Voice as a representative of shiites around the region. It was the United States saying the iranians have a legitimate say in how we act with the shiites in our country. In effect, and i think lee actually wrote this in one of his columns, this was a death sentence to nimr baqir alnimr. The only way our voice with the saudis about the way they treat the shiite is going to have any resonance is if they believe we are building a regional order in which they are larger security concerns are going to be addressed and their fear of an expanding iran is going to be addressed. If they believe we are going to help roll back iranian militias, then we might be able to have a fruitful conversation with them about whats going on inside their country. But under the current context, it is impossible. Host thank you, mike. One of the things i want to come back to that you brought up, which will play on a point i wanted to come back to with ali is about revolution and the state and if it is possible for the white house to integrate a revolution into regional order. A lot of what we are seeing right now is the result or the function of trying to integrate a revolution into the regional order. But i believe all he wanted to respond to something you said ali wanted to respond to something you said. Ali they do point a hidden sunnisacy against the in the region. What i see in the middle east is mostly because of indecisiveness in the white house and the middle east policy that is wrong. This disentanglement militarily from iraq, completely prematurely, before the iraqi state was capable of defending itself, before it had the institutions to take care of its own security. I think there is a vacuum of power in the entire middle east that iran was in a better position to take advantage of. They have institutions, the revolutionary guard, and other institutions which serves the purpose of exporting the revolution. This, of course, creates a lot of concern among sunni regimes, particularly in saudi arabia which, in this case, is justly concerned about what the United States is doing because its changing the balance of power in the middle east. If saudi arabia and bahrain continue treating their own populations as secondclass citizens when it comes to shia groups, then they would be more open to watch propaganda from the iranian regime. I am not arguing that the Obama Administration has had the correct policy. I think some of the problems we are seeing are consequences of that. Host lets come into this conversation about whether it is possible. Isnt this something that Henry Kissinger said a while ago, that iran has to decide if its going to be a state or a revolution . One of the things we are coming up against is the fact that in iran, its really a revolution. And the revolution overwhelms the state. Ali yes, that is the case, and whenever the iranian government is facing exes tension threats, it begins to behave you have existential threats, you see the rise of people who can charm washington, but whenever that need is no longer there, they are expendable. Host is that what is happening now and what happened with taking the sailors . Ali of course, because the revolution survived. The revolution, in particular, has to survive. There are two objectives. First, to humiliate the United States, and second, to tell the world that the revolutionary guard, which is in charge of irans Foreign Policy and the fact that they were released faster than the british sailors, its honestly no cause for celebration in washington. If secretary kerry wants to build an arc de triomphe for himself in washington, fine, but host he did say the diplomatic channel is open and see how productive it has already proven. Ali the revolutionary guard is the one in iran making the decisions. Host philip, could you give a little more detail about how the revolution i was reading an article by one of our colleagues, and she was talking about the nigerian sheik, and i just went to get a little more detail about how the revolution dictates various structures around the world. If you could give us a little more detail about how it replicates itself. Philip there is a model they follow, and it is the lebanesehezbollah model. There is a military section. There is an ideology of resistance that is always embedded in there. It is antiamerican, antiisrael. You have all of these things wrapped in the antiwestern sentiment they have. The ideology the Islamic Republic is based upon, often these groups will have that incorporated in the structure. It doesnt necessarily mean they are public about it. In bahrain, groups dont necessarily announce where they are ideologically. You will see inklings of it at times. The february 14th youth movement, which started as a peaceful movement, now they are throwing molotovs. Heyve had protests invented by Ayatollah Khomeini to celebrate the downfall of israel. It never really works that way. In bahrain, you have to remember the shia population, these are not khomeiniists running around. Many of these people are independent in terms of who they prefer for their leadership. Sometimes they like more radical types. In iran, what they are attempting to do is coopt that. They coopt the anger that comes with their distrust and dislike for the regime because of how they are mistreated and they say iran will address our interest. And what iran will do is say by the way, why dont you learn weapons . Why dont you do an ideological Training Seminar . I think this gets passed over quite a bit and a lot of analysis. I focus a lot on iraqishia militias being formed. Not every Group Follows khomeini. There are around 200 and 50, like a new one every week, but beyond that, what they are doing in iraq right now, they feel secure enough to say they are with the Islamic Revolution in the region. Same with syria. There is a group that a few irgc leaders are calling syrian hezbollah. When you see Something Like that, they feel far more secure in those environments. When you see Something Like that, they feel far more secure, so it can just come out. In other environments, they are far more patient. They want to pull in numbers and also want to make sure people maybe it is more nationalistic. I love the propaganda music, i am assessed with the stuff. In 2006, you will notice that the had a song about victory of the arabs. And then they had in other one where another one where they are talking about the feeders of lebanon. This comes in after the destructive war in 2006. Now it is all syria. Who cares about lebanon . They will shift the narrative whatever they need to to pull in more people than they need. I think when we are looking at bahrain, with more covert organizations, they have to be. They had a covert Security Apparatus with american assistance. You dont always want to come out and say, did you know how many was the best guy ever . They dont want to do that. That is very interesting also, how you would use different messages in different communities, different societies. Very interesting. Interested inre coming back with this question about revolution versus state, or if you would like to pick up another thread . I think it is both revolution in the sense that they explicitly want an International Revolution in the middle east in the sense that they want the american dominated system that exists to disappear, and a new system in which they are the central player to replace it. Ask you something . First, i should point out for the audience about the different articles you have what you have written explaining the administrations iran policy. If i could ask you to give some sort of did the administration see that they were effectively tilting toward a revolution, or did they think they were going to turn the revolution into a real state . Mike i believe the Obama Administration sees iran as a ,illar of middle east stability as a partner for middle east understands that it is tilting toward iran in syria. This tilt toward iran is happening in kind of a fit of absentmindedness on the part of the americans, or the americans might say we dont what to get inwant to get involved syria, so we are hanging back, and iran is filling the vacuum. We dont need to argue about it, because it doesnt matter, in a sense, what we are trying to understand the dynamics in the region. Whether the United States is thinking about the invasion from mars, or whether it is actually thinking consciously about aligning with iran. The same dynamic is taking place, because as ali so correctly pointed out, iran has these institutions and the ability to project its power by building these proxies on the ground that look after its interests. U. S. Policy is facilitating the expansion of iranian power throughout the region both directly i mean, the iranians intervened directly with the russians as part of a military coalition to prop up alassad. They are also using proxies. We are going to have implementation day on the nuclear deal probably this weekend, could be as early as saturday or sunday, the moment where we start releasing 100 billion dollars to 150 billion to the iranians. If you are sitting in saudi arabia or israel and you see this, and you see the United States about to drop 150 billion on the iranians, it looks like the United States is tilting toward iran. Maybe its not. I believe it is. The iranians play this game of being both the arsonist and the fireman. The irtc stirs up problems and they are very talented at staying behind closed doors with kerry. Saying you know, we understand each other. We have interests. You have interests. We have overlapping interests. They present themselves as consummate players. They say we have overlapping interests. We can cut a deal. Right . And the americans believe they are domesticating the iranians, that they are showing them that a partnership is possible, and in doing so, they are elevating the more pragmatic and defensive elements in Iranian Society. Whats amazing to me and ill stop on this point is that everything that happens in the middle east, every time there is some amazing provocation from the iranians we either ignore it or put a ridiculous interpretation on it. For example, right now they are starving the inhabitants of a city in syria. 20,000 people are starving to death. This is a policy of iran. This was going on while the saudis executed the shiite cleric. Which issue did we decide was a sectarian provocation . It was the execution, not the starvation of 20,000 to 30,000 p people, which everybody soupy in the region sees as a sectarian provocation, of course. Very few people, in the American Media are aware about this perception in the region and reporting on it. Same with the sailors. Ali described very accurately, the i. R. G. Navy put out the message that we are in charge here, we have the say on what goes on. Our white house decides to pitch it as a tremendous diplomatic victory that we got these hostages released within an hour. E our news media just repaetz the talking points of john kerry as if its a deep analysis of what happened without any suggestion that there is another way of seeing this. Are you telling me the white house has not really succeeded skl are you moderates . Will it take more time . Will it ever happen will it ever happen . Empowering moderates . Ali i think what we are most likely to see is that the Supreme Leader is going to block or disqualify many people to run for parliament. Host will he disqualify romani as well . Lf ali probably not rouhani himself, but his network. What we will see is rouhani being an isolated president , and the body that will appoint the next Supreme Leader is going to be dominated by regime loyalists, and then you have technocrats going back into the shadows. Who is, by the way, going to benefit from the money being released because of the sanctions relief . The most likely scenario is that the money is going to be transferred to the Economic Business empire of the revolutionary guard. Thegest contracts largest contractor in iran is going to get the contracts. Its not going to be the private sector. They are arguing if you give us the money, we can make the private sector come back into the economy. But in reality, the private sector, moreivate to be than not, is going soft contracts to the revolutionary guard. You could strengthen the irtc control with the business elites of iran. That calculation by the white house, i think has been completely wrong. Host this is how the white house speaks about it publicly. You would look very strange if you said we dont care about empowering moderates. We are dealing with extremists. These are hard men around the region. As the president apparently said to a number of gulf arab officials at camp david in may, he spoke approvingly of the guys who get things done around the region. You wouldnt really be able to speak publicly and say look, we have done a deal with the extremists, but in fact, thats kind of what has happened, and a Nuclear Agreement with the regime locks in the irgc. Mike, you and i have spoken about this a bit. Do they actually believe they are empowering moderates . Or are they much more like, we made a deal with the extremists, deal with it . Mike i believe both. Its a deep aspect of american thinking about International Politics to gradual,n the moderating influence of international markets. Theres a model they have in their heads, and the model is china. The chinese are our rivals. They are building their military. But we also have this economic we haveendency, so changed the calculus in beijing it is worthwhile to challenge the United States, because there are so many economic interests that are hanging in the bounds for the chinese. Create conditions in iran that will bring about the same kind of calculus. They understand that in the short term it is going to lead to the strengthening of the more hardline elements, but over time, once this money starts penetrating and there is this interdependency, this will change the calculation. Plus, there are two interpretations of iran in washington. One sees it as an aggressive revolutionary power. The other says nobody in iran really believes that anymore. The system was set up so they have to Pay Lip Service to it, but in actual fact they are pragmatic actors. President obama has said this in a number of interviews. They are pragmatic. We can cut a deal with them. That is what he is banking on in the end. Host have they lost their taste for revolution . Ali the revolution and revolutionary behavior serves their corporate interests. The big difference between iran and china is that when president dixon president nixon made the deal, the communist power your communist party was firmly in power. The Peoples Liberation army was under total political control. In the iranian case, if there is a oneparty system, the party is the party of the revolutionary guard. It serves the interest of the revolutionary guard to be revolutionary, not only to Pay Lip Service, but to practice it once in a while. But whenever the threat from the the threat from the inside is threatening the revolutionary guard, they do engage in pragmatic solutions. Its highly ideological and it serves their interests. Not to deliberate too long, but what do you think will happen next . What is the regime likely to do next in the persian gulf . Philip i think we are on a low burn trajectory until they want to turn up the flame. They are building groups of the future. Host what would turning up the flame look like . What does that mean . Orthey have an interest getting then persian gulf hot right now, or is this more like throwing matches in the persian gulf . Every once in a while getting people upset and walking it back. What will the next few months, the next year of the Obama Presidency look like . Philip for starters, i think it will be throwing matches. You have to look at this from a strategic likable from a strategic level and their messaging angles. A lot of groups have been expressing their support for groups like hezbollah. They are right now, forming a rhetorical narrative bubble, the Islamic Resistance is growing. Beyond that, the attacks they are doing, which are in good part due to security measures that have gone on, have not been that effective, but they are continuing. But its the low burn. The low burn is effective for now. Host again, im not asking you to philip almost randomly. I look at timing. It is interesting that a lot of these other groups were sending antiamerican threats. They were going to target a starbucks. Target a chilis. Target the ritzcarlton hotel. Fire rockets at the u. S. Naval base. But those didnt really coincide with a big push by the americans in the region. Not even really with negotiations. I think sometimes, they might just want to press the button a little bit and say, all right, lets see how they react to this. As therries me is that United States pulls out of this region more and again, we are in the last year of the Obama Administration, and this is kind of the trajectory of where its going. I think they may be emboldened. You look at whats going on in iraq and syria, ground battles are not that great for them right now, but if they feel emboldened, they might try to do something a little more spectacular. But again, i think we are on a low burn trajectory, and they wilkie didnt like that until they really want to start things up. I am sure there are elements on the ground converging with irgc saying we really need to do it now. And they are just saying, not yet. Will be a little bit more pragmatic about our revolutionary militarism. But just because you have a revolutionary mindset doesnt mean you cant pursue it pragmatically. When you have revolutionary actors who say ok, maybe we need to be a little more patient the iranians are very big on supplication when it comes to launching the revolutionary goals. Ali keeping the region on a le