i don t think you can say it caused it because these were well up before he became president. negatives and islamists were looking for opportunities. i think the decision to stay out of syria, the decision to pivot to asia all communicated loud and clear the idea that the united states was not as interested as it had been in the middle east before and that therefore there was an opening and opportunity if people wanted to be disruptive. i think it also at the same time communicated to our allies that they might have to look for their own opportunities. that s particularly important in iraq where i think the malaki regime has become increasingly reliant on iran as we left. he rl problem was not the obama adoption but the bush doctrine
wars, how big a factor do you think that is in the mess we find ourselves in iran sth i think these forces were welling up some ways for a century but certainly since before he became president these insurgents and is slamm t slammisslammist slammist- were looking for opportunities, communicating loud and clear the united states is not as interested as it had been before and therefore there was an opportunity if people wanted to be disruptive and i think also, communicated to our ally that s they might have to look for their own opportunities. particularly important in iraq i think the malaki regime is becoming reliant on iran as we have left.
blood to keep bashar al-assad in power. they ve already helped do so and they are prepared to continue to do that. jenna: we talked about iran s nuclear program and what the timeline looks like and what it means for our national security. what do you think this effect of trying to spend time and energy in syria is having on iran s nuclear program? is it distracting to the regime? is it taking resources away from the nuclear program or is it doing the opposite and motivating them more to get it up and running faster. if it has any effect at all it s much more likely to be the latter. if we don t like iran s behavior in syria and elsewhere today, imagine how much more difficult it will be to deal with iran once they have nuclear republicans weapons. i think the syrian case is part of iran s effort to extend overt entire region and with islam through the malaki regime.
training, there is now indication that they are trying to develop, or trying to train a militia within syria to be able to fight on behalf of the regime. so, we are seeing a growing presence by iran. jenna: ambassador john bolton is a former u.s. ambassador to the united nations, also a fox news contributor. ambassador, leon panetta saying that iran s influence is growing. he mailed it very clear that right now our influence is staying the same. what is the consequence of that? well i think iran s presence in syria military has been extensive for quite some time. reports of the revolutionary guards for some time certainly providing weapons and financial assistance as have been the russians while we re on the subject. the training of syrian militia also not entirely new. we know that the ma shreurb sha
from iran famous for suppressing the demonstrators after the fraudulent 200 the election have been there. many reports of terrorists from hezbollah and lebanon there as well. the fact that the defense secretary is now saying this it may indicate that the iranian presence is enlarger than we had previously suspected kwrao going back to the question then, what is the consequence of having iran more and more involved in syria while we remain relatively uninvolved at least on the ground there? number one it shows the stakes for iran in keeping the bashar al-assad regime in power. would i add russia to that category again there too. which means that the last 18 months and hopes for a diplomatic solution, a transition away from bashar al-assad i think have been very misguided on the part of the western europeans and the obama administration. the syrians depend on russia and iran, and iran and russia are happy to shed a lot of syrian