finally, if you thought american debt was worthless, think again. i'll explain. but first, here's my take. the american economy seems to have picked up. the dow jones industrial average is hovering around 13,000, the highest since the financial crisis began in may 2008. the nasdaq is actually at its highest level since the technology bubble burst more than a decade ago. now, stock prices around everything, but data from the economy on the ground is also slowly getting better. jobless claims are down. housing starts are up. things do seem to be getting better, slowly, as i said, but surely. this is all good news for president obama because there is a very strong correlation between economic growth and a president's prospects for re-election. the unemployment numbers are still pretty high, but they are also falling. also, many models suggest that unemployment is not the crucial statistic to determine whether a president will win re-election. most people, after all, are employed. it is the rise in per capita gdp, the average person's income rise, that determines whether they feel things are getting better and thus whether they will vote for the incumbent or seek a change. so does that mean that the economy and the president are in good shape? well, they're in better shape than they looked six months ago. many of the crises that people worried about now seem unlikely to completely derail american growth. mario dragi and the european central bank have ensured that they will not be a total european financial collapse. there might well be a recession in europe, but that will have a smaller effect on american growth. derek thompson of the atlantic points out one worrying prospect that the next debt ceiling renewal might actually have to take place before the elections in which case expect another absurd and politicized drama since all the republican candidates have already announced that they will not raise it. but let's hope that this is an unlikely scenario. what's more plausible is a slowdown due to high oil prices. oil has been creeping up now for months. it is up to $105 a barrel and over $3.50 at the pump. why prices have moved so much so fast is something of a mystery. oil was at around $50 a barrel in early 2007 when all major economies were booming. today demand from america, china, india, europe are all somewhat weaker, and yet prices are sky high. the one obvious factor is the political instability in the middle east. worries about iran are probably the principal driver of these prices and the speculation surrounding it. ironically, president obama's foreign policy is having an impact economically that is not advantageous to him or the american economy. now, there isn't an easy economic path to lowering oil prices. drilling more, raising efficiency, none of this will have much impact in the short run. for now, as so often in the past, the geopolitics of the middle east, america is rarely run, is the crucial driver of the fate of the american economy and possibly the fate of this presidency. let's get started. long before brzezinski was national security adviser for president carter, he was a professor, a thinker, a theorist of foreign policy ideas. and with his new book, "strategic vision: america and the crisis of global power," brzezinski puts his professorial cap on taking a long hard look at america's standing and offering up strategic solutions of how the united states ought to approach this brave new world. welcome. >> fareed, it's good to be with you again. >> we'll get to the big picture in a moment, but since i have you, i cannot but ask you, what do you think is going to happen with this crisis with iran? you have israel on the one hand threatening to act. you have the united states which has been putting a great deal of pressure on iran, but now trying to dial back a little bit of the rhetoric. what do you think -- where is this going to end up? >> i think it all depends on how determined, clear-headed and explicit the united states is. if we drift, if we fuss the words over, if we are ambiguous, it could end up very, very badly. if the united states is clear-cut, if it makes it very clear to the iranians that they're not going to be part of the global community, if they persist in violating the npt, but if at the same time we don't offer them only the choice of capitulation or strangulation, which would force them to lash out, and if we at the same time make it clear that if they continue with their investigation and research and perhaps weapons development, we will, in any case, guarantee the security of the middle east including that of israel the way we have done it for japan and south korea, very effectively, over the years. >> put a nuclear umbrella over the region. >> and we did it for europe, the soviet union. we can do it here, too. so we don't need to go to war. and we have to make that very clear to our israeli friends. we're not going to go to war. they are not going to go to war by flying over our airspace over iraq. we're not going to support them. if they do it, they will be on their own. the consequences will be theirs. because the price we'll all pay if they start a massive war, which the iranians interpret as being done with our connivance, will be disastrous for us in afghanistan, in iraq in the terms of oil, stability in the middle east, more generally. >> there is an interesting window here when the israelis talk about the window which is closing in terms of iran's technical capacity, but the real window i wonder about is the israelis surely know that if they are going to attack, the best time to attack is before the november election. >> oh, i completely agree with you. >> because it will be difficult for the president to oppose them. >> absolutely. absolutely. right. my sense is right now they're essentially pushing to force us to give the iranians terms of a compromise solution but formulated in such a way that they cannot accept it. >> that the iranians cannot accept it. >> yeah. and then prior to the elections, they'll be tempted to strike -- and this is why, when the president talks to benjamin netanyahu on march 5th, first of all, he was humiliated the last time netanyahu was around, and the president of the united states shouldn't be so humiliated, and that he represents the american national interest. he has to speak unambiguously as to what it is. >> if you were advising president obama, what would you tell him to say to netanyahu? >> well, more or less what i said a few seconds ago. namely, this is not compatible with our interests. this would be damaging to us. >> and we will oppose it if he were to do it. >> the iranians will blame us for it. they'll take action against us. we'll be paying the price. this is not acceptable. and we want you to know that. in different ways, presidents eisenhower, carter and bush one did that on other occasions. and the israelis are realists. most israelis, we also have to remember, most israelis don't support a war. much of the establishment of the military is against it. the american jewish community in the majority is not for it. it's just the top echelons. so when the president speaks, he speaks with some degree of political credibility, not only here, but also among the israelis. >> well, i had martin dempsey on the program last week. and he said, when talking about syria, he said very different from libya, really doesn't make sense at this point for the united states to arm the rebels. would you agree with that? >> well, it's not a question whether i agree with that, but my approach would be somewhat differently shaped or defined than the one we're pursuing right now. i would take the position that we will support anything that the turks and the saudis jointly contrive. because they are our friends in the region. they are responsible. they are very interested. and they have the capacity to play a decisive role. we can then back them if they do it. but i certainly wouldn't get out front. >> isn't what's happening in syria, though, a kind of proxy or a cold war with the iranians supporting the regime and the saudis increasingly supporting the opposition? >> yes. it's even more complicated because the israelis also have an interest. and they certainly don't have an interest in a strong united syria again ee emerging. although that's rather unlikely these days in view of what's happened. but we shouldn't be careless in any comparisons between assad and gadhafi. gadhafi was far more vulnerable than assad is. i think it's far from clear that assad can, in fact, be overthrown at this stage. >> because at the end of the day, the syrian government is being pretty brutal. >> absolutely. >> the question is will that brutality work? >> well, unfortunately, brutality, very often in history and throughout the world, works. but i would be very much guided by the turks and the saudis. the turks have a regional role to play. they're assuming that role. they have intelligent leadership. they have been trying. i think we should back them. but the choice of how to act, and particularly if one is to be engaged in some fashion militarily, i think has to be made first by them and also the saudis. and not first by us. >> egypt. what would you do about an egyptian government still essentially a military government that is trying americans? would you cut aid to egypt? >> well, if we're going to start cutting aid to governments that don't do our bidding, then we'd better be fair across the board. we're a little too selective on that. i would think about doing something along those lines without excess. we have a fundamental stake in egyptian stability. and we have also a stake in egyptian-israeli peace. so we have to be very careful not to overdo our negative reactions in a fashion that there is a backfire adversely affecting our other interests. >> we have lots more to talk about with mr. brzezinski. when we come back, we'll ask him how president obama is doing in foreign policy overall and what his long-term strategy for the united states would be in this new world. >> i mean, look at those republican debates. i must say, i literally feel embarrassed as an american when i see those people orate. oat... crispy whole grain. newtons fruit thins, one unique cookie. what makes us number one in motorcycle insurance? we love bikes. we love riders. and most of all, we love to ride. perfect hair every time. leading the pack in motorcycle insurance. now, that's progressive. call or click today. ask me. [ male announcer ] if you think even the best bed can only lie there... ask me what it's like when my tempurpedic moves? [ male announcer ] ...talk to someone who owns an adjustable version of the most highly recommended bed in america. ask me about my tempur advanced ergo. ask me about having all the right moves. [ male announcer ] these are real tempur advanced ergo owners. find one for yourself. try your friends on facebook. see what they have to say unedited. ask me what it's like to get a massage anytime you want. [ male announcer ] tempur-pedic brand owners are more satisfied than owners of any traditional mattress brand. [ woman ] ask me why i'm glad i didn't wait till i'm too old to enjoy this. [ male announcer ] start asking real owners. treat yourself to the ultimate sleep experience and save up to $200 during the tempur ergo savings event. plus visit tempurpedic.com for full details on our five day, five year special financing offer. don't wait. the tempur ergo savings event and five year special financing ends february 26th. tempur-pedic. the most highly recomended bed in america. [ male announcer ] when diarrhea hits, kaopectate stops it fast. powerful liquid relief speeds to the source. fast. [ male announcer ] stop the uh-oh fast with kaopectate. and we are back with zbigniew brzezinski, the former national security adviser. you supported president obama in some ways somewhat surprising because you have been traditionally seen as a sort of hawkish democrat. and you were quite enthusiast about him. in the book, i'd say you give him a kind of mixed grade. would that be fair? >> it's fair but i don't really discuss his foreign policy too much in the book. i try to look beyond the immediate, and i ask myself, given the crisis in america, given the shift in the center of global power gravity from the west to the east, given the new reality of global political awakening, how should the united states perform on the world scene, and how it has to overcome its domestic problems in order to be effective internationally? in that context, i comment on obama somewhat but not explicitly. my view, however, is the following. one, he really understands the world better than any other politician. and i wouldn't even waste time comparing him to what we hear from the republican candidates for presidency. because that's so unrealistic and so primitive that it's embarrassing. the question i have is whether he understands the world well has enough of an inner self-confidence and sense of historical conviction to use american power in a decisively effective fashion which doesn't mean necessarily militarily but which means with strategic wisdom and commitment. and unfortunately, for example, in the middle east, that these days is widely questioned. >> how would you do it differently in the middle east? >> well, first of all, i would have pursued the israeli/palestinian peace process. >> but he tried. >> no, not really. he talked about it. when push came to shove, he didn't try. >> he backed off. >> he backed off. i've been involved in that for 30 years. the fundamental lesson to me is this. the palestinians are too weak and too divided to make concessions, first. the israelis are too strong and too self-confident to make concessions first without something like the united states playing the role of a arbiter, there will be never be peace. and if there is no peace in the short run, the palestinians will pay a high price. in the long run, the israelis will be threatened. and in between, our interests will suffer. >> talk about this issue of political awakening that you describe in the book, and you've done it in a previous one because i think this is a really crucial part of this new world we're going into. >> absolutely. >> everywhere you see these stirrings that countries are more assertive, people are more assertive -- >> you're absolutely right. i think this is the new phenomenon of our time. for the first time in all of human history, all of the humanities politically conscious and active and staring and restless and resentful. that's a new reality. and that means that hegemeonic power is possible. >> when you read mitt romney and his advisers saying america is number one, this is an american century, we should just assert our power -- >> well, the last republican president said that god chose america, and history commissioned america to be playing that kind of a role. and that kind of rhetoric is just divorced from reality to the point of absurdity. actually, to the point of danger for us. i think we have to pursue it in which you build larger coalitions and manage relationships with greater skill. i advocate that we get a larger european community which embraces turkey, russia, if it democratizes. and in the far east, we play the role of great britain, the role of great britain played in europe in the 19th century. we balance. we maneuver. we don't get tied up in alliances. we don't get involved in wars. we try to reconcile china with japan. we try to mediate india and china. and we particularly pursue a stable partnership with china. that's a very complicated role that requires skill. >> now, i don't know if you're aware, but the chinese foreign minister has written a memo which really takes -- which attacks your foreign affairs article from -- which is based on this book. is the chinese view, what you're describing, this greater west as an instrument for the containment of china? >> that's wrong. that's a misinterpretation. i'm surpriseds he does it because i know him well -- and actually, that's a misconception. balance is not the same thing. i believe we do need a stronger west because otherwise the values that the west represents will be dissipated. i think it's important that those values be preserved and increasingly the rest of the world be encourage to emulate them to some extent. that is a very constructive role for the west to play. but the west that is divided into a weak europe, inward oriented and divided america and a hostile and stagnating russia is a world that will be very unstable because of the weight of asia and the uncertainties among asian powers. so we need a vital west and a strong america in that context to be a partner but also mediate towards the east. >> you say in this book, and you also do in a few books back, as you can tell, i'm a connoisseur of your books, you talked about how the internal strength of america was really at the heart of this and that america -- and you quite impressionately said this 20 years ago, it was a society based on debt and a kind of self-indulgence. >> and greed and social awareness. i'm very worried by the fact that our society has become so dramatically demarcated into the ma rich and poor. in this politically awakened world, interactions are so close and intimate that people are intimately aware of what other societies are like. and this is why i have a chapter in my book on the waning american dream. i think the american dream can be reawakened but only if we very seriously tackle our domestic problems, seriously across the board. and right now i don't see that being very likely in the near future. but i still am convinced that we have residual assets that would enable us to do it if we begin to seriously concentrate on these problems. >> in this election, you still prefer obama to the alternatives? >> oh, without a question. without a question. i mean, look at those republican debates. i must say, i am literally -- i literally feel embarrassed as an american when i see those people orate. one of them sounds like a medieval person. another one is trying to explain why he has some of his wealth located in the cayman islands and one goes back to 1780 and one of him using his kre deeshls as a repudiated speaker of the congress. i mean, this is just embarrassing. >> zbigniew brzezinski, thanks for being on. up next, egypt one year on from the revolution, this is a rising anti-american sent imime. who is behind it? welcome back to "the global public square." now for our "what in the world" segment. i want to show you a strange cartoon from egypt. it's of uncle sam. he looks sinister and mean, hunched over a door with a keyhole. the implication, i suppose, is that the u.s. is spying on egyptians. another cartoon shows him with a pistol. he's pointing it at an egyptian man with a cannon. the caption in arabic says "dignity." the point here is quite clear. americans are robbing egyptians of their dignity. what is going on? these cartoons were published recently in a state-run newspaper. and they highlight a disturbing trend. egypt's transitional government is trying to whip up anti-american fervor. its latest ploy is a high pub c publicity trial, nearly half of u.s. citizens who stand accused of illegally receiving foreign funds to promote democracy. the government claims they didn't have a license to do their work. in reality, they people have filed registration papers under the old regime of hosni mubarak. they were told their papers were in order. besides, it is the egyptian government which receives $1.2 billion in the aid from the united states every year to harass charities about getting funds from america. so what is going on? in a recent column, "the new york times'" tom friedman points out that the ongoing was a brainchild of an old mubarak crony, egypt's minister of planning and c