False american asumps and objectives have helped create the current mess in the middle east. It is not news to anybody that american politics is uncivil and dysfunctional. We have a Foreign Policy elite that has its head up its media bubble. Prefers narratives to evidencebased analysis. Confuses sanctions and military postureing with diplomacy. And imagines that the best way to deal with hateful foreigners is to use airborn robots to kill them, their friends and their families. We have leaders who cant lead and a legislature that cant legislate. In short, we have a government that cant make relevant decisions, fund their implement akseation and lift allies to support them or see them through. Until we get our act together at home, these looking for American Leadership abroad will be disappointed. At west point, president obama accurately pointed out that our military has no fear. He then added that u. S. Military action cannot be the only or primary come meant to our leadership in every instance. Just because we have the best hammer does not mean that every problem is a nail. True enough. Has justified the use of force. Our hammer blows in the middle east were intended to showcase our power. Instead, they convincingly demonstrated its limitations. These interventions worsened, not improved the regions stability, politics and prospects. Our unmatched military prowess has not enabled us to impose our will in west as i yarks eastern africa. Solving political problems in all of these regions has been no better the question then is what alternatives do to the military hammer and related instruments does the u. S. Presidency now have . Normally the answer would be the political screwdriver of diplomacy. For other mean s of influence like subseconddegreies. There is a reason that the depts of state is the smallest and department of state and s the smallest and weakest department of our government. The United States seldom resorts to diplomacy in resolving major differences with other states. Gladiators trump diplomats any time in terms of the spectacle they provide. Even if they dont work, coercive measures like sanctions and bomb arrange much more immediately satisfying emotional than the long slog of diplomacy. Then too, we are broke. Our military commanders have Walking Around money. Our diplomats do not. And the amateurism innernt the spoil system further reduces the effectiveness of our diplomacy. Jet propelled seast pants drop bies with foreign leaders by secretaries of state have proven to be no substitute for strategy or the cultivation of influence with those leaders. It is hard to think of any american project in the middle east that is not at a dead end. This included our policies toward israel and palestine, democracy promotion, egypt, islamist terrorism, stability in caressnt iran and the gulf. Let me quickly run through that list. In april, our fourdecade long attempt to broker a secure jewish state in the middle east puttered to a disgraceful end. The final phase turnover peace rocess, instead of of mediating, the United States negotiated with israel, not with the palestinians about selfdetermination. The u. S. Efforts brothering for peace for israel is not just dead, but so putrid, it is not sufficient to show at a wake. Israel did not believe in it so it killed it, may it rest in peace. Israel used the process as a distraction while it created on the ground in the form of illegal settlements. Related policies have made israels peaceful coexistence with the palestinians and arab neighbors impossible. The United States created the moral hazard that enabled izz trial put itself in this ultimately untenable position. 40 years aimed at achieving regional and International Acceptance for israel produced the very opposite. Increasing International Isolation and a program for the jewish state. We will now cover israels back as the saying goes as the United Nations has its ongoing maltreatment and intermittant muggings of its captive arab population complete its international ostracism. Well pay a heavy political price for this. Globally in the middle east. Nd very likely in escalating terrorism abroad and at home. It may inspire a sense of honor but it more closely resembles assisted suicide than a strategy for survival of israel and our information to the middle east. Americans like to have a moral foundation for Foreign Policy. For all of our policies. In the middle east and not just with respect to israel. The geology has proven too complex to allow such a foundation. To our professed desire promote democracy. In practice, the United States has made a real effort of temperaturetizing countries it democktizing countrys it has invaded or those that it espises like iran. When democratic elections yield governments to which our allies object, as in algeria, palestine and egypt, washington contrives their overthrow and replacement by congenial despots. If democracy the message, democracy is not now its prophet. It has appeased israel and our friends in the arab gulf but greatly tarnished our claims to seriousness about our values. It has produced no democracies, but it has pulled down several before they had a chance to take root. Egypt is a days in point. After raising hope s of a democratic era of awakening and electing an incomp at the present time islamist government, egypt is now an economically sinking military dictatorship distinguished from iran theistheis only tyrannies. There is not much we can do bout this. Americas arab Gulf Partners are committed to military dictatorship and suppression of islamism in egypt. It is hard to think of a place where there is a starker continue addition between american ideals, commitments to client states and interests in precluding the spread of terrorism than in contemporary egypt. It is attempting to conclude if were going to be hardheaded realist, we should just skip the offputting hypocrisy about democracy and human rights and get on with it. That seems to be what we intend. How else is one to interpret the president s professional for multiple partnerships with the regions Security Forces to suppress islamist terrorism. Odays egypt is the Regional Cooperation in such repression. We have another model in mind . It is not apparent. Leaving in outlet for peaceful descent, israel is encouraging part of its majority toward violent politics. It is true, of course that, egypt is not the only incubator for such enemies of america. Americans went abroad in search of monsters to destroy. We sfound them and bred more. Some have already followed us home. Others are no doubt on their way. Thats why we have an expanding garrison state in this country. Our counterterrorism programs meanwhile are everywhere nurturing a passion for revenge against United States. We gave a big boost to the spread of islamist terrorism hen we envaded iraq. Our stated purpose was to deny weapons of mass destruction that idnt exist to prorses terrorists who were not there. We then thoukt we might as well onduct the hitandrun democratization. Not only did that not work, it set off a religious war that ultimately gave birth to the jihaddist if an that straddles the border. What we did in iraq as a result of breaking it into three pieces, now in practice, we seem to be working on the rest of the event. Israel is gnawing away at what remain s of palestine. The Transnational Coalition of jihaddists is vive secting syria and iraq. With our help, syria is burning, charring lepp lebanon and scorching jordan as it does. The kurds are making their escape from the existing state structures. The Syrian Government loathes it. We fear, or hope if it is defeated, it could be replaced by more frightful people. Bombing cant prevent this. We propose to arm the force of mythical syrian moderates. We expect this latest coalition of the billing to fight the Syrian Government and its pponents by of while note play refraining from making common cause with the latter. Sounds like a plan for passifying capitol hill if not syria. If our object sieve to keep syria in flames, it is a plausible plan. Perhaps that is what we really want. It is a grain on iran which we have identified as our main enemy in the region. Destabilizing syria arguably teased the pressure on iran. Irans sleersd said they dont want because it would be sinful. Our frequent threats to bomb iran seem to be a clever test of its leaders moral integrity. If we give them every reason we can think of for them to build a nuclear deterrent, will they still not do it . Judging from fridays news, this experiment will go on for at least another four months. This brings me to a key point in policy difficulty. We have repeatedly told people in the middle east that they must either be with us or against us. They remain annoyingly unreliable in this record. Irans ayatollahs are against us in syria, lebanon and bahrain but with us in afghanistan and iraq. He assad regime in hezbollah oppose us in syria and lebanon but are on our side in iraq. The jihadis are with us in syria but against us in iraq and elsewhere. Israels government is with us on iran but against us in blocking palestinian selfdetermination and favoring it for the occurreds. Kurds. Saudi arabia is against us in iraq. They were for us in egypt. It is against jihaddistan in the fertile caressnt but nobody can figure out where it stands elsewhere. How can you have a coherent policy in the middle east when the people there o so inconsistent . I think it is is that outsiders cant manage the middle east and shouldnt try. It is time to let the countries in the region accept responsibility for what they do rather than act in such a way as to free them to behave irresponsibly. It is time to recognize that the United States cant solve the israel palestine issue. Can no longer protect israel from the International Legal and political consequence s of its morally deviant behavior and has nothing to gain and a great deal to lose by continuing to be identified by that behavior and we pay for gaza. Israel make it own decisions without regard to american interests, values or advice. I think it would make better decisions if it were not shielded from their consequence or if it had to pay for them itself. America should cut the um bill cuss and let israel be israel. It is time the United States stop assigning to the rule of law of human rights in the middle east. We support their anythingation in egypt. Nd negation in egypt. Clearly u. S. Policy is almost entirely about interest. Not values. If if that is the case, lets not violate our laws by dishonestly claiming that is there have been in misuses of american weaponry by israel nooned coups in egypt. We should not have thrause equire us to be if the real interest in the United States and syria relate to iran and its conflict of interest with israel and saudi arabia as well as to our new cold war with russia, lets admit that and behave accordingly. This would mean acting the farcical of the geneva conflict on syria. That excluded key parties. Not a serious effort to bring peace. Only if we include all of the parties engaged in proxy wars in syria including can we hope to end the mass murder there. I would say the same thing is true of the situation in gaza. It cannot be included in all parties including talking to hamas. It is true in syria, not just for humanitarian reasons, compelling as those are, ending for both syria and iraq is the key. We should not be uping the ante in syria by pumping in more weapons, many which are likely to end up in jihadi hands. We should try to end fighting there and focusesing on eventing the merge ens of an expanding terrorist bastion that will serve as a homeland for the rowing number of enraged muslims. The jihaddistan calling itself the Islamic State is a menace to both iran and saudi arabia. As well as to us. Distasteful as they might find it to work with each other, iran and saudi arabia have a common interest to discover. The new state was born of political rivalry between jihad and tehran and it can bonl contain tpwhared cooperation. Depending on how u. S. iran relations develop, america might be able to help them do this. But if the United States and iran remain enemies, the obvious alternative for the United States would be to accept the inevitability of an expanded dominated state that will replace much of the current political geography of the region, to work with saudi arabia, to tame extremist tend sis within such a state and to yoke it to balance iran. Any and all of these approaches would demand a level of diplomatic sophistication, imagination and skill that the United States has not displayed in recent years. The more likely outcome of our current blend of baffled hesitancy, diplomatic innocent tude and militarism is ineptitude and militarism. A political exflotion egypt, if disintegration of iraq, jordan, lebanon and syria along with palestine and the diversion of a considerable part of the resource s of these countries to terrorism in the region and against american homeland. We can and should do better than this. [applause] i would like to thank speakers and ask if there are any questions . I would like to start with a couple of questions. Remarkably in the stack of thereons ive been given, is no question about iraq. So maybe we could start there. You spoke about missed opportunities. What do you think we could have done if anything in iraq to get a better outcome than the one we have now . For example, do you think a greater effort would have left americans there to strain iraqi Security Forces and paul, maybe you can comment. I hope we get a cross talk here among all the panelists. Everyone can respond to these questions, but paul, you questioned the labels we put on people when we call people partners or call people foes. Is the Nouri Almaliki regime really a reliable partner for the United States . Im going answer your question in a way you hasnt intended. I think the mistakes that we ade are too many to mention. I have been turned off by the blame game thats currently going on in washington. I think the Obama Administrations iraq policy ask dreadful and i think the bush administrations policy was dreadful. Both of them contributed to the current state of affairs in significant ways. Each time i find a mistake that obama made there is an antiseed theant bush made and every time there was a good move that one made you can trace it to the move the other made. Unfortunately the latter are far fewer than the former. There are great lessons in iraq. Where i would like to see us focusing more energy on the questions what lessons we should be learning opposed to who was mistaken and who should be blamed for the current impasse. I think one of the greatest lessons was that whenever we take on a problem, anywhere in the world, but certainly in the middle east, whenever we plan for the best, we get the worst. And when we plan for the worst, we often do better than that. Sometimes we even get the best. The 1991 gulf war comes to mind as an instance where you had a very conservative small sea of leadership. The plan for all contingencies did quite well. Obviously it was not a perfect well. There was Unfinished Business perfect war. There was Unfinished Business there as well. This is one of the issues that ive seen time and again with american approaches to the middle east, which is what ive consistently seen from american policy makers is a sense that the middle east is just too hard. It is a mess. We dont understand it. What can we do to just push it on to the back burner and mover to Something Else we understand and might be able to solve. Of course the middle east doesnt go away. It aint las vegas. Whapts there doesnt stay there. What happens there doesnt stay there. I would like to see us making more of an effort. Not necessarily across the board. I dont agree with paul or ambassador freeman. I think there are issues that it is best we keep our noses out of. Where the issues matter and where they affect our interests, i think one of the greatest mistakes we have made is to try to put a bandaid on things and walk away. The problems of the middle east dont lend themselves to that. Tom, Prime Minister maliki is an excellent example of what i was talking about before in making policy to our customary maliki and division between good guys and bad guy. And what chas freeman was talking about and how players in the region so inconveniently dont fit into those two bin s of being for us or against us. Mr. Maliki is for himself and doing his best to try to have a third term as Prime Minister. Of course thats what most palestinians aim for, to stay into power. One might add if one had the larger interest of iraq at heart, he could as a very statesman like thing step down in favor of someone else. He has a very narrow view of what democracy, if you can still call it that, entails, which shia and the majority and the shiite rule and im the ruler to have shiites. There is no question that his very narrow view of how it ought to work has badly antagonized the great majority of the sunni iraqi arabs. It is not just isis that has been able to score those gains in the west. It has been because turnover much broader disillusionment with the regime. In all of those senses he is not a very good partner at all, which isnt to say we should continue the business with him. He sf he continues as Prime Minister, we will have to do business with him. What we have to keep foremost in mind is that the United States does not have an interest in taking sides or being seen to take sides in sectarian disputes and conflicts in this region. I think even if those disputes werent sectarian, that would be a case. There is a convenient narrative now in washington if maliki could be dis