Ilbook entitled seven pillars, and the discussion, is to look more broadly and were deeply at the drivers of instability in the middle east. From yemen toem syria to iraq, d now with iran, the region more than ever seen in a permanent state of turmoil, its become a land of endless wars. Tragically, despite decades of intense and often wellmeaning american attention and the expenditure of billions of dollars, u. S. Policy has more often than not been a failure. Maybe they can get more often thanha not is too kind. Ut its been an absolute failure if one accepts the basic aim was to foster disability and a better life for the people in the region. Of course the ones ultimately responsible for for a country success or failure of people who live there. But the catastrophe of todays middle east raises questions about whether the United States should continue to be engaged in the region, and if so, how. In this regard the editors of seven pillars, Michael Rubin and Brian Katulis andha a cocontributors have given us a gift. They identify seven factors that affect stability or not, and examine what they mean and the role they play. The pillars thatt identify our legitimacy, islam, arab ideology, the militaries, education, economy and governance. I personally found many of the authors perspectives to be unique and a useful base to begin looking at old problems in new ways. Whether it can serve as a basis for a new bipartisan approach in the current poisonous political ssenvironment here is anyones guess, but at least the authors are trying toas provide some factbased reality and analysis to encourage debate. With us today starting with, my left, is Michael Rubin, whos a resident resident scholar here at eight i come a veteran of the bush administrations iran and iraq team and has a phd and iranian history. He contributed to the chapter on legitimacy in the region. Next is Brian Katulis who is a Clinton Administration veteran, now with the center for American Progress with extensive experience in the arab world. Prior to joining cap he lived in egypt and palestine where he worked on governance issues for the National Democratic institute. He contributed to the chapter on governance. And then we have a. Kadir yildirim whos a fellow for the middle east at the Baker Institute at rice university. He researches both pluralism in the middle east andas interplay between religious authorities and Foreign Policy. He contributed to the chapter on islam. We will try to keep the conversation lively, and i will interrupt to keep everybody from not n just going on and on and. We will talk for a while and then open it up to questionsqu from the audience. So to start im going to start with michael and ask you, whats special about this book . What you think was lacking in the scholarship or the analysis that required this kind of approach . Century of the market interaction in the middle east combining in a metric like you said in your introduction, u. S. Hasnt been successful has brought a democrat or republican thing. What we wanted to do is number one, get away from analysis based on the u. S. Political calendar. That is is it too easy and it doesnt work. For more broadly do a more fundamental rethink from the issues and drivers in the region. In terms of legitimacy for example this common of course of core assumptions the right states is all about governance. Thats what fills legitimacy. But in iraq, people are willing to forgo in some cases the governance just as they can have a Kurdish National flight or fight over certain building. We also wanted to identify the impact of things we hardly ever talk about in the United States. Im sorry, in the region. Disrupted technology how is that going to change things. How is the foreign aid impacted if legitimacy is that the governance. In the lease foreign aid is to do the right thing and then another in conclusion, the brought issues that was most surprising it to me. Was the many people ask the question what represents the most legitimate government in the middle east. People tend to Say Something like lebanon. And yet lebanon is often thought about in the United States and finally, in many parts middle east has an object disaster. So we are trying to grapple around some of these issues from a much more academic and less political partisan approach. So what is legitimacy and why is lebanon seen as more legitimate than other places. A. For small many to abandon this notion that onesizefitsall. If that is not easy for american policy makers to do. But ultimately, people wanted legitimacy for whatever their identity. They wanted representation for whatever their identity was in the problem is of course, identities change with time. What is clear however, is that people will increasingly finding themselves disenfranchised. This isnt just an issue of the arab spring, has brought just an issue of anti iranian of protest. It just seems to be a failure of the traditional islam and the middle east. In this way about us about his chapter reimagining reconsidering all of the ideologies that play because take for example iraq, percent of iraqis will born after the 2003 war. More than 60 percent of iraqis will born after the 1991 or which means no one has a functional memory of what live was like on Saddam Hussein and therefore there are no longer willing to accept will mean might have our problems from some leaderless all of us groups for example but at least will not on the same. Looking at this generation and succeeded him and these other region and staying, that these guys dont represent something. We have in the United States is much as we complain about politics, usually a 90 to 95 percent incumbency rate in congress. Places like iraqis around 12 to 16 percent. The fact of the matter is as people are current limits in a very dangerous moment. Some brent you wrote about governments. The forum of governance that has evolved or imposed on rock since saddam was overthrown, is working. Do you see it working. The iraqis have to come up with something else. To the United States have to help her not come up with something else. Great question. First, highlight the subtitle of the book, what really causes instability in the middle east. My simple answered after spending two years with Michael Rubin is is Michael Rubin. [laughter]. Is he joke. [laughter]. To question on rock, but obviously for this latest episode, if you see what has or havent in the last week, and then what was happening just a few months before that. And people in the streets of baghdad and major city in iraq, questioning the very cold water thats in iraq. In posting testing corruption for services and a bunch of things that quite frankly like we do would we would around the region and quite regularly, other sorts of things that impact every country in the middle east. It sort of is crushing the demographic social economic pressures and inside of a wreck to answered your question quite clearly despite multiple elections the Current System of governments has brought, hoping the people. In one of the points of this book is some new. And go back to the Human Development report 16 to 17 years ago, and structural factors that contribute to set stability are quite weak and is those 15 or 16 or 17 years and some they got weaker. I think place quite clearly, i took about michael but we do have our differences. In favor of the iraq war, i was at. He is because they are often nuclear deal. One thing we agreed upon is to d deeper and what we wanted to do this book a chapter on governments, they took a bit about rock. But none of as National Government. The technet is experimenting governments that actually emerged. On the Islamic State. I its been a couple pages on and shows you that responsive governance and discontent with the governments not responding class seats for the source of instability that we saw on happen in iraq on the previous Prime Minister the groups the Islamic State exploited i think we should have learned by now, many years after iraq war is that the United States have the chapters that is important factor these fundamental Building Blocks for stability in our analysis. As we see today, the takes on what were going to do next and cycle isolation which is quite dangerous. Isis with a new phenomenon. And there has been failure of the governance until your leaders the middle east for a long time. So why this moment, did a group like isis have an opportunity to rise and at such a profound impact. Multiplicity factor, some of it is tied to this transitional generation. You just simply have a youth crunching. If the government in places like iraq are responding to it people will rise up in various different forms. Is the isis model which again was shortlived and i dont think has much legitimacy in the long around. This created though in response to an ineffective government. On Saddam Hussein, it was a dictatorship. There wasnt as much open space for people to produce change. And i think the theory that was behind the rock worked was that in 2003, and we do want to go back to debate that let the theory behind it was flawed and that simply leap top of the and eliminate or decapitate the top, then somehow freedom will spread and we know that didnt happen. I think wildly accelerated in the Islamic State in particular is that you have multiple fights going on inside rock. Civil war first. A system of government simply was not responding. Those conditions are still there. Iraqis are still looking at the National Government for the caretaker government. I would challenge the notion that wasnt all that new because we go back in history and theres any number of millennials mother was a seizure of the grand mosque 19799 want to go back to centuries before that before that it suzanne. I do want to draw out from what brian is talking about is any numbers of issues on governance, beyond simply this, monarchy replug first this monarchy. But what does this mean for the nature of america. Diplomacy, in many ways limiting ourselves to interactions with representatives of government who are on siege. Are we missing the broader picture both in terms of diplomacy and intelligence would it comes to middle east. What is the remedy to that. The United States, has to deal with the government. To some extent. To some extent we do. For example, how much time do temperaments spend outside the walls of embassies. First this talking and interacting a local market. We dont bring in u. S. Policy is it too much but one of the aftermaths of benghazi putting the root of that rises hillside which is the lockdown for which the americans find themselves any go to beirut, u. S. Embassy in beirut, is basically leaving on security parameters that they did on the civil war. The parameters. I think for u. S. Policy in the middle east, quite likely a thing of a 40 year period that began with the events in 19799. The islamic evolution. Invasion of afghanistan, and other than that led to the u. S. Having is engagement primarily be the focus on what her military does. Look at where we are today. Discussing and worrying about what the next move is. Means for the michael makes which is tactical but important. His diplomatic. They are our eyes and ears for understanding societal trends. Last. Is that opens up questions of whether the United States should actually be spending a lot of money in countries that simply lack the capacity to do this. Maybe theres a strategy for thinking more modestly. With the relative progress in place like tunisia for example. Million dollars but indonesia may ultimately be a lot better than other parts of the middle east. We dont even have a discussion because we are reacting to certain mostly military most and not thinking about hadley new portfolio. I do want to followup on that. But i want to bring darren into the conversation. His religious more important today than it was before. Yes. One of the fundamental fundamental misconceptions about terms of religion is that we tend to assume that this has been the case all of the time. About 40 or 50 years ago, see the dominance of government and ideology now parties and groups, many of the more existent but much slower and much less influential in terms of affecting other groups in society. Or have governments will acting in terms of Foreign Policy or domestic policy. But over the course of the last 40 to 50 years, things started to change dramatically i think. Iran revolution was a big turning. More importantly, ideologists have failed. Trust middle east and throughout 1960s and 70s or 80s. Has failed his leadership mean. The fundamental issues will political and economic and they failed to deliver on their promises and on what people will expecting. And this is what participated the rising of these religious groups. Later on for violent extremist groups throughout the region. The key problems here is their lives not just in terms of their own. There rise within the borders. In 2011 and 2012, 30 to 40 percent of the vote but more importantly, they were able to dictate the parameters of the discussion in terms of the policy issues that will ongoing. The rise influence secular groups. Non religious Political Group so much so that they themselves need to bring in religion to their own discussion. To their own sort of policies proposal so to speak. One good example is what is happening in turkey today. Akp is coming into power in 2002 and he is he massive politician. He is unsuccessful in terms of changing the political system in turkey in such a way that the secular parties are unable to determine the agenda. There unable to discuss issues in a way outside of the parameters set. One problem here is if you think about this in terms of religious competition, that means you or political activist, both religious and on, will try to. Her two of the demands. People walk more. Theyre curious. In the political basis. Anyone has not been uniformly successful. He was successful in growing the economy in the early years. But he is fun into more trouble now. In his around into political pushback. So is there, islam, do you see him using islam more a sneak Political Tool to advance his political career or do you think this is so indigenous to the people turkey and every politician going forward, it would have to encompass religious beliefs more into their plans. I cant speak for his personal beliefs. The unsorted might focus a sneak political scientist, what i can tell you is the religion is an important element. And we look at over time, it changes in terms of the intensity that he emphasizes until 2011 and 12 and 13, would the party was first established. The religion did not play a significant overall. One political prospect or receiving a sneak result of Corruption Scandal first in the later on other issues that have come up, losing elections to sum up these people in popularity and then he started actually using more religion partly because he was to bring in some of those elements especially among the kurdish voters in turkey and national boast. Depending on the time, his youth recourse. This is really important. This is for other policy issues two. Going back to an issue, ryan mentioned about another, i fully agree. Intonation. Its going to go much further compared to other parts of the world. With Foreign Policy. His newly democratized context. What is underlying overall support is these Political Groups. Economic and political issues. Once those issues are addressed first and foremost, we are most likely going to see a decrease in the support. News image want to and then i will ask. Streetsmart using the religion, you talk about mostly in the domestic context of turkey. That is spot on. People leaders. These religion and islam in their live. The mic i wanted to make, two boys. One is about power. Its not necessarily about the right interpretation of religion there is such a thing and then secondly in addition to the domestic use of religion, what i see in the middle east are now is multifaceted and multidimensional competition for power. In the use of islam by turkey, die first this saudi arabia which has its own sort of definition how it tries and uses islam and the birthplace of it. My main. Is he first flight. This is about power. Not ancient hatred. And los angeles interpretation of religion. It is about leaders trying to stay in power by appealing toward a also trying to compete with what they see as their adversaries with the competitors in the region the use of that is the most and are analyzed interesting aspect of it because because they were is it too many fights and all sorts of things. And i something and frankly the book doesnt cover itself but it is part of the thing is america wants a better policy and approach and you need to understand that this is in addition to sort of military moves and the use of terrorism and other things. A key part of the struggle. One of the things i actually want to ask about this is how rapidly things are changing. So if we look 40 years in the future you have a complete new set of majority population hasnt even been born yet. Is he major influence for religion going to be the mom or social media. Is going to be theological rulers for our leaders was going to be populist leaders and if so, how are traditional muslim scholars looking and you really think that the way in which people consume religious wind rapidly change but inside with the United States and even come up with that. Some of my research is actually trying to address this question pretty couple of years ago we started a foundation trying to look into how religious authorities is distributed across middle east among religious leaders primarily