turning to the other huge issue in the middle east, you know, there are a lot of fault lines in the middle east. there are certainly auutautocra and people yearning for democracy. there's also a sectarian fault line. and i think we just need to be a little more honest about what we're doing in the middle east and understand that as much as i'd like to impose our agenda on the middle east, we can't. do you remember those days back in 2003, 2004, when we had otherwise serious people in serious positions saying, we are going to create an iraq, a city on the hill that the other arab states would admire and ultimately would see that model as something that they want to follow. well, iraq is a shia majority state. the rest of the middle east, every single country putting aside syria, is sunni run. do you truly think the sunni arab states are inspired by the example of shia led iraq? they are not. and so just kind of missing basic facts like that i think had a huge effect. so i think, you know, since we're in an educational establishment, we should start by doing our homework and understand what

next, a discussion about the united states's policy towards the middle east. indiana university recently held a conference on the united states's role in the world. this is about one hour, 10 minutes. >> ok, good morning and welcome to the second session of the america's role in the world conference. the hussein banai, assistant professor here at the indiana university department of international studies. i have the pleasure of moderating this very distinguished panel. before i get into the introduction of our panelists, i thought it would be best to kind of setup the main subject matter of our panel, which is america's role in the middle east. very these, we could positively argue, i think, we are not for america's role in the middle east. wonck obama would not have the presidency in 2008, if not for the then-state senator barack obama's role in iraq, which hillary clinton authorized. he would've had a difficult way of distinguishing himself as the main rival for the democratic nomination. the iraq war and its aftermath than the was as much a litmus test on p

middle east policy. this was part of a conference hosts by indiana university's school of global and international studies. it's an hour and ten minutes. >>> okay good morning and welcome to this second session of the america's role in the world conference. i'm the assistant professor in the department of the national studies here at the school o global international studies at indiana universe and i have the pleasure of moderating this very distinguished panel. before i get into the intro ducks of our panelist -- introductions of our panelist i thought it would be best to set up the main subject matter of the panel, which is america's role in the middle east. one could very plausibly argue, i think, that we're not for america's role in the middle east, so president obama would not have won the president? i 2008. more specifically, had it not been for the state -- then state senator obama's vocal opposition to the invasion of iraq, which then u.s. senator hillary clinton had voted to authorize, senator o

middle east existed an empire system. the ottoman empire and the caliphate were more like the roman empire, large empires that ran from the center really you ran your own affairs. the modern state system with dates and flags and borders and uniforms and national anthems was religious carved up. in the region it's relatively new and frankly it has been relatively unsuccessful i think that's why the state system, you had the mandates for a brief period after world war i mostly ruled by the uk and france. world war i was enough. then they commit suicide again world war ii. the united states tipton it hasn't happened yet when the old state system has been torn apart the way it has right now command it has been reduced to something like going back to the days of 1919 where there are no nationstates anymore in the antecedent no conflicts have emerged to the forefront. so is a european model? your pass a nationstates. and with that thank you very much and i will sign as many books as i can. >> you're watching book tv on c-span2.

we tried to ignore the middle east, but the middle east could not ignore us. host: luanne, oklahoma city. good morning. caller: yes, sir. wanted -- the man who was talking earlier and talking about all of the wars we have be en in. when are we going to get our act together and do something. if we do not do something about these terrorists now, they will be here in our streets. host: congressman, what should be done? guest: everybody wants an immediate solution, and anyone who promises an immediate solution is leading us down the wrong road. there is no way to send over 200,000 troops and have it be done and all of a sudden, it is won world -- like we war ii. this is a problem. it is a problem that will come after us, and it has to be managed. youquestion is, how do manage it at the lowest -- the lives of our men and women of service. if it is in the news and we are involved, it seems like a day in twice 16 is like a day in 2003, but it is not. one person or two service people being killed over a couple years in a rock is different from losing -- in iraq is dif

we were not wiwilling to fight r the middle east. that changnges in 1980, specifically, a particular moment in januarary of 1980, whn presenent jimmy carter in his state of the union address promulgated what is known as the carter doctrine. juan: i think we have a clip on that that we would like to go to now. this is jimmy carter, january 23, 1980, delivering the state of the union address. you mention what would later become known as the carter doctrine. >> let our position of the absolutely clear. in attempt by any outside force to gain control of the persian gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interest of the united states of america -- [applause] and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force. juan: the importance of what happened after t that? >> one thing to appreciate is carter himself had no understanding of the implications that would flow from that statement. what happens on an immediate basis is that the national security bureaucracy now redefines its prioririties

today could we do that again over the middle east? i don't know that we have the political unity in our own country to stand up for something like that in the same way. so i'll leave the answer to the questions to the audience. >> along those lines, the number one oil producer in the world now is the united states. >> oil producer. >> there are a number of people who say that allows us to change the way we look at the world, the way we look at the middle east. do you think there's anything about the way the u.s. looks to the world, the way the u.s. thinks about global security, is there anything that's changed because our oil production has into a global super barrel. >> i would give three imperatives to stay engaged in the middle east. the first one is oil. we may not be tied to mid east oil so much. but believe me, from washington to new york, from san francisco to miami, our economy is tied to the world. and if the world's economy was to see the oil coming out of the gulf disrupted, 40% of the globally traded oil of this globally t

what we get in the middle east is something much messier, right? we are -- it's a question of bad and worse and understanding what's bad and what's worse. we don't share the same values with the saudis. we don't share the same values with president erdogan in many regards. but history shows that the turks and the saudis are willing to accept a middle east in which the united states is the hedge monic power. history also shows that the iranians and the russians are revisionist powers in the sense they want to diminish the united states and diminish its allies. president obama is selling us a bill of goods and telling us that iran has changed and russia has changed and they don't want to weaken the united states and they understand because we're now reaching out to them that we all have the same interests. it's just not true. their goal -- it may not be their overriding, their sole goal. putin may not wake up and every morning say how do i undermine the americans today? but undermining the americans is on his agenda. the guy grew up in the kgb. right

mattis: i would just give three imperatives to stay engaged in the middle east. the first one is oil. we may not be tied to mid east oil so much. but believe me, from washington to new york, from san francisco to miami, our economy is tied to the world. and if the world's economy was to see the oil coming out of the gulf disrupted, 40% of the globally traded oil of this globally traded commodity, we would get a terrible impact, not only on the world economy, but it would immediately impact here at home. so there is an economic reason to stay engaged out there. there is also a diplomatic reason. that is if we want these nations with us on so many other issues, we can't ignore them when they've got serious issues. a third would be security. are we really so long from 9/11 that we have forgotten what it was like to look over at the pentagon with smoke pouring out of it and i would suggest we're not that far removed from it. no nation on its own can provide security in this world. no nation in a globalized world ever, but certainly not today, can do this on its own. s

it's been a long time since forces coming out of the middle east have dominated the middle east itself and beyond, projected into europe, north africa and other places. so it was the colonial order until 1945 or early '50s, and then the two, primarily the cold war and the two superpowers competition. and that's a fact of life. i think middle easterners first of all accepted, and secondly, feel a bit helpless without it. the absence of major external agencies has been no part of the problem. so if people are looking for that kind of leadership and help from the outside. of course, ideally everybody would like to have the support or the help without too much ignorance or intervention, like help me do what i want and walk away, please. we know that it doesn't work like that. for instance, for peacemaking as i mentioned before, israelis have always said just let us deal with the arabs directly. let the arabs come to the table and we will manage. but it turned out that even when you have that direct contact, israel and egypt, israel and the palestinians, you don't conclude it without in thi

turning to the other huge issue in the middle east, you know, there are a lot of fault lines in the middle east. there are certainly autocrats and people yearning for democracy. there's also a sectarian fault line. and i think we just need to be a little more honest about what we're doing in the middle east and understand that as much as i'd like to impose our agenda on the middle east, we can't. do you remember those days back in 2003, 2004, when we had otherwise serious people in serious positions saying, we are going to create an iraq, a city on the hill that the other arab states would admire and ultimately would see that model as something that they want to follow. well, iraq is a shia majority state. the rest of the middle east, every single country putting aside syria, is sunni run. do you truly think the sunni arab states are inspired by the example of shia led iraq? they are not. and so just kind of missing basic facts like that i think had a huge effect. so i think, you know, since we're in an educational establishment, we should start by doing our homework and understand what we

but the crisis in the middle east has not been contained. it has reached the streets of paris, brussels, and san bernardino. it has produced a refugee crisis that has destabilized europe and divided the west. it has given vladimir putin an opportunity to reassert russia as a global power through intervention in syria. foes andd america's allies to question our commitment. no more is this clearer than in the war against isil. we have achieved tactical operation against isil thanks to the excellence of military leadership and troops on the ground. but it is strategic, we always seem to be a step behind, a day late, a dollar short. isil has taken the strategic offensive, launching sophisticated attacks into the heart of western civilization, and deepening its presence in libya with thousands of terrorists and training camps and external plotting in that country. existing inf that afghanistan symptom or 10, 2001. -- september 10, 2001. but the reaction has been slow and inefficient. military service members in iraq and syria deserve better. pres

it is clearly more difficult with relationships in the middle east.to ask you, how much of that can you honestly put on one person, on the obama administration? how much of that do you say is simply structural at this point? jane harman: he went to cairo and give a major speech at the start of his administration. which some did not like. i happened to like it. he talked about a way forward for the middle east. there did not seem to be much follow-through. i do not think there is an overarching narrative in the middle east. we do this little move here. part of it is retrenching from bush's adventurism, don't do stupid stuff, it is not foreign policy. do something that conveys to people that our values, our interests are wide across the middle east. i was going to say something else, and it relates mostly to saudi arabia. we have not talked about wavism, their invention of an extreme form of islam that is now being exported around and the , intellectual basis to the there is an intellectual basis for many of these terror movements. so saudi arabia made

, i don't know if it's that so why is it that the middle east has so few. what does it take to be a leader and what have we learned? that's the lessons we can derive from the experience that you have not had in the book and she is in trouble. it's a global program. so i looked at them and always going on and study some of them. it's the chair at george washington university here and i think we have all in our ways dealt with the question of a statesman and a real leader. so i think a leader needs to have a vision. needs to have convictions and ability to identify the currents of history. and to be able to carry your people with you. and we have a few examples. 1942. air very difficult year during the course of world war ii. he knows that the focus on the weight and leverage points is shifted from london to washington. he goes to america for a few months and does it and then of course his state building and so forth. and second and the leader of the israeli rite and when he saw the opportunity to make piece we egypt, giving it back and signing the greemtd wi

they need to get the caliph through the middle east.s something we can't control just like we can't control the arab spring. >> it's a period of day turmoil but it's not clear that the united states could or should have reacted dramatically differently whether it would have been deeply successful. you got a bunch of sclerotic tyrannies not providing any good for their citizens and ultimately you had revolutions in these places. they haven't done particularly well, a lot of turmoil someone wrote a book about the j curve on you things often go down before they come back up. youity a lot of turmoil there and ones like saudi arabia that didn't have the turmoil have stayed sclerotic tyrannies and reforming which they aren't going to be anything they can do. so u.s. has tried whether invading and occupying whether inviting or not occupying or giving aid, they have the same outcome which is turmoil and chaos on the ground. the obama administration is saying basically we don't know how to deal with this and we'll wash our hands a little bit. >>

today, could we do that again over the middle east? i don't know that we have the political unity in our own country to stand up for something like that in the same way. so i'll leave the answer to the questions on to the audience. >> along those lines, the number one oil producer in the world now is united states. >> oil producer. >> a number of people say that allows us to change the way we look at the world and the middle east. do you think there's anything about the way the u.s. looks to the world and thinks about global security, is there anything that's changed because our oil production has made us into a global oil superpower? >> i would just give three imperatives for us to stay engaged in the middle east. the first one is oil. we may not be tied to middle east oil so much but believe me from washington to new york, san francisco to miami, our economy is tied to the world. and if the world's economy was to see the oil coming out of the gulf disrupted, 40% of the globally traded oil of this globally traded commodity we would ge

got tied up in iraq and other middle east problems. president obama because his doctrine such as it is, is to try to work with partnerships and not be aggressive with our unilateralism. that is not going to work unless you can get countries like england -- pat: he went in for humanitarian reasons to stop qaddafi from overrunning benghazi and perpetrating a massacre. we should have held him up 48 hours and said you are on your own. we went in for humanitarian reasons and left a humanitarian disaster for everybody in that place. hillary clinton is responsible, the brits and french are responsible. the president is responsible. if there is an archetype of what a disastrous intervention is. eleanor: it was a nato operation and everybody took great pride in the fact that nobody died on the nato side and this was accomplished so well. the day after and month after and year after. i think that was what was behind the president's remark in that interview. tom: i do think conservatives have to be criticizing the president too strongly because p

we need a middle east strategy that is going to work. we need one that is long term and that makes sense and we simply can't just say oh, well, those people are hopeless. those people are people just like anybody else, and they have, as you know, and you've experienced yourself, they have had historical realities that have pushed them into a very unfortunate time period, but that doesn't mean we just say, oh, well, that's just unfortunate. we look and see how do we get the different interests between the different proxies right now, because this is in many ways a proxy war. how do we get them to collaborate? how do we bridge the sectarian divides that exist. how do we create jobs in rebuild, provide humanitarian aid? these are questions we cannot just simply dismiss to the middle east. that's what i'm getting at, this is a global security matter of where we all hold a certain level of responsibility that if we rise up to the occasion, we will counter violent extremism and provide a better future for the syrian people and one that has a c

middle east seemed like a good choice. and i was going to start on my way and become a great foreign corresponde correspondent. so i moved to cairo. i really looked at the map. i had the map of the middle east in front of me and thought where am i going to go? iraq? not too many options there. syria, not much going on. jerusalem? lots going on but probably oversaturated market to cover the israeli-palestinian conflict. i thought egypt. it is egypt. even if it doesn't work out i am still in egypt which is grit. i packed up a couple suitcases and took a little money/savings. i arrived and i had an apartment there. i had an incredibly rich experience. people were welcoming to me. they wanted me to convert the islam constantly. they would bring me to their homes and feed me things. i was never alone which could be tiresome after a while but it was a great way to become familiar with the culture and learn the language. in a matter of months i was having very incorrect but basic conversations in arabic because i had no choice. w

aid administrator, building things in the middle east.et's watch this interview we did in the middle east back in 2003. >> we will see an improvement in public service that affect the great mass of the iraqi people within the next two months, electricity system, water system, a critical part of what you need in an arid climate and what you need for public service. you have to have electricity and we now have made an agreement to the ambassador for bechtel and the other contractors we have in year two essentially provide the overall management and the accountability system and the purchase of equipment like generators. brian lamb: i understand he worked for bechtel before he had this job. sally denton: i think he oversaw part of the big dig project. there was some sort of historical relationship there. brian lamb: did paul grammar -- paul brummel work for bechtel? sally denton: he obviously oversaw the distribution of the contracts, the major contracts that bechtel got in iraq which turned out to be disastrous, pretty much. brian lamb: why

the middle east than ever, ever before. challenge anyone to explain the strategic foreign policy vision of obama-clinton. it has been a complete and total disaster. i will also be prepared to deploy america's economic resources. financial leverage and sanctions can be very, very persuasive, but we need to use them selectively and with total determination. our power will be used if others do not play by the rules. in other words, if they do not treat us fairly. our friends and enemies must know that if i draw a line in the sand, i will enforce that line in the sand. believe me. [applause] however, unlike other candidates for the presidency, war and aggression will not be my first instinct. you cannot have a foreign policy without diplomacy. a superpower understands that caution and restraint are really truly signs of strength. although not in government service, i was totally against the war in iraq, very proudly, saying for many years that it would destabilize the middle east. sadly, i was correct, and the biggest beneficia

it was like moving off the middle east.ink making an investment, and economic investment in asia, which is what tpp is supposed to be, is the right move. i am worried that the residential campaign will never end in our national lifetimes, will not really talk about trade. ian bremmer: let me raise the economic populism question. we have seen bernie sanders, donald trump, even hillary clinton come out against tpp. there is obviously a very strong populist opposition to the supposedly benefits of globalization and u.s.-led trade. i am wondering what you think is a matter of proper messaging on the part of the u.s. president. what is actually a reality that the americans are not going to be able to cheerlead on free trade agreement. >> i didn't expect obama to be such a champion of the tpp. i'm delighted the administration has done it. i think they are doing, saying exactly the right thing. it is not a matter of prosperity. it is also strategic interests. we have to telegraph the american people there are going to be rules in

today could we do that again over the middle east? i don't know that we have the political unity in our own country to stand up for something like that in the same way. so i'll leave the answer to the questions to the audience. >> along those lines, the number one oil producer in the world now is the united states. >> oil producer. >> there are a number of people who say that allows us to change the way we look at the world, the way we look at the middle east. do you think there's anything about the way the u.s. looks to the world, the way the u.s. thinks about global security, is there anything that's changed because our oil production has into a global super barrel. >> i would give three imperatives to stay engaged in the middle east. the first one is oil. we may not be tied to mid east oil so much. but believe me, from washington to new york, from san francisco to miami, our economy is tied to the world. and if the world's economy was to see the oil coming out of the gulf disrupted, 40% of the globally traded oil of this globally t

we tried to ignore the middle east, but the middle east could not ignore us.t: luanne, oklahoma city. good morning. caller: yes, sir. wanted -- the man who was talking earlier and talking about all of the wars we have be en in. when are we going to get our act together and do something. if we do not do something about these terrorists now, they will be here in our streets. host: congressman, what should be done? guest: everybody wants an immediate solution, and anyone who promises an immediate solution is leading us down the wrong road. there is no way to send over 200,000 troops and have it be done and all of a sudden, it is won world -- like we war ii. this is a problem. it is a problem that will come after us, and it has to be managed. youquestion is, how do manage it at the lowest -- the lives of our men and women of service. if it is in the news and we are involved, it seems like a day in twice 16 is like a day in 2003, but it is not. one person or two service people being killed over a couple years in a rock is different from losing -- in iraq is differe

turning to the other huge issue in the middle east. there are a lot of faultlines the middle east. there were certainly people yearning for democracy and there is also a sectarian fault line and i think that we just need to be a little bit more honest about what we are doing in the middle east, understanding that as much as i would like to impose our agenda on the middle east, we cannot. your number those days back in 2003 and 2004 when we had otherwise serious people saying that we are going to create a city on the hill that the other arab states would admire and ultimately we see that model is something that they want to follow. well, iraq is a majority stake. the rest of the mental east is run by the sunnis. do you really think that these states are inspired by the example of iraq? they are not. and so just kind of missing the basic facts like that, i think it has a huge effect. so i think that since we are in an educational establishment we should start by doing our homework and also understand what we are talking about. i think that to talk about those is a problem in the midd

no new order has emerged in the middle east, only chaos. and the vacuum we left behind has been filled by the most extreme and anti-american of forces. isil, al qaeda, iran, and its terrorist proxies. and now russia. we cannot afford to believe that this is not our problem. it is our problem. as general david petraeus wrote last week, "the attacks and other activities of extremists will not be confined to the areas or regions in which they are located. rather, as in the case of syria, the actions of the extremist groups are likely to spew instability, extremism, violence, and refugees far beyond their immediate surroundings. " we cannot go on pretending that we can avoid these problems or that the current approach of trying to treat the symptoms of the disease rather than its cause will work if only we give it more time. it will not. we need to stop fixating on military details and look at the bigger picture. no one believes there are easy solutions. after the past seven years, this much should be clear -- walking away isn't the answer. tim

let's talk about what is going on in the middle east.oil economic expansion in the middle east is set to slow to between 3.5% and 4%. planhile, saudi officials to reduce the kingdoms of reliance on -- the kingdom by cbs reliance on exports from crude. growth affectr miasteddle e economies? >> the imf here talks mainly about oil exporters. the biggest consequences that about 10 million job and trades are expected to enter the market between now and 2021. at this pace, governments and private sector businesses are expected to generate about 7 million jobs. that is 3 million shy of the number needed. this comes on top of what is already one of the world's highest youth unemployment rates. that adds a lot of challenges on the government. -- main messages that message is that, while they are doing the right thing in transitioning to oil -- transitioning from oil, cutting spending, this is not going to be a painless transition. anna: not painless, and the point, not enough jobs will be created in this area that has such high youth unemployment

what we get in the middle east is something much messier, right? we are -- it's a question of bad and worse and understanding what's bad and what's worse. we don't share the same values with the saudis. we don't share the same values with president erdogan in many regards. but history shows that the turks and the saudis are willing to accept a middle east in which the united states is the heddom order. history also shows that the iranians and the russians are revisionist powers in the sense they want to diminish the united states and diminish its allies. president obama is selling us a bill of goods and telling us that iran has changed and russia has changed and they don't want to weaken the united states and they understand because we're now reaching out to them that we all have the same interests. it's just not true. their goal -- it may not be their overriding, their sole goal. putin may not wake up and every morning say how do i undermine the americans today? but undermining the americans is on his agenda. the guy grew up in the kgb. you don't

where would we drop a nuclear weapon in the middle east? >> somebody hits us with isis, you wouldn't fight back? >> dropping a nuclear weapon into a community -- >> you don't want to say take everything off the table. >> just nuclear. just nuclear. >> look, nuclear should be off the table, but would there be a time when it could be used? possibly. possibly. >> the trouble is david cameron heard t the japanese. a guy running for the president of united states heard about possibly using nuclear weapons. >> why do we make snem. >> because of the old -- >> i was against iraq. i'd be the last one to use the nuclear weapons. >> can you tell the middle east we're not using a nuclear weapon? >> i would never say that. i would never take any cards off the table. >> how about in europe? >> no, i don't think so. >> just say it, i'll never use a nuclear weapon in europe. >> i am not taking cards off the table. i'm not using nuks -- >> the same people hear you and the insane people are not affected by your threats. that's 9 troubling. the real fanatics.

we've made the middle east more unstable and chaotic than ever before. we left christians subject to intense persecution, and even genocide. [applause] mr. trump: we have done nothing to help the christians, nothing, and we should always be ashamed for that, for that lack of action. our actions in iraq, libya, and syria have helped unleash isis. and we're in a war against radical islam, but president obama won't even name the enemy, and unless you name the enemy, you will never, ever solve the problem. [applause] mr. trump: hillary clinton also refuses to say the words "radical islam," even as she pushes for a massive increase in refugees coming into our country. after secretary clinton's failed intervention in libya, islamic terrorists in benghazi took down our consulate and killed our ambassador and three brave americans. then, instead of taking charge that night, hillary clinton decided to go home and sleep. incredible. clinton blames it all on a video, an excuse that was a total lie, proven to be absolutely a total lie. our ambassador was murdered an

nato is obsolete. >> how about the middle east? >> we're spending so much money.now what, with fracking and all the things taking place and all the oil canada has, canada has more than almost anybody, when you look at what we have, we aren't dependent on that anymore and we very shortly -- >> we don't need jordan or the saudis or the emirates? we don't need those countries? >> people have to pay their fair share. a year ago when oil prices were high, now it's lower, they're still making a fortune. saudi arabia was making $1 billion a day. we're defending them and getting -- >> you're the only one that can cut a deal, that nobody else has been able to cut a deal. >> they don't cut deals like i cut deals. that i can tell you. >> you're willing to walk on all these deals? >> excuse me. >> you walk. >> you always have to be able to walk. >> how do you walk from nato, the middle east, china, all these relationships, just drop them off? >> nato is 68 years old. you have countries that are getting a free ride. you is countries that benefit from nato much more than we do.

you are going to destabilize the entire middle east. if our politicians went on vacation 15 years ago, we would be a lot better off in the middle east that we are right now. day,we have right now is a back, ugly mess. right? . big mess then i heard a certain senator, lindsey graham, he said, i do not know why donald trump does not listen to me. i am been fighting this war for many years. that is right. i want to fight it or about two weeks, folks. not many years. we have to get back to our country, rebuild america, rebuild the united states. our infrastructure is going to .ell we build schools in the middle east. they get blown up, we rebuild them. they get blown up again and again at 10. want to build a school in pencil alien. -- in pennsylvania. we have noent says money. right? no good. no good. we spent over $4 trillion in the middle east. shape now than we were 15 years ago. and when obama got out, instead of doing it in a certain way of leaving some troops behind and protecting a little bit of whatever. he took everybody out. ent a

where would we drop a nuclear weapon in the middle east? >> somebody hits us with a nuke. >> isis. >> you wouldn't fight back with a nuke? >> no, you drop it into a community of people -- >> first of all, you don't want to say take everything off the table. >> just nuclear. >> nuclear should be off the table, but would there be a time when it could be used? possibly, possibly. >> when you said that, the whole world heard. david cameron heard it, the japanese heard it. they're hearing a guy running for president of the united states talking of maybe using nuclear weapons. nobody wants to hear that about an american president. >> why do we make them? >> i was against iraq. i'd be the last one to use the nuclear weapons. >> can you tell the middle east we're not using a nuclear weapon? >> i would never take any of my cards off the table. >> how about europe. >> i'm not taking anything off the table. >> you might use it in europe? >> no, i don't think so. >> just say it. >> i am not taking cards off the table. i'm not going to use nux but i'm n

saying for many years that it would destabilize the middle east. sadly, i was correct. and the biggest beneficiary has been iran. who has systemically gained access to rich oil reserves. something it has wanted to do for decades. and now to top it off, we have isis. my goal is to establish a foreign policy that will endure for several generations. that's why i also look and have to look for talented experts with approaches and practical ideas rather than surrounding myself with those who have perfect resumes but very little to brag about except responsibility for a long history of failed policies and continued losses at war. we have to look to new people. [ applause ] we have to look to new people because many of the old people, frankly, don't know what they're doing, even though they may look awfully good writing in "the new york times" or watched on television. finally, i will work with our allies to reinvigorate values and institutions instead of trying to spread universal values that not everybody shares or wants. we should understand that strengthening and promotin

it is a product that we can't do anything in the middle east. that problem has to be solved, absolutely, but it looks like mr. trump would like to restructure the foreign policy, and addressing the challenge of iran and getting back ool lies and friends and making sure we have the right challenges in iraq and syria we should not be arming the wrong people. and should be destroying isis. there is a whole framework that would make it possible for the israelis and palestinian to talk. hamas has to be dealt with. and the architecture is more complex in the past few years. >> i am heather, i want to ask you about nato, he wants nato nations to pay more than they do right now. how would he go about p doing that? >> first of all, i have heard this discussion in brussels. and the european parliaments talked about how to rebalance among themselves. it is it a open subject. and the u.s. president will be committed to nato and make sure they are looking south and southeast and the jihadi threat. and how he would negotiate with the member states especially

eleanor: to make sure we don't involved in another happened war in the middle east. that is why we have a defense department. john: why don't they keep him informed? tom: they do. the president k is acting on his understanding what american power can do. nd american power, military power, is not going to solve what is happening in the middle east. life boat for , lula? amazonetic soccer, rain forest, 2016 olympic games million people, brazil is a vibrant nation. annual g.d.p. of early $2.25 trillion it is increasingly wealthy. but led by president dilma rousseff, brazil is in political crisis. facing because already impeachment for possibly oncealing government budget deficits preside rousseff has been implicated in brazil's petrobras corruption scandal. fearing for their democracy, of brazilians are taking to the streets to demand justice. note this. another target of petrobras investigators, former president luiz inacio lula da sil known as lula. as just joined rousseff's cabinet. while a judge has put a hold on lula's intment, rationale seems obvious. lula's azili