tv U.S. Engagement in the Middle East CSPAN April 12, 2019 9:08pm-11:15pm EDT
and going forward and you have very distinguished panelists and we look forward to that and we are a nonpartisan organization on the middle east founded 1981 and primarily three major programs which is a series of capitol hill which we do quarterly and to focus on current issues and policy issues we are pleased
to see such a good turnout with considerable interest on the topics that we addressed. and with the middle east policy and then four more broadly around the globe and to have an impact on policy discussion in the region. the third primary activity is for educational outreach with secondary schools and teachers because that is underserved with the educational approach. with the availability for those students and i encourage you to look on our website and
epc did org but now let's turn to today's event but c-span is covering this life we are also live streaming on the website so welcome to the viewers and today's conference would be posted in transcript form and then we will publish the transcript in the next issue of the quarterly journal. and then to have a good impact because that content is disseminated. >> now i will briefly
introduce our panel beginning the program with friends and colleagues and ambassador who is the acting principal assistant deputy known as a career foreign service officer and the diplomatic assignment the ambassador in algeria. jeff is the senior director regional security programs at the center for the national interest previously served as senior director with south asian affairs at the national security council. the third panelist is a senior fellow at the center for american progress also the middle east and pfizer at the white house department of state and in the senate.
i would like to thank all three of you for being here this. and then to have brief remarks followed by a discussion session that would be moderated by my colleagues so please use these cards to write done any questions as the speakers are speaking and then hold the card up as if the staff could collect the car during the presentation then they can sort through them for the q&a.
>> at morning. so it is truly a pleasure to be with you this morning to have the future of us engagement with the much distinguished colleague and over the past decade the middle east and north africa see a profound change and eight years ago illustrated a deep desire from accountable governance it was and remains that anticipation to deliver a life to the citizens of the region. and despite the instability of subsequent years people of the middle east and north africa continue to raise their voices
with the leadership that corruption was citizen participation with long-term social economic challenges. preparing for a second round later this year is an important milestone of the democratic institutions to demonstrate a change in government. as protest and elections continue to make headlines just how much the middle east matters. with those persistent challenges in those new ideas for us interest for this administration it is a top priority as secretary pompeo said a strong, secure
economically vibrant national interest consistent with the foreign policy protecting american security at home and abroad that means working actively to counter the threat of the state-sponsored terrorism. to assure critical natural resources as a vital linchpin of a global economy and that also means a steadfast commitment of our strongest allies. secretary pompeo has made it clear the united states has been and will be a force for good in the middle east. and the 40th anniversary of the peace treaty last month it took the achievement the
example of the united states diplomacy for good and we also underscored the unwavering dedication that respects the dignity and security of all involved. quite simply the stability of the middle east is an enduring national interest. to remain deeply engaged in the region with a few key principles and to quickly outline them. first, the united states is committed to the middle east through the coalition whether the isis coalition and the united states knows we cannot do it alone. to that end are actively working to promote securities
self-reliance and second it poses the greatest threat to the region security to be in yemen syria and beyond with terrorist groups like hezbollah. to be committed working with our allies and partners throughout the world and third it is clear over the last eight years it cannot be resolved by military force. united states will continue to support those efforts throughout the region and will remain the largest single donor of humanitarian assistance to focus on protecting the rights of the most vulnerable ever to protect religious freedom in doing so i will touch on some examples for the q&a session.
first hour approach rests on coalition building those threats that emerge from the region and to remain engaged to address these concerns and cannot lead alone. and then to demonstrate more responsibility of security the approach to coalition building is our regional partners have a capacity to have regional problems as the president said we are not here to lecture, we are not here to tell other people how to live how to worship or who to be. instead a partnership to pursue a better future for all. and our partners have stepped up with a global coalition to defeat isis that marked the
territorial defeat it is a testament to what we can accomplish when we work together with a common goal. and today the territory isis once held is stabilized. with those global coalition should be enormously proud of this achievement. and then to have the unprecedented counter messaging to counter the evil ideology. and then as it recovers to reach the full potential of
the strong and prosperous state. the coalition forces remain in iraq to help battle the remnants of we are committed to maintaining the partnership we are also working to broaden the relationship with trade and culture and education. and a northeast area with the isis coalition and then to remain consistent to the ongoing conflict in syria and with those forces from the entirety of syria. and his not provide that reconstruction assistance
until we see irreversible progress and only by working together to support that process to end the conflict with the safe return of millions of refugees who have fled the violence from syria. another example of coalition building in the region is the middle east strategic alliance. this enhances multilateral cooperation not only will mesa build a strong foundation but enhance the capacity as a positive contributor to regional security. we had a team in saudi arabia continue a discussion as we move forward to shape the alliance. as secretary pompeo acknowledge acknowledged, it
is not straightforward but a shared interest to provide an opportunity to get our partners to come together. it is a key building block. for mesa. iran pursues technology with conflict through this proxy groups as the world state sponsor of terror to put terrorist groups and organizations as it continues to develop of the un resolutions of activity in syria and heaven and works for terrorist groups that radiate instability. and with the pressure campaign throughout the world that pressure campaign is working
our sanctions have taken that off the market since may 2018. in addition 23 entities they have critical revenue for that activity. earlier this year secretary pompeo how we can work together to achieve peace and security in the middle east. and with those policy choices are destructive and to share concerns. secretary pompeo announced his intent with the revolutionary guard corps a foreign terrorist organization this announcement is significant
with the iran backed terrorism around the world. we will continue to raise the cost for the maligned activitie activities. saudi arabia is a critical partner to advance stability including iran or to bring the efforts to an end our efforts are best served with a strong sable stable saudi arabia and as partners we can have frank conversations including the horrific murder of jamaal khashoggi. those that are responsible for khashoggi's murder and then take our own actions as well. this week we took the important step to designate 16 individuals connected with the killing.
the third and final principle is a clear commitment to resolve conflict and it equally clear commitment for the victims throughout the region. in yemen to be engaged in intensive efforts to implement the stockholm agreement to bring both parties one step closer. and with that process to help us with a long standing conflict to transform the dynamics. to support the personal envoy to achieve a just and lasting and political solution of the people of western sahara. in a march 21st and 22nd we met for the second time
with a mutually acceptable political solution. our humanitarian engagement remain strong. and in territory liberated for isis is two.$5 million working with the coalition partners because these funds are use to allow people to return to their homes and resume their lives. a leading donor provided more than one.$3 billion of humanitarian assistance. the funding includes assistance, medical care, only a political solution will end the crisis the united states stands firmly behind this to bring the conflict to an end.
in addition to the traditional efforts also religious freedom is a key provision and with those communities especially targeted with genocide to program $40 million including humanitarian assistance and critical infrastructure remnants of four psychological and legal services and with justice and accountability efforts. to protect the rights of minorities is in trouble to the efforts to defeat isis to deny randy ability and then to promote themselves around the world. to reflect the core american values above all is the
dignity of every human life to share the hope of every soul to live in freedom. the united states maintains an unwavering commitment to freedom, democracy and fundamental human rights. . .. . .. >> as i stated a stable and secure middle east is a national interest of the united states. our engagement is designed to advance that interest in the long-standing emerging challenges.
we stand ready to work with our partners have the courage and leadership to address the challenges we face. they are ready and willing to make positive contributions, peace, security and stability. we appreciate that the challenges are complex. without reason the ministration has made it clear that the way that they have always done things historically won't always be the preferred approach. and even as we are shaking things up, we believe firmly that common threats and common interest mandate and continue engagement. once again to quote secretary pompeo, the aim is to go with our friends. thank you very much and i will turn this back to rich. [applause] >> if anyone has questions would you please let our staff know and we can pick them up. thank you. >> thank you very much.
i am delighted to be here. i am delighted to no longer being government. so it is possible to speak a rather different narrative. i'm going to have to say that i can't remember a time when the united states influenced in the middle east was so weak in comparison to the past 30 to 40 years. it might be useful to remember what happened in the past. i'm going to discuss us in terms of three time frames. 1991, the year 2001, 2001 to 2000 and 11 and 2011 until the present. 1991 was highlighted by the first gulf war and the huge
success we had the rest of the world, a couple of sections, including the soviet union. we won the war, we expelled from kuwait and the japanese paper. in the wake of that successful, george h. w. bush pronounced a world order and talked about for needs for the middle east, shared security into the proof relation in a more vigorous peace process and economic development. there was successes during the first tenure. in madrid conference in octobe
october 1991 was cochaired, can you believe this, cochaired by the united states and soviet union three months before the soviet union ceased to exist. two years later you had the famous handshake on the white house lawn. in 1994 you had the seven major peace treaty between israel and this time with jordan. that has been sustained. we engaged in a number of multilateral dialogues on all sorts of issues from water to the environment which did not get very far then but actually today extraordinarily important. this was the moment of american power. it was not just in the middle east it was global. and everyone recognized it. suddenly on september the 11th everything changed. and we embarked on two wars which still in a way are not
over. afghanistan was a war we had to fight and i think we would've done much better had we stayed there and not gotten distracted by what i think was a disastrous war invasion of iraq. and that is still plaguing us today. you want one symbol of why i ran teaches so prominently now and everything that the administration says is essentially because we gave them the opening by overturning saddam hussein and leaving no one in a place to check iran. and they worked very closely with the iraqi government as it is today. in 2005 condoleezza rice went to
cario and made some very important comments on american policy over the years. he said in particular, the 60 years my country, the united states pursued stability at the expense of democracy in this region of the middle east, and we achieved neither. now we are taking a different course. we are supporting the democratic aspirations of all people. and that of course was a major criticism of the predisaster's who had among other things brought peace between israel and two of its neighbors, both of whom happened to be automatic leaders. the one area where there were solid piece was achieved by an israeli government making peace with autocrats. he was highly optimistic in 2005
that the people of iraq would do well. she said -- this is in her cairo speech in 2005. the people of iraq are exceeding all expectations. palestinians authority will soon take control of gaza. the first step towards realizing the vision of two democratic states living side-by-side in peace and security. and then, in 2009 a new president, president obama, made his way to cairo like everyone seems to do. and he made some remarks that were essentially designed to reach out to the muslim world. and yet he made some statements that did not go down very well with his opponents in this country. he said that 9/11 was an
enormous trauma to our country. the fear and anger that it provokes was understandable but in some cases that is to act contrary to our ideals. and he got criticism for that. but in retrospect it was a pretty fair statement. the third period came with the operatinuprising. the net result has been confusion and allusions, my point of view. i wouldn't go through all the candidates who rose up in the spring of 2011, but two critical ones from an american point of view, were egypt, where we displayed total confusion. first, we cheered on the population as they wished to
overthrow mubarak and we gave praise to mr. morrissey who is a democratically elected so they say. and very little when he was overthrown a general cc. general is still there today, he is a great friend and he reflex is a democratic aspiration that george doctor george wh but bush and barack obama called for. syria is perhaps the most serious base because in the case of syria, we essentially punted in way are going to go into details but essentially we drill the bread line if you use chemical weapons that will be implied military retaliation. there was not.
the parallel thing that happened in syria was that russia moved in. russia moved in with the iranians and hezbollah and after six years of brutal fighting we have to admit that asad and his friends at least for the time being when the war and we really have no say or influence about what is going on in mainstream syria. we do have a lot of influence about what's going on on the periphery where we have been fighting quite successfully on isis with her friends including the syrian kurds. so a situation we have today is that the united states is now facing competition in the region from outside powers. particularly russia, but also
turkey who does not share our views on many things. i wrong, and perhaps in the longer-term china. china's influence in the middle east is growing systematically, not in a military sense of the moment, primarily through economic threat, investment trade, but in the future china is going to be an issue we have to deal with. current administration seems to be totally preoccupied with iran. you know, for understandable reasons because iran does pose a major challenge to her interest in the middle east. particularly, and syria. where it has essentially landline now between iran and the mediterranean. and has many forces that it supports, including hezbollah.
it's putting investment into syria and lebanon. and it shows no sign of going away and the russians don't seem to object to strongly at the moment. mr. pompeo, however, went to cairo again, another trip to cairo. to touch base there. and he, his view was that what were going to do in syria is the following. in syria, the united states will use diplomacy and work with our partners -- listen to this -- to expel every last a rain and boot, and work through the un led process to bring peace and stability to the long-suffering syria people. there will be no u.s. reconstruction assistance for areas in syria held by asad until iran and its proxy forces
withdraw in until we see irreversible progress towards a political resolution. of course why he did not say is how we're going to do this. how are we going to get every a rain and boot out of syria. at the very time the president said we are pulling our troops out of syria. does he think the russians are going to do it, i don't know. but i think it's a much more challenging problem than the secretary of state suggested in that speech on january the tenth of this year. i think we have to accept the fact that the end of american dominance is obvious. but, it doesn't mean to say the end of american influence of presence and capacity to do useful things is over because the reality is america was the
superpower that really could call the shots in most regions of the middle east. it can't do that today. it does have challenges, russia, iran, turkey, china, as i mentioned. but actually if you look at the capabilities that these four countries, they don't add up to american power. i mean, we have challenges but i don't think there is anyone to remove replaces. what that means is there will be friction and conflict and no easy solution to the challenges we face there. i think we have to accept the fact that in many cases we have misunderstood the nature of the conflicts in the middle east. i think one of the tragedies of the iraq war was that we had no
real concept. if you go back and look at the debate on iraq and what the pentagon was saying at the time, they were just left out of the planning. there was really no understanding of how confusing and how sectarian iraq was and why it wouldn't be a cakewalk and even if we won the first round of the military confrontation that was just the beginning. and of course it was a drawdown of our forces to go into iraq that weaken the opposition in afghanistan which some would argue the reason were still there is because we never really gave afghanistan the full capability that we had at the time. there is no one that can replace us what should our policy be?
i don't object at all to building alliances, putting sanctions on countries. just to note, sanctions are the easiest, laziest formal policy that this town ever engages in. because both distinctions against iran, venezuela, russia, or this town, there is no lobby to propose it. when you try to put sanctions on india, or israel, it would be in norma's amount of lobbies. but it's a freebie. but it doesn't necessarily get you what you want. it can cause pain and certainly has. there is no doubt that american sanctions in the financial arena in iran are one of the reasons they came together to sign the
jcpoa with europeans, chinese, russians, ourselves, we walked away from that, it is not clear whether iran is going to start is nuclear richmond program but we are being very glib thinking new sanctions, new alliances going to bring iran to heal. i think probably quite the reverse. i think in the situation it can be anything more dangerous than it has been in many years since the iranian guard and noticed that their terrorist organizations. it is sure easy to see all the things that we learned about all these years, confrontations, and
the goal, the naval level can quickly escalate and we have two cheerleaders of course hoping that we will get involved more directly with iran and with kinetic energy. maybe salvia route a radio and israel. and i think this is an area which did that under disastrous for region come for us. we have not paid enough attention to the serious, lasting, historic effects in sectarian conflict have on the region. why it is going to be so difficult to bring these boots together and why this dream of democracy that condi rice and bush have talked about, and obama, are i would say somewhat
illusionary. the second point i want to make. this goes back to some of the issues that were discussed in the multilateral meetings after the madrid conferences. the middle east, whether you like it or not, faces horrendous environmental problems. they don't get talked about because there preoccupied with the fighting that is going on, the uprisings in the street, but the reality is over through morocco to yemen including iran, iraq, syria, egypt, even algeria, these countries face the effects of climate change in a double whammy and suffering from shortages of freshwater, interfacing the dangers of raising seawater in egypt is a classic case in this.
and beneath the surface, while were all debating these strategists in nuclear weapons and the countries are facing catastrophe in some areas and it is not unknown in unnoticed that the ideas for the syrian conflict outbreak in 2011, there was mass route. syrian countryside which led to migration to the cities with no jobs and that made tender for the fire that exploded. so, i have a rather sophistic outlook as you can see. but one that i do not think that we should walk away from. i just think we should walk with more caution and realism and not constantly talk about how we are
going to bring democracy and peace to the region when it is clearly not going to happen. i will leave for the question and answer . . . the huge issue that we should be discussing on this panel because of what happened this week. namely, will there now be in american, a new american peace process to bring the palestinians and ends really is together at a time when mr. netanyahu has won the election with donald trump's blessing and is talking about annexation in the west bank. so let me stop there. [applause] >> are there any questions. you can raise your hand if you have a car.
>> thanks very much everybody. it's an honor to follow to such distinguished and insightful speakers. and to share the day is today with a couple of u.s. ambassadors who are both so personally decent and widely served respected in their work. speaking to you today, i'm reminded of the old political saying, everything important has already been said but not everybody has set yet. so i'm going to try to take a little different attack here and try to talk about the future and how the present sort of points to the future of u.s. engagement. in so doing, i'm reminded of the added very danish physic and yankee legend yogi berra, which is to never make predictions especially not about the future. in the region that disagree so often about the past it kinda
seems like an odd place to start. i come to the discussion about the future the middle east with a hefty dose of humility. i came into the state department in late 2010 at a time when everyone was consumed with dealing with the fallout of our diplomatic cables, by little outfit never heard of again called wikileaks. nobody had predicted the winter of 2010, and then in the meantime spent time with people who became the revolutionaries. and one year later for dictators totaling over 130 years of role would be gone in 2011. so i approaches with humility also recognizing that no president and no party has monopoly either wisdom or wishful thinking in the middle east on success or failure. this is a region that has sorted the intentions of many on a bipartisan and nonpartisan basis for some time. i thought what i would do is to first start on the firmer ground
of assessing what i see happening now and then venture into future trends and what i see happening. two years in, i say this with sincere respect for very able nomadic colleagues who are working day in and day out to advance the interest of the country into serving honorable way. regardless of their perspective. several administrations they may have and disagreements over time. but i feel a mixed record unfolding. i see triple ministration that deserves credit for continuing military campaign against isis which was begun and designed under one president in his being completed under another one. and i see an administration that is under investing in the civilian side of the aftermath in eastern syria and iraq outside of the important whose communities do and deserve to have the future we are investing
together. and around i see an attempt to reorient u.s. policy around country and around. and munched to the satisfaction that key regional leaders. but i see in a ministration that is yet to reckon dial goals in rhetoric with minimal investments beyond sections to change the regional equation over time. i see in a ministration that has worked assiduously to resort trade u.s. partnerships with key regional players and an opportunity that president trump saw and sees fully. but also one that too often outsources regional partners by granting them a blank check for destabilizing moves in regression. as a real honest choice that we should come back and talk about this. we are seeing a comfortable impact of the green light in some of the regional choices in particular in various actors. i see in a ministration with
great respect that has systematically downgraded diplomacy and development tools. whether it's a 20 to 30% budget cuts that are recommended by the administration year after year or the winding up of developable missions in places like the west bank or the unfortunate security driven and bows around. what i see is a little bit on even hyper personalized approach that i think is unfolding at the cost of expertise and civilian capacity. unfortunately bipartisan support for key relationships that should not be partisan issues. i think all of this you will not be surprised to hear. is likely to leave us worse off as i see the future. it's my sense that an approach and questioning partners escalating tension with a run without an offramp and changing power is unlikely to succeed on its own terms and maybe a recipe to deepen the divides citizen
versus state. and i think that is rightfully to require more resources and more costly interventions in the years ahead. in my mind approach is to invest more deeply in the civilian side and the aftermath of isis including iraq. to try to build a partnership model that pairs u.s. insurance with the man's greater responsibility including the de-escalating regional tensions and curbing reprinted. especially on its most threatening area, the nuclear program. but would leave a wider peaceful path knowing that regime changes will do the trick for the long game that we face here. it would engage society as well as states not just a counter rise in around the broader --
that requires civilian tools. and i think it includes championing human rights. not just against our adversaries but a way to string societies. that is kind of where i think we are headed forward from the present. i thought i would talk about a couple of changes i see regionally that i think are more likely to play a larger role in the next five years or so then they have in the last. some u.s. driven and some more regionally driven. the first is minimalism. it is from the u.s. side, this question of can we do less, how little can we do, are we out, i think about the japanese design, marie condo who says close your eyes, hold the object in your hand, does it bring you joy? if not there at all. by that standard the middle east does quite poorly with the u.s. public. terrorism, failed peace plans, brutal authoritarianism, and that is just our friends.
i would argue that this works better as interior design than policy design. i think we still have poor interest and i still think we can advance that. this is 1979 when we had a heroic camp and a dominant role in shaping the middle east. but is still a moment when we have court interest in fairly good at protecting. blocking interstate work, stopping the spread of wmd, protecting allies like israel and partners like saudi arabia. even at their most untrue most threats come from their domestic challenges. the more of the systemic superego. we still have an interest in partners in fighting terrorism in many places including iraq. in the destabilization of radicalization of human need an ongoing grind in conflict at her own peril. i understand the fatalism about
america's role in the region. but if our goal is not to dominate but to lead, if you look at things like the anti- isis campaign, and frankly they around nuclear deal, i think we can still do meaningful important things. and we will need to. i think we are at some extent in purgatory we were too invested to leave and not invested enough to dictate the answer. i think that the correct diagnosis but i don't know the answer is quite such a dramatic event. a few thoughts on what the answer is. civilian power is a lot cheaper than the military. don't over militarize and don't start wars of choice. second, we have to figure out how and when we can share the burden with others. without making it worse. which brings me to it my second u.s. trend, which is polarization, political polarization in america. relationships becoming hyper personalized, in the hands of a few white house officials,
therefore not under institutionalized but also politicize and polarize. which risks are partners -- as a policymaker served in the last generation hope to serve in future. we went to the policies under one political party and another under another is going to be more pronounced and paramount. disagreement with those policies will have to be tempered by a degree of policy continuity, if and when political power shifts in this country. i think trump's opportunity to do something different to do something different than obama. i think the key issue was of revolution where the syria redline episode or the iran deal saw the region differently from the key middle eastern partners. it was in some way a sincere disagreement. trump's on opportunity to repair those relationships and sees the
pulley. but what happened has been further than that. the decision to recognize the go for israel three weeks before an election. a highly contested election. or when a legal resident of virginia is murder. taking side of the party accused. seemingly in the first instance rather than launching into inquiry immediately. something like this, have in my mind deepen polarization. these are relationships that matter. there being stretched beyond recognition at the moment. in a way that will further that. i want to be clear the obama administration deserves our share of the lump into the regional partners. is not the trump administration. the real honest choices about how to handle partnerships and made disagreement.
but these partnerships matter for u.s. policy and we have to find a way to get them right. my third trend, the revenge of politics. from the collapse of the state system, to the outside powers, the perception of a u.s. long goodbye, all contributed to intensifying hustle within this region. you have top-down iranian saudi competition onto local conflicts like yemen in syria. in the detriment of people there. yemen inside-out competition among the different walks of a saudi world. the conflict that america would like to see a unity and pushing back against iran. but instead this divide seems to capture enthusiasm of people on both sides at the expense of some of the goals we might share. even outside in competition from china and russia and a bottom up pressure all happening at once.
i think you see the lines between this region and the rest of the world being erased in some ways. russia is trying to be a counterweight to the united states. and they've ignored the communication with syria, turkey, iran, israel. all which i think means there will be part of brokering whatever pieces come next. whether we like it or not. china is increasingly where the regions oil goes, and chinese capital and investment loans are traveling in the reverse direction which america can't help but match. this can be useful with multiple rebuilds on the way. not just for war zones but for cairo in egypt new capital, need huge infusions of capital in
djibouti across the sea. speaking to the future where china, this is china's first overseas military base where there increasingly focusing on protecting their own commercial interests. you see the middle eastern countries reaching right back out to the same areas. use the mbs traveling to east asia, south asia, in many great gains were turkey, saudi arabia, uae, qatar are competing for short lines, ports, front farmlands, and east africa. these dynamics span the faultlines in an unusual way. this can anything is going to matter more in the global middle east. getting the connections right distinguishing threat from aeneas. leadership from domination, not every middle eastern problem is the price for america to monopolize. we need to more inter- agencies that look like star wars cantina's. algeria and sudan showed it when it comes to th arch spring.
the testing really pass. but the last time it was about aging leaders without clear lines of succession and now we know the algeria, oman, palestine, where he was in year 12 of his four-year term. iraq, christine, saudi arabia have successes or general transfers of power. underlying almost every countries politics in the region today is a crisis of legitimacy. the everyone is trying to deal with. the revolutionary euphoria of 2011 is gone. but a lot of the drivers, same deficits in democracy jobs good governance he, dignity are still there. countries are not standing idly by, they are not sitting on their hands. they're engaged in big bold efforts of one kind or another to respond, many of them. in many cases, that's a modernization. saudi arabia and egypt are both engaged in economic reform. huge infrastructure project to
deliver future growth. not just the shiny new cities but the price of grocery and cairo in the kinds of things that should be barometers of current and future stability and whether these modern under modernization will be important to the future. but the flipside is as severe in intensifying hyper oppression with unfortunately passed an approval from the highest levels of the united states government. and i think you'll see that within this idea of authoritarian some contradictions. the kingdom of saudi arabia discover wouldn't watch a crackdown against economic and top investors. as a retraining to attract fdi, or investment for their own reform programs they saw investments to the country collapse by 80%. so these experiments in the authoritarian modernization matter greatly, nationalism is another key, authoritarian
evolution that i think we are seeing. it can bring coherence to countries. in places like egypt, iraq, and saudi arabia. but the discourse of tribes with flags may capture some important connections and layer of authority. but i think it's at risk of ignoring others. it's an alternative for of religious identity in place like egypt and saudi, it's a part to do temp. it comes of this old copper dictation. i think you can see when young saudis cheered on germany in canada which had the temerity to criticize saudi arabia over human rights. despite the final dimension of this, is another one of technology. as gary over the trend in which china, israel and frankly american firms are help create a global template or technological repression.
this is the next frontier, not just tax and leaks against key figures, but a sweep of technology is being perfected in cases like to back that merge camera and big data. to monitor and track people in real time. i think it's like a spring in reverse. if it was about young people using technology to reclaim the public square, this is the reverse, pendulum swinging back. government using technology to reclaim the public square from their own citizens. finally, i'm grateful and happy that jeffrey kemp brought this up as well. i find myself in violent agreement with his comments on his nature in national security. it might be a bit further down the road, but their credible arguments that rising food prices among the world's largest green and wheat importers and urbanization of syrian farmers help drive the revolution of 2011. i suspect the intersection of national security will only grow as though mr. kemp said from the drawing yemen to gaza's undrinkable water.
they threatened to lose the 20-foot inland tsunami which would've turned muzzle city into a fishbowl. it was predicted to send a 20-foot inland wave as far south as baghdad to the massive hydroelectric dam, the largest in africa that ethiopia is building upstream from the egypt in city and whose reservoir alone requires more than egypt in a year. we need to use policymakers for these regional functional device. and people who speak both languages. the language of water, nature insecurity and politics. we will need the kind of dialogue the egypt and ethiopia have and they sit next to water ministers and diplomats. what is this all mean? we need to make a case for sustaining, restrained but sustained u.s. engagement in the region without arguing for a past defendant in status quo in
my mind. where to find ways to make our partnerships work better on both sides. we are a systemic actor and the choices that we make have moral hazard affects on the players on the ground. we need to make investments beyond iran, isis and rulers to update societies. i continue to ask myself about the interest in the well-being of the iranian people that the current travel beyond with limited exceptions still bands iranian people from coming to the united states. banning the rulers as policies. banning the people does not. we need to reinvest in the civilian tools in the presence to get things done at an acceptable cost to the american people. none of this is easy but i would submit that all of it is worth a try. i look forward to your questions. [applause]
[no audio] >> i have to look over here to make sure my voice is capture. thank you, all of you. there is a lot to go through -- i thought i might start with one question that hasn't been brought up in a foreign affairs article that someone mentioned. arguing that we have been to engaged in purgatory with results that are too poor for investment. but one of the principles
underlying arguments was that our stake in the region is not as great as it once was. it does not matter as much anymore. one thing that was cited was her own development of our own energy resources, for example we began by commenting on the question as our stake diminished, you need to worry less about competitors, economic interdependence or demographics, how all that can impact us. >> today hit the button correctly? with the permission of my colleagues on the panel, i would like to ask administration's perspective, absolutely our stake in the region so matters.
and we see several administrations talk about the need, people use the term pivot to asia look at the great game and the national security strategy makes it very clear that we are concerned with russia, china and some shifting positions in the world. but fundamentally, whether we are admired in limbo or purgatory or whatever you'd like to call it, their very real risk that are coming to the united states from the region. isis has the capacity to reach her partners, reach the united states. there is very serious, scary threats that were coming out of there. a national security imperative to just that. don't forget about al qaeda, that is still active there and has a far global reach. we have key security obligations for partners. israel is threatened by iran.
so our core national security interest still depend on this region. there shifting issues in terms of u.s. energy production. i think one of the world's largest energy importers, that's remarkably different. but we still have core interest in that region that we really need to continue to engage. all of our panelists acknowledged. >> even on the question of energy, our major trading partners around the world are far more reliant and dependent than we are. so we still need to worry about the oil getting out. >> absolutely. i think the reality is there is no substitute in the world to gulf oil because it uses extraction and therefore is relatively low price and that at the same time other sources of oil are problematic, libya just
to give an example. we don't need the golf oil as much as we used to. if japan and china find the price of their oil going way up because of restrictions elsewhere or because the conflict in the gulf. we will all pay a price for. oil is a fungible commodity that as the world price. it is not the same as gas. therefore, any threat to the goals oil whether by law or in fargo, it is all something that we have to continue to pay great attention to. >> i guess i will mildly disagree and say that it
probably does in some way matter a little bit less, the price of oil is a bit stickier at a lower number that used to be in on both sides of the equation. even i completely agree with my colleagues at the help of the global economy depends on some extent. i think we are working assiduously on counterterrorism measures beyond the instability of the region. i think the partition in the struggle for the liberal international will require trade-offs in u.s. resources. those things are all real, but then i look at what is happening inside the region and i think we need to sustain certain types of engagement and deepen them anyway. and maybe recognize that there are trades, find ways to move more. i think a big part of that is changing the balance between military and civilian tools. as they were in afghanistan winds down and president trump pulls us out of eastern syria and some point in a month or two years depending on when we actually leave.
these are the kinds of things that may create opportunities for different military footprint. the military footprint in the middle east need not be written in blood anywhere or inscribed in stone. we may need fewer army forces in kuwait or different presence if we are not flying into afghanistan or we don't need as much isr, overhead surveillance in syria. so i think all of that should be in play. we may not need a carrier in the middle east perpetually. but to me the real missed opportunity is expectation that we can do less with more and not face any trade-offs and that this militarized presence which is extraordinarily expensive is expensive as a foreign affairs budget in the centcom region or more expensive than the entire foreign affairs budget of the united states. development, diplomas, all of
the rest of it. i would advocate that that's a rebalance that will really allow us to deal with the larger issues of balancing her presence around the world if were able to get it right. >> maybe jeff, you want to comment on our military posture there? >> i agree with the sentiment. i completely agree with. here we are, i'm thinking more about the realities of this administration and are they going to be prepared to make this trade-off, with less military and more aid in diplomacy, every indication that i've seen is that they are cutting in the very areas and everybody seems to think we should be increasing.
in building more bombs and aircraft is very find her constituents that make them but if you really believe that where we need a more effective diplomatic and economic assertiveness in regions like this, the money has to come from somewhere. and i don't think the mood in the country is going to be more generous part of the country. i think the feeling of most americans is that we have paid trillions, probably trillions in these wars and aid to various groups throughout the middle east and it is time for someone else to pick up the slack. >> i would like to comment on that. this administration has various focused on burden sharing. i would agree that there is a need for military presence but also on the other side.
military, development. if you look out of the last year plus we've seen our partner step up and meet challenges that the we've had enough. serious stabilization. with the saudis and the moralities who have contributed $150 million for stabilization funding. why should the united states have to pay for everything in the region. as we look at rebalancing our own interest i think it is fundamentally in the united states interest if we want to get out of this purgatory that the article describes that we need to ensure our partners have the capacity to step up and do what they need to do to ensure their own security. and when you look at this idea of the middle east that is where the ministration would like to go with this. why should the united states have to have a forward position in the military presence. maybe our partners need to play a larger role in as well. >> i just add one thing. it is certainly an immigration issue. it is a familiar one to all of
us. the great immigration crisis over the last five years started in the middle east. it affected europe in a profound and dramatic way. we still have not seen the end of. the bottom line is it's up to europe to take the lion's role in trying to make sure that this flow of immigrants is slow down by helping the development and reconstruction. it's going to cost them a lot of money, europe is not poor. meanwhile, the united states, we joke about the caravans from honduras and nicaragua and el salvador, this is just the beginning the south american problem. the united states has to be very aware that our immigration problems are getting worse from
this hemisphere, not from the middle east that's another priority will have to take into account. >> we've got military, ethical mom make in the chromatic tools. one more minute on military, jeff can you spell out what you believe is an appropriate military posture for the u.s.? or are sure to be in a position to do offshore balancing. >> but just think about what we have been doing. the one thing we have been doing very effectively if somewhat brutally, we are very good at using airpower to deal with isis. as long as we have a formidable air presence with lamb bases and carriers, we are going to be
formidable. there is no one that can match us when it comes to the deployment of airpower in the middle east. where we've gotten into trouble is when we put in ground forces and start taking casualties. this town in this country is less upset by the huge cost of every bomb run that there is over muzzle or wherever it is then they are about a death of an american soldier, male or female, afghanistan or iraq. so keeping the component of our military forces small, offshore as possible, not subject to occupation of cities, i think is the way we should be going. may be occasions where we have
no option, that we have to bring forces and very quickly because the other adventures that the united states still has is a formidable lift capacity which no one else in the world can compete with. so if there was another crisis they would need american ground forces for active evacuation purposes we could do it. >> by small forces in the region you would mean treating forces? >> yes. as long as they are not vulnerable. >> the last point, to me one real exception is the future of u.s. training mission, and iraq where i think we have long-standing and close partnerships with both the central government in baghdad and the iraqi kurds. we really have a meaningful
chance by being there and being part of the political equation in the country and part of the security equation and building up state institutions in my mind, decrease the odds that iraq falls back into civil war, experiences a real isis threat that goes global. or comes to the completely dominated by iran, as unsatisfying as some of the developments there may be. i've been there three times in the last 18 months and to me it's a very prominent exception in a place that finds itself on the front lines of three struggles that america should care about in the invested first and foremost, struggle to make sure isis can't come back in the places where it rose to threaten our allies interim people of impact. second, to make sure iran cannot dominate the entire middle east but we need to be realistic how that works in practice. and third, in the year 2019 and beyond, different sects and
ethnicities can live together peacefully in the middle east. in treating iraq not just as a war but as a country. not just about a ground but a place that matters. its own merits can help create building blocks for more stable and less polarized middle east. and i would love to see iraq joined the middle east strategic alliance to make sure it's not really just about fighting a sectarian or battle but it's really about regional stability. >> can you say something about the reduction of our presence in syria? something about the military assistance we provide to the saudis and their campaign in yemen? >> let me talk about syria first. as i stated my remarks -- our
policy remains unchanged. the president made the decision to retain the troops presence so that we can continue to what we need to do in respect to defeating isis. yes they lost control over the territory but it's very clear remnants are going to dig in for in its urgency. it is important that the united states stays engaged. we have capabilities that not only are partners have. having the u.s. presence is key to keeping the partners there. second, what dena said about iraq as well, i would note, within iraq it is not just the u.s. presence that is key. we have a coalition presence, anita presence, which is huge. as i said, really focus on coalition building. the second part was about the saudi. let's look at the situation in yemen. there are serious counterterrorism threats coming
out of yemen. u.s. engagement has been focused on precisely that. there is the element there, all sorts of bad activity targeting civilians in saudi arabia and launching missiles and drones. we have a responsibility to our partners to help counter the threats. we do have some training in fighting that is ongoing with the saudis in particular to make sure that the saudi coalition is doing its utmost to not target civilians and to minimize civilian casualties. the ministration feels very strongly as do i personally, that that engagement is critical. we do face a dramatic human and tearing crisis in yemen and we are not going to be able to make the situation better if we are walking away from her key partners and not offering them the advice and training they
need in order to make sure they are protecting their security in the way that most effectively protects civilian. >> okay, now can we go to syria for a minute question you actually define our objective in syria is not just containment or deterrence but of rollback. that is a pretty high level of jeff diff. to roll somebody back out of her territory. jeff, i know you are more interested in deterrence, and defeat of aggression, not reallk that we can invest the resources necessary to rollback or contain
in the region. i hope i'm characterizing you correctly. dan, what do you think about that? what do you think about the goal of rolling syria -- the goal of rolling i run back out of syria. in the strategies we are using to do that. feasible? >> can i just take the first stab at that to layout the administration and colleagues to comment. why would we want to minimize our goals. don't we want to aim high and do our maximum #i would also state, let's look at what happened in syria over the last few years. historical there has always been a cultural connection between syria and iran. over the last few years, iran
has again, not just in support of us as a regime but as other colleagues have pointed out, to create the global line of supplies. coming from i run all the way into lebanon. that threatens our key allies, israel, the president was very clear in his statement on. we cannot have a situation in which syria or iran uses it to threaten israel. this is all integral to getting iran out of syria. i think a solution, it's okay you can have a presence, that is not acceptable because we have seen i run time and time again to use a foothold to press for more aggressive policies and more threatening action against her allies. >> i think this is the one issue in which i cannot reconcile
myself to what secretary of state. reducing the iranian presence is a goal i'm in favor of. he says we're going to use diplomacy and work with our partners to expel every last iranian boot from syria. i simply -- i just don't get that. how on earth are you going to expel every iranian boot, unless were talking about military intervention. russia's doing the job for us. israeli invasion or the collapse of the regime in iran. it seems to me they are entrenched, they have family relations, they have been in lebanon forever. that is why they are so close to hezbollah in the community. it is totally misleading to make
statements like that without strategy or carrying it out. >> i would argue that the administration does have a strategy. in the maximum pressure campaign on iran is a key part of that. if you look what is happened since we improves sanctions in november of 2018, that was six month ago, i run is losing money. i run is losing the ability to fund its proxies. that is a critical part of the effort. because iran is overextended right now. it has i rtc in syria, lebanon, yemen, it is jerking more, soaking conflict, that cost money. as were taking away the ability to finances, i think that will support our diplomatic efforts. >> i mentioned earlier my gratitude for public servants who continue to do excellent work on behalf of the country. i have to confess my gratitude to not being one today. at this moment because i really
do think that we are dealing with a situation where the current policy of the united states being represented and articulated. it has a complete mismatch between means and ends. it is a tragedy that should be widely shared. asad seems determined to hang on on the western half of syria and extend his reach to the east. this is an ongoing and unfolding human strategy and if and when it falls, it will create a massive migration wave and counterterrorism problem among the hardened jihadist who are hiding among the men and women and children living there. i would subscribe to that for western syria deterrence camp to make sure that israel has what it needs to continue to do what it is been doing to present i run in hezbollah from gaining a
foothold in the western part of syria. the east, although i don't think they need an annexation of territory that they've had for half a century. they seem to be holding it perfectly okay before that announcement three weeks before the contested election. i think when it comes to the eastern part of the country it is a different thing. it is where the united states is no more directly involved and more recently, is my observation were all walking back and forward of this policy over time, it's one month, two years, we squandered a lot of leverage to use the eastern half of syria were rehoboam providing security to shape as much as possible in terms of autonomy for eastern syria, cohesion of various actors on the ground that we have been helping. although the middle of last year we stop providing stabilization of her money of her own. instead of adding effort to the
welcome friends from the goals and we cut our own funds and captured soldiers there. we zeroed out the funds for future requests. you'd think we'd want american money. we never had a great hand to play in eastern syria. my colleagues in the obama administration would tell you that we never should have been there for as long as we were. this is a hard choice. i take nothing away from that but the way that this is been handled left us with diminished leverage to shape and negotiate the future role in so far as we can play this hand into the rest of syria. i think they have to some extent exercise of leveraged to an uneven decision to gain support from the region and other actors. i certainly give them credit for that. the last thing i would say about this, i personally am incredibly proud of the humanitarian monies
that have continued to go to syrian refugees from our government, i do think it is a stain on our national honor that there's been a 99.5% reduction in the number of syrian refugees admitted to the united states from two years ago. this past year i believe 62. >> let me add a little bit onto this. there is a lot we can do to make iran's presence in syria more unpleasant and more costly. and i agree with you, i think they are paying the price. there is also, by the way a covert word going on between syria -- israel and iran. there ar airstrikes pretty consistently. we are not going to do any of this unless things get really bad. we don't have the ground forces.
we don't have the money. the one thing is seems to be in the long run that can persuade the iranians believe would be either pressure from russia, which i'm not sure will come or the reconstruction of syria. asad himself faces a huge problem because he is not secure, he does not control syria. he is got to somehow rebuild the country to give some meaning that they have all gone through. where on earth is he going to get the funds from? he is not going to get it from capitol hill. i absolutely assure you. the european side put in money because they have a vested interest in stabilizing syria. russia, no. they already -- they are not big
on this type of investment. china maybe in the long run but they will take something for it. it is going to be a long careful process and i think as long as the process is underway the iranians are going to be around if only for procedurally and i don't see how we get them out. i don't simply see it. >> is anyone in the administration expect help from russia? in the early days of the ministration there was some discussion about russia wanting a run out and helping. >> russia is a key player and everything related to syria. i go to some of these events for people to pooh-pooh the idea that russia and the united states can work effectively together because of the great power competition. but in fact we have worked together in syria.
and i think there's hope in the models. certainly over the last couple of years we worked on the cease-fire zones in that work. we continue to discuss syria with the russians. they are going to have to be a key part of the equation. i would argue that there is daylight between russia and iran. it is not a monolithic approach to what is happening in the country. so it's in our interest to continue the discussions with the russians and figure out the ways we can do this. it is the ministration school to get every last iranian boot out of syria. we are not going to be satisfied with containment. >> the discussion of russia again, the administration talks about the world being a competitive place. i start by asking if her stakes in the region have diminished? but aside from these areas of cooperation with russia, is the administration not concerned
about the reentry of russia into the region after having done -- having had its influenced diminished for 50 years? the war provided them with an opportunity to get back in. and to look like a country that would stick up for his client at a time when our partners and allies in the region were not very sure that we were that reliable. if there is any concern about russia being back in the middle east or china making roads into the middle east, even if the only economic at this time. is that global june political competition relevant in the middle east? >> master, thanks.
let's take a look at what russia is doing in the middle east right now. it is certainly not a force for good. it's meddling in regional conflicts and look what it has been doing in syria it kept the murder and power. it has been very unhelpful in libya, i just all press reports as amusing russia equipment, advisors, and march on tripoli. that is not helpful. i cannot imagine that if you are a citizen in any country in the region they look at russia as a model for good. i think it is destabilizing, unhelpful, i think one of the largest areas of concern is the issue of military sales. we see partners turning to russia for equipment including outside the region. the issue of trickiest
purchases. focus on the hill have concerned about that. we have been engaged in key partners about the risk that they face if they pursue russian military sales. i would argue that it's not in their interest to do that. if you buy u.s. equipment and you have a closer partnership, your training, i think that is really in the best interest to stick with the united states. with respect to china, yes someone mentioned the idea of a base outside the general. a base in the gulf. i think that is one of the outliers in terms of chinese engagement. what we see is the road initiative, investment in infrastructure, getting contracts to build roads or dams or whatever. and how many of those projects have proven to be shoddy? chinese companies consistently underbid u.s. companies because
they bring in cheap workers, keep them in horrible condition, don't let them leave. i never understand why countries in the region which faced unemployment problems would want to import workers. it seems like this is just prolonging the problems that they face in exacerbating them in many respects. i see china trying to get what it can out of the region and that's a very different approach from the united states from working together in partnerships to help these countries develop. let me ask my colleagues, on t the. >> i think the one advantage that russia has over the united states is that it does not mind dealing with unpleasant people. and supporting them. besides for the middle east, remember that russians were involved in sedan propping up the gentleman who lost his job yesterday. which shows the risks of russian diplomacy. but all your eggs in 30 years of
dictatorship, it can suddenly come unstuck. familiarly the russian intervention in venezuela, they may be backing the wrong horse again. >> maduro magically departs a resort in cuba in the next month or so. it will be another sense that the russians are playing games but they are not really able to sustain the presence anywhere. i think syria is different. the russians had a really serious presence in syria until the end of the cold war. when i was working on the subject in reagan administration, we were constantly looking at the range of backfire bombers that could get from syria to libya and refuel and go back to the soviet union.
it was a serious threat. it is a very important course. they've been there for a long time. they are not going to get out anytime soon. the chinese, okay. let me say two things about china. what you are seeing in china do in the middle east is what china is doing everywhere. this is a global issue. they are everywhere. they are not going to stop. the one problem i would raise is that the middle east is one area where they do have a major major competitor. india is only a matter of miles from the middle east. the indian army, liberated the middle east from the germany under the british. there indian wars cemeteries all over the middle east.
india has historic stake in that region of the world and they are particularly worried about china's encroachments into the bay of bengal, its cooperation with pakistan and that is why india is working whit with a ruo develop a base the offsets the garter base that china has built for pakistan on the coast. the chinese face a problem that sooner or later india may start flexing its muscles. that is something that they have to worry about, they have to worry ultimately about japan playing a stronger role in the east china seas. they don't have a free ride. that is what i'm saying. they're not particularly popular. i worried about them i don't see
either them as strategic threats to the united states in these areas. >> a few quick thoughts on both. on china, these are countries that desperately need capital infusions and rebuilding. i think that america which is not offering either of those things would be wise to let some of that happen. even if in some cases it creates chinese influence and leverage. but also recognize where her interest or mulch directly impacted. i think china is a commercial actor so far. we have to be thinking to step down the road, it is clear that their presence in djibouti is assigned their uncertainty of whether america will monopolize the secure ceilings around the world. which is already changing in the red sea. ethiopia does not have a coastline in the building the
navy, saudi has a navy, this is a fast changing train. frankly, when you look at the commercial competition with india and china we also compete with turkey and the eod. they want to continue in this region is in direct competition with construction companies, shipping, port builders, this competition is multilayered in that way. i think frankly we are not going to rebuild these places. that creates an opportunity for the chinese that we can't really tell the region to say no to fully. russia, i think they have four and a half interest in the middle east. the first regional stability. they see color revolutions that overthrow leaders because they are worried that their next and that is clear and consistent interest. they want to sell weapons.
this is also been a proof of concept for them. what they've done in syria. the ability to sell weapons and use them and they're willing to accept the reputational cost of the human rights abuses and war crimes that have been committed with the hardware. they want -- four and half they want to undercut the leadership in the middle east improve there's an alternative model and they want to enhance their own prestige. counterterrorism, they are really worried about. the other communities that are threatening to them and their worried when they go fight somewhere else, as we china, they will come back in the in danger of their domestic security. there are some ways we can work with russia, we don't have any common interest, we just have to be really careful. when a country wants to buy our most advanced fighter jet for example, and also wants to buy russia's air defense system to surveilled encounter in master the technology of the fighter
jet, i think we should put our foot down and say no. but if they want overflight, or something else, maybe more case by case situation that we have to do it. we have different relationships. they are friends with saudi arabia and iran, their friends with israel and syria, their cordial relationships in with the turks. it is worth exploring where there opportunities to work together while recognizing the part of the fundamental aim in the endeavor is to undercut us and we should never lose sight of that. >> let me add to that. i agree with that. it is interesting that china also has excellent relations with all the people, all the countries in the middle east, palestinians, israelis, a radiance, you name it, they are there. the one case that i think you
alluded to, this is perhaps -- if you have any comments on this, the u.s., the department of defense has been absolutely furious with turkey. for saying that they are going to buy the defense system and that if they do, there will be a total disruption of the super fighter. which will go around the world and all her friends are buying it. there is no resolution to this. he was in moscow two days ago in both third-party said, absolutely, this is a done deal. if we accept this, i think that will be a great tramp. for russia in a huge blow for us, because further weaken our
relationships. someone said turkey is no longer a friend. this i think is another serious development in the middle east that mr. pompeo should be paying more attention to. >> i don't want to speak on behalf of my colleagues on the european affairs who covered turkey although one of people would say -- obviously the u.s. is concerned about the sale and it is a topic of extreme importance in the bilateral discussions with turkey. i will leave that there. i wanted to talk about russia's interest in the region. in my mind this is something that i'm trying to understand. the ct angle. i was at another event probably two weeks ago on the subject of russia's role on the middle east. one of the speaker said, pollutants number one interest
is in preventing another taking of the moscow theater. i remember how horrific that was. i thought, why would you get in bed with a run, the state form of terrorism and stem back from syria. that is not an issue. actually it is. i would just like to make the point, iran has supported al qaeda. anyone who gets in bed with tehran and thanks that that is going to protect your ct equities is vastly, vastly mistaken. >> say might be true for working in a brutal fashion alongside other authoritarian governments that may be creating future radicalization. >> is seems that russia's planar short game versus the long game. >> perhaps normally russia. >> we do have the question of when we are making a decision we rely more on original partners,
who expect more of them in terms of their own military operations, their investment of their resources in the development, and humanitarian efforts. in all of that. we do have the question of the limits of our partnership should be. in a question in my mind, domestic receptions of who our partners are and what our partners are doing. and that places a burden on the administration to explain things. if iran is the principal danger in the region, and we are relying more on our partners to do something about it, and we
are providing our partners with the military hardware in training we have been providing for decades and they'll be in the position. yet their inexperience and have not use the hardware before and have not fought a war before, how do we deal with the fact that they are not succeeding in a place like yemen? how do we help them? where iran clearly is supporting and has been for years. and where the place was about the case before 2011 because they miss ruled. so you have a partner that over the years has found the u.s. to be less and less reliable, is told more and more to take
matters in your own hands, they take matters into their hands, and contain the regional adversary which is expanding underground and then, to have trouble, have trouble. of not succeeding. where was her intervention, how should we be helping, you talked about supporting the political process, but the political process has been tried and failed. sometimes they go to a city and never come out of the hotel and don't show up for the meeting. what are we going to do about that? and so we don't run out of time, we have to talk about another partner. which is israel. we rely on israel a great deal, and we support israel a great deal. however, i did not hear this, i did not hear you say the administration was a two state
solution. what israel is doing now and what it is saying is going to do, talking about the west bank, is that good for the region? is that good for the stability and order of the region, that's extremism, does not foster grievances, does that make her counterterror more difficult in the long run, does it help tehran in the long run, is that something wrong can explain the long run? how do we manage our partners and help them, or guide them away from policies that are not helpful to our national interest. in this particular case, in the case of israel, completely imminent call to every policy we have articulated.
and to make sure that saudi led coalition and to do everything to mitigate those civilian casualties along conflict in every single thing that we do also with the fundamental interests at stake to make sure our partners defend themselves because they are lobbying missiles at targets at airports and that's not okay. we need to stand by our partners. the present has been very clear from day number one he will stand by what ever solution the parties come up with. administration has been working hard on a peace plan what we have heard coming out of the white house it will be
without overwriting the public and financially bound support there is no way he can have a plan with those financial incentives that they would even look at and that explains the reason with the saudi arabia murderous activities. and the first time the house and the senate and then with this war on capitol hill.
and then after ramadan there is no price the israelis have to pay and the palestinians would regard as a simple trade-off revealed. then i fear what will happen is the cooperation between israel is' bill in the palestinian authority at all levels will diminish what the obama administration did very well is work with the military
and if that breaks down and there is no peace process than you really are faced with the prospect that you have to take those moves to occupy areas of the west bank and that brings you to the real question if there is ever a two state solution other than the one state solution other than the israelis and those who started
in cooperation with obama or trump and then to look at this fundamental citizen versus state and then to create some space and to have the effect of various points to alienate all six of those quadrants. and with this unquestioningly and then i really do think it could be a moral hazard for behavior. and canada where we were silenced and then to continue
with no end in sight. and it does have legitimate threats. and adam admits to never to be solved militarily. so the decision for the united states congress to use the tools available to put pressure on the administration that will veto. that you cannot re- escalate this war with the piece fire and you need to start working to end it. but we also need to do more. this is a fundamentally different war and then leading
to the leakage of those unsavory people on the ground and that iran could help to proliferate. and that us pressure and conventional pressures and then is and bipartisan support and the support for israel. and then to endanger in this current approach. and then what i see as a occupation and a steady sign if you create new facts on the ground they will be recognized.
and then to say there is a danger and then to be remarkably adaptive with the palestinian authority and over time the behaviors may not be risky or counterproductive so support israel security for sure but to keep a wide path open for peace which may ultimately whether they are jewish or democratic in the country. >> too bad we don't have another hour. [laughter]