re sources to execute and an exit plan. the criteria is not there with what's being proposed. the objective that's been st

strength in the middle east and thereby war to iran and i think that what happened a few years later is that the direct result of this and any the odd thing is that it was in libya they had actually pressured gaddafi to release the various islam is who he had imprisoned largely at the behest of the united states and as part of the war on terror the extraordinary rendition program and so these very same people that gadhafi had released then joined forces with the united states and nato and sold to topple the regime and much the same is going on in syria where again the united states of saudi arabia got into bed with the muslim brotherhood there a few years before the uprising still plays ok jason it looks like intentional instability for the entire region it doesn't work out very well for american or western interests. thank you peter i just might add my breath is taken away a little bit by george's last comment so let me just provide an alternative explanation for what's been happening across the region for the last couple of years. rather than it being instigated by israel the unite

what is going to happen in the middle east and in europe? because there is a european nation here involved in this as well. notice that in verse 5 through verse 8. well, i just again want you to think about how deep the hatred is here, but you see why it says there "the enemies of god" is because god is one that changed jacob's name to israel when he was converted, so this israel is a plan that god has and if you look in the bible closely you'll see that all mankind is going to become israel before this is over. romans 11 talks about the gentiles being grafted in, so the whole book is about israel. the whole future is about israel, and that's why it's against god. but still, god is playing a role in all of this, and his plan is being worked out. i'm not trying to denigrate any nation or nations. i'm simply telling you how god is working out his plan with all nations. god is going to save most of humanity. now notice verses 5 through 8, though. "for they have consulted together with one consent:" that is, these nations that are allied in the

and and this cannot be good for the rest of the world when the energy supplies in the middle east are going to be controlled by one bloc of powers and can therefore threaten the rest of the world with by cutting them off on the energy supplies so therefore this is something that is actually dangerous for the rest of the world and. ok i mean i think we all agree that saudi arabia is an important i need to be a supplier but jason. what about the fact that if the united states in all three of us on this program agree about energy but so he really looks at it through religious prism ok sunni against shia in it isn't that going to drag the united states into making choices that we you've already agreed to that are not convenient choices based on our values. peter it's an extremely messy world and it's a very messy region and the united states has very difficult options and sometimes very problematic friends but i think that given this very complicated equation that the united states has to play with and not just the united states i think that it's it's generally been on the right path

>> that certainly seems to be true, but we do have hope in middle east. don't want to sound like polly anna. >> we hope that pollyanna is right. pleasure to have you here. >>> coming up one of the largest and most influential investment banks has released a report, the sequester has only begun to cause problems. is that enough to bring members of congress together? our social director hermella aregawi will be joining us. please comment on our google and facebook pages. we'll be right back. >> 100,000 government workers could lose their jobs next year thanks to the sequester. that's according to influence analysis out by gold mawnl sachs. a team of government sperkts are seeing that the impact, including 42.7 billion in defense spending, 28.7 billion in domestic discretionary spending, 9.9 billion in medicare cuts and 4.4 billion in other cuts. what's ahead for the country's spending as we head to a new round of cuts? dan mitchell and josh barrow. thank you both for joining us tonight. josh a few months into 2013, most of the headline said no big deal, seq

how should we respond to conflicts in the middle east and north africa?flicts between countries, but also conflicts within them? how do we address the choice of standing callously buy while children are subjected to nerve gas or embroiling ourselves in season else's civil war. what is the role of force in resolving disputes that threaten the stability of the region and undermine all basic standards of civilized conduct? and what is the role of the united nations and international law in meeting cries for justice? today i want to outline where the united states of america stands on these issues. with respect to syria, we believe that as a starting point the international community must enforce the ban on chemical weapons. when i stated my willingness to order a limited strike against the assad regime in response to the brazen use of chemical weapons, i did not do so lightly. i did so because i believe it is in the national security interests of the united states and in the interests of the world to meaningfully enforce a prohibition who's origins are older

this could be a war in the middle east. it's serious, and you have to realize what this president has done to our military, and our military is so degraded now. it's not just me who says this. i want to read one quote by the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general dempsey. he said our military force is so degraded and unready it would be immoral to use force. that's exactly what they're talking about doing and using force. >> congressman king, we keep hearing, and in fact we hear from secretary kerry, from the president himself, how war-weary the congress -- the country is. what do you think of the chances that congress will reject the use of force and if they were to do that, goss the -- twos -- does the president consider act unilaterally. >> first, i felt bad for secretary kerry defending the indefensible. it will be difficult to get approval from the congress. the president has not made the case and you see the president being weak and vacillating, many members of congress will vote no. i intend to vote yes but b

policy in the middle east?> you can't just expect people to go to the polls and they cast a ballot, and suddenly it is just like california. there's democracy, look at that. >> how is president obama handling the syrian crisis. >> plus, why the general would like to see hillary clinton as the next u.s. commander and chief. >> i don't think there's ever been anyone in history that is better prepared. >> from san diego, california, wesley clark is our guest on talk to al jazeera. general wesley clark, welcome to al jazeera. let's start with syria, looks like a diplomatic path forward reading chemical weapons. does the threat of the u.s. take military action still need to be on the table. >> absolutely. this is a long and arduous path within you know, we have experience in this, because when we went into iraq, in 1991 at the end of the gulf war, the u.n. create add special commission. and it took them several years to dig through everything, and make sure they had it all. now, if bashar at asaad really wants to co

in the more broad middle east. >> you may have riled michael duran. i want to talk about what may be the more difficult scenario. both houses of congress in their own separate ways, both down to the idea of the strike. if they've of vote yes, what does the president do with that new permission, does he just pocket this until a future date, or you would support the strike? or has he essential committed himself by asking to their -- for their permission? >> let me start by saying something that is very obvious but that we should think about for a second. i agreed with almost everything the per -- that jeremy said. what i want to say that is very obvious is we have a resident who, for two years, showed not just a reluctance, basically informed the american public, that intervention in syria is pure folly. nobody can argue that president obama has been looking for a pretext to get involved. opinionfactor, public is overwhelmingly opposed to this. this is also obvious. the third factor is that the military doesn't want to do this. i have never seen body la

can obama get out of the middle east. it was meant to help americans reeling during the financial crisis. president obama is making the case for military action in syria. >>> a president accused of apologizing for america and now touting america's greatness. here is what newt gingrich said during his run for the republican nomination during 2012. >> i stand for american exceptionalism. i believe in the declaration of independence. it is clear the president believes in socialism. >> this week, president obama cited america's exceptionalism as he made the case for action in syria in his address to the nation. >> when would modest effort and risk, we can stop children from being gassed to death and thereby make our own children safer over the long run. i believe we should act. that's what makes america different. that's what makes us exceptional. >> russian president vladimir putin takes exception with president obama's claim of american exceptionalism. he responded in an op-ed entitled "a plea for caution from russia." quot

the middle east doesn't matter to us. hang on. it is pivotal we carry out this strike. it is an serious strike. i think in a way the american people might take this more seriously as a larger strike. that is bad politics and people don't buy this tomahawk argument. >> what is your headline, ms. holmes? >> i think president obama faces congress and is bracing for a plaque eye. you know, david and i were having a very spirited conversation in the green room about what happens if our congress and senate votes for strike but house votes against it? where does that leave president obama? unfortunately, because of his lack of leadership, we don't know. >> dana milbank, is that true, do we not know? or are do you think are or you hearing the president will strike nonetheless? >> i think the president has it strike the house. i don't see how we get out of the log jam where everything is broken. no, once you are explicitly told no by congress, you don't do that which which they told you not to do. >> president says he has the auth

putin is under pressure from the americans and their new allies in the middle east, the french. and britain, of course. >> prime minister, you have been the leading advocate of action against syria, yet you find yourself in negotiations essentially with no hand to play. >> i don't think so. onis right to make a stand it is right to take that to parliament and respect parliament, but britain, apart from not taking part in military action, britain will be leading the discussion on humanitarian aid and bringing forward plans for a peace process for syria. the prime minister says more evidence is emerging that chemical weapons were used in damascus. the government's research laboratory has found deadly sarin gas in the soil. david cameron first urged president obama to intervene in syria's civil war. he is deeply frustrated that britain, unlike france, will not take art in any military action. 4000 miles away, in new york, the talk is not about what britain will or will not do. america's ambassador to the united nations launched this verbal assault against russia. the wake of the fl

you heard leland talking about the middle east. a lot of people say the president flinched. >> the president made the right decision. he was very clear that he had not decided on military action. i think he recognized that in the long run he and the country and the world would be stronger if congress was supportive of his activities. this is not just a short-term effort. this is a longer-term effort. also, too, his response was in recognition of many republicans and democrats who were calling for congressional participation. he has to work hard for consensus. he has to work internationally to build a strong international coalition. so that will help not only carry out the operation but also give him additional support within congress to build the coalition. he made the right choice. >> senator inhofe, before the president made the decision to go to congress you were public and critical of what you saw as the president'slimited plan to strike syria. best dweguess, will congress approve the authorization of the use of oh force? >> i

do we want to be the paid hired hitmen of the middle east? >> no. babysitter of the middle east, of uncertain jihad. who is on which side. you brought up a great point in the beginning, in the open, the cost of freedom. theirs, not ours. what are the objectives here? what are we hoping to accomplish? more than the billions of dollars we have to go further to establish a no-fly zone. the cost of american lives. where does this end? i don't think it's foolish and naive to go in to think we can do a couple of strikes, flex our muscles and walk away and call at it day. not realistic. >> eric: kimberly has a good point. we have can't put a number on american casualty. if we are to think that if we go in to syria and we do bomb syria that there won't be repercussions or american casualties, that is foolish thinking; is it not, wayne? >> it's stupid. eric, you are absolutely right. look, hezbollah is with assad. we know that. al-qaeda is with the rebels. we know that. why not let them shoot each other? we have no selfish interest there to protect. it's jus

even degrade bashar al assad, maybe it will embolden him and maybe open a pandora's box in the middle east that he doesn't know how to east and maybe it will make matters a lot worse. you know what? the president probably feels that way, too. which is why he's been so reluctant to get to this point. >> if the president strikes assad, what if assad uses chemical weapons again? not the day after, but say two or three months lateer? if iran unleashes hezbollah on israel. if iran chooses to attack the u.p.s. or israel, what does the president do? does the u.s. escalate? these are real questions, and one of the reasons maybe he decided in the end, he doesn't want to go it alone. he wants to get the help of congress. >> the administration has made such a do or die case for action, that our very credibility is at take with our enemies, hezbollah, north korea, and our allies. so if he loses this vote, the damage will be embarrassing and difficult to play down. and he would then be faced with either a political crisis that he loses the vote, goes ahead with the military action, or he doesn't do any

>> well, the middle east is in tumult.e our enemies are cheering at this decision, it is not clear the president will get authority, and our allies are worried, in arab and israel, not just in the middle east, it is in asia where a lot of countries depend on america's strength and credibility. that's why again this resolution or something like it has to pass congress. >> thank you, panel. see you next week. remember the discussion, and this discussion will continue sunday on panel plus. find it on our website, foxnewssunday.com. follow us on twitter @foxnewssunday. we'll be right back. could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. yep, everybody knows that. well, did you know some owls aren't that wise? don't forget i'm having brunch with meghan tomorrow. who? meghan, my coworker. who? seriously? you've met her like three times. who? (sighs) geico. fifteen minutes could save you...well, you know. (announcer) take their taste buds for a little spin with more than 50 delicious flavors. friskies. feed the senses. >

irish conflict was a piece of cake compared to the middle east. of the middle east so they have been added for so long and the problem is that you know in the last hundred years or so now they only are we coming up against these long entrenched and transit g.'s between different tribes or you know different people within different tribes we bend and planted these new national borders so we created more difficulty on top of the difficulty that was already there and so i think that we know we created new problems without ever really solving the old problems and so now we just have you know this multi-layered conflict that you know you dig you dig apart what you pick apart one part of it and then you simply you know you've arrived on a new issue it's not that much different than my thanksgiving table you've got you've got religion politics cultural differences that go back thousands of years and so i don't think it's that much of a surprise that you've got this hodgepodge of misaligned interests and we just don't know them i mean i don't think that c

and in wars and conflicts in the middle east.esults had not been good. >> president obama has said regime change is not his goal and any intervention in syria. is that plausible given horrific crimes president assad is accused of? lieutenant colonel rick francona, you spent three years in syria at the u.s. embassy in damascus. do you think assad must go? >> oh, absolutely. he's done so much to that country. i think he's gone too far down the road. there's been too much bloodshed for anybody to let this go. there needs to be a syria without assad in the future. >> if he does not get congressional support to strike, will it hurt him politically, do you think? will he somehow hurt america's credibility? >> if we don't strike syria, i think our credibility is on the line in the middle east. in the middle east, it's more about perception than the reality. it's how we look there. i can tell you by reading the syrian press, watching some of the reporting coming out of the middle east that while it looks very good to the west and to us,

, they involve proliferation, maintaining oil supplies through the middle east, counter terrorismand defending our allies. those are the four core interests. >> and some what conciliatory some would say concerning the past, saying we are no longer looking to influence the outcome of these changes in the world, but simply watch them take place and make sure those who want their voices to be heard, be heard. >> that's right. it is a speech that should be quite appealing to middle east audiences, and also to the american audience, which also clearly doesn't believe in using force unilaterally inside of syria, and has the same kind of aversion to the kind of democracy building projects that the bush administration engaged in. in dealing with situations that are internal to states like syria, engaging the global community in that effort. likely that works, we're going to see with respect to syria, whether we get a good resolution to the security council that reinforcement the us-russia framework. so this is an ongoing test as to whether this doctrine works, but the doctrine itself is q

sanctions in the middle east, cruise, explicit and not as explicit. we even tried ignoring the region and pretending the atrocities have nothing to do with us. >> we even attempted dialogue. every eight years or so. >> every eight years or so. ah, there we go. i knew that was coming. it is like even though we are a superpower we haven't figured out yet we actually don't have superpowers. but we just keep jumping out of the building thinking we are going to fly! you come out of the phone booth and tear your suit off and you know what, you are (bleep) clark kent. there is nothing there after all! any time we just went back to where a lot of these problems started. the original sin, the british man 100 years ago drawing a map of a place he never had been to filled with people he never met, forming new countries with no attention paid to ethnic race or tensions. >> i give you sir maps a, archibald maps a lot iii. >> nice to see you, sir! >> absolute pleasure to be here, jon! now what is all the bother about. >> it is actually amount the middle east, archi

i thank them for their continued and critical engagement on the middle east peace process and other issues, and i look forward to meeting regularly. we will have our next meeting at some point in october, probably after the middle. >> there you have it, secretary of state, john kerry discussing peace in the middle east citing the tough decisions that have to be made between israel and palestine. kerry also addressed the economic and security issues in palestine that would have to be resolved in order to get a quote final statis agreement with israel. he also said the u.s. does not want to take up syria's civil war and cited what he called assad's deplorable use of chemical weapons against his own people. al jazeera will have live coverage of president obama's prime time speech on tuesday. and get the latest on syria by going to aljazeera.com and

bought a company in the middle east. >> rose: where was that started?be the hub of this. as we say, amman is amazing. one of the big stories here is now that technology is everywhere and in so many people's hands you see hubs of innovation where anybody has access to broad band devices. amman is extraordinary and the king of jordan has put emphasis there but the fact of the matter is they've seen some of the best entrepreneurs in cairo, they're in the gulf, dubai, beirut is a thriving center of startup tech and i have to tell you tragically--s have very important-- some of those remarkable young women and men i saw were in damascus and some of them are still building companies. >> rose: despite what's going on in syria they're still there? >> it's been a mix. some have stayed there for a long time and one company floored me who would commute to have board meetings across beirut. but the last six months to nine months a lot of moved out. >> rose:ñr where did they goçó ? >> beirut is an obvious hub because that's closest. due into a big hub but if you tal

there's almost a feeling of the hell with it all this is the middle east this is syria it's a tragedy what's happened with the gas but the go let's just stay out of it what's what's it our business how do you respond to that. well you know the new yorkers responding to the sentiment in the country. people are very frustrated with wars and with military involvements and you know if you look at the middle east we've had the crisis in egypt we've had the benghazi were people were killed armed basser was killed the situation in right now in syria where you know hundreds of thousands have been killed i think it's basically a war weariness and a reflection on the american view that let's concentrate on our economy on jobs on our own people there's a little sense of isolationism out there and the new yorker which is you know a very good strong mainstream publication is reflecting that view what if it goes to congress and this is the again a what if and congress rejects it then what. well then i think it's going to be very tough for the president to move with a military strike you know he cho

national security interests in the middle east the u.s. leader told the general assembly that thinking that syria could go back to a pre-war status quo is a fantasy and he said it he said during his speech that it's time for russia and iran should realize that insisting on. rule would lead to the rise of extremism however what many experts have already pointed out in the aftermath of obama's speech is that russia has always maintained support for the syrian people to decide the fate of their nation and the fate of president assad's political future moscow just maintains that this should be done without outside forces in the meantime we also did hear from french president francois hollande he told the international community that he believes the u.n. security resolution on syria that's currently being being drafted should include the possibility of military intervention in the event that the syrian government does not abide with its obligations of transferring its stockpile of chemical weapons to the international community that is a measur

but bridging that gap is the diplomatic link the middle east needs most right now. jeremy bowen, bbc news, new york. >> for the latest from the united nations, laura is there. we will look at what president rouhani said during his address a little bit later on. i want to talk to you about the meeting that didn't happen. why did the iranians decide not to meet president obama? >> perhaps you can see why in a president rouhani's speech. he still needed to take a hard line against america while holding out an olive branch. the president of iran has said the reason there was no meeting over the chocolate mousse and the tuna tartare that was served is because alcohol was being served at that lunch. the americans are saying the meeting was too complicated for the iranians. it was because of the internal dynamics in iran, clearly referring to iran possibly leader. it really just underscored the trust that there still is between the two sides. on thursday there will be a meeting between the members of the un security council and iran's prime minister. that will be the highe

putin does not have power in the middle east. now i think let them do it out front. the question is, is he not going to do hit is he going to go through this and not do hit? it's not in his interest not to do it. the question is are you going to get a line in there that says if you don't get rid of chemical weapons, united states can use weapons to get rid of them. that's the >> brian, this language about the united states not being exceptional included in the editorial ourks where have i heard that language before that we're not exception hl and shouldn't be involving ourselves in these foreign conflicts? >> you're 100% right. it's president barack obama . as early back as cairo he indicated that. everyone thinks their country is most important. if we're exceptional so is every other country. let's put that aside and say president barack obama says that's not actually the truth. this is an opportunity. if you look at responses, it's rare. all responses go across party lines. me then dez said he wanted to sorrow mitt. jay carney comes forward and retorte back that we

allies in the middle east. syria saying there could be retaliatory strikes against israel if the u.s. takes military action. doppler ambassador from israel to the united nations is joining us next. >> and protests have been breaking out across the country including near the white house. coming up, a look at why the president may have to convince more than just members of congress that firing cruise missiles is the right move. >> military action is not the answer. we want to work with our allies and countries in the region to come up with a nonmilitary solution to the problems in syria. >>> despite being in critical condition, former south african president nelson mandela has been discharged from the hospital. an ambulance returning the legendary human rights icon to his home. we are told he will be there to continue to receive continued intensive care. mr. mandela as you may know has been hospitalized now for nearly three months. he was first admitted on june 8th for what the government described as a recuring

host: you talked about your travels through the middle east as you wrote your book. arab-uld you classify the based government? question -- is no the arab uprising started with public and that was a empowerment against entrenched ruling dictators for a lot of politics, domestic foreign politics. the whole process of the uprising has been a public empowerment against those entrenched powers. we are going through the process of change. not all are equally repressive. they very quite a bit. some are much more moderate in treating their people or providing services. where you had overthrown governments as in tunisia and egypt, they are going through a process, a process that is very difficult and painful. is it isnk my own view not going back to where it was. you might go through periods of going back. you have a public that is empowered for the first time. it is only extending and not going backward. i think people expect more and know more. they know how to organize without the need for social institution because of this new instrument. we are going to watch upheavals.

national security interests in the middle east he also told the world body that thinking syria could go to a pre-war status quo is something of a fantasy he said that it's time for russia and iran to realize that insisting on the charlotte rule would lead to further extremism now that's that's a part of his speech that deserves some fact checking because. moscow has always maintained support for the syrian people is always said that it's up to them to decide the fate of their future and the future of bashar al assad's presidency but moscow has also said that this should be done without outside forces now obama's also also went on to tell the international community that he believes america must be engaged in the middle east for its own security and insists that the world benefits when the u.s. is involved he once again alluded to american exceptionalism when saying that the u.s. stands up for the interests of all however the american leader did say that washington . is far more likely to invest energy in countries that that wants to work with the us. regarding iran president obama to