Dr. Bouthaina Shaaban in "Charlie Rose Show"
Guest: Buthaina Shaaban, Richard Bulliet, Bernard Haykel
July 18, 2006
CHARLIE ROSE, HOST: Welcome to the broadcast. Everyone talks about the influence of Syria on the conflict between the Israelis and Hezbollah. Tonight, we hear from a representative of the Syrian government.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUTHAINA SHAABAN, SYRIA`S EXPATRIATES MINISTER: What Israel is committing in Lebanon is -- it has nothing to do with the liberation of the two soldiers, because Israel knows that the destruction and the military force it`s using is not going to ensure the release of the two soldiers. The only thing that would release the two soldiers is to talk about exchange of prisoners. And therefore, I feel what Israel is doing against innocent Lebanese civilians, killing civilians, attacking churches, schools, ports, destroying bridges, it has nothing to do with the two soldiers. It`s a different plan altogether.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHARLIE ROSE: And for some context of the conflict in the Middle East and its wider implications and future implications, two professors weighed in to give us that perspective.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BERNARD HAYKEL, NYU: Every other Shiite in Lebanon is a member of Hezbollah. They cannot be removed. And as long as they remain standing after this confrontation, this will be construed as a victory. And if they maintain their allegiance with Hamas, as Dick said, then that will be construed as a major victory for them symbolically throughout the Muslim world, that they were able to withstand an Israeli attack, and that they were able to maintain the strong alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine.
RICHARD BULLIET, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: I think splitting Hamas from Hezbollah is something that is worth exploring diplomatically.
CHARLIE ROSE: How would you do that?
RICHARD BULLIET: Well, as I say, one of them is financially desperate...
CHARLIE ROSE: OK, sure.
RICHARD BULLIET: And the other one is really quite secure. So one of them...
CHARLIE ROSE: Hezbollah is secure and Hamas is (inaudible)...
RICHARD BULLIET: And you just have a lot more power to persuade Hamas than you have to persuade Hezbollah.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHARLIE ROSE: The conflict in the Middle East and its implications, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHARLIE ROSE: We begin tonight with the perspective from Syria on the crisis in the Middle East. Syria has close ties to both Hezbollah and Hamas. It will likely be a key player in resolving the current crisis. President Bush spoke about the situation earlier today, and here is a part of what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Everybody abhors the loss of innocent life. On the other hand, what we recognize is that the root cause of the problem is Hezbollah. And that problem must be addressed. And it can be addressed through -- internationally, by making it clear to Syria that they`ve got to stop their support to Hezbollah.
Syria is trying to get back into Lebanon, it looks like to me. And we`re never going to tell a nation how to defend herself, but we are urging caution when it comes to the survival of the Siniora government. It`s essential that the government of Lebanon survive this crisis. We`ve worked hard to free -- and we being the international community -- worked hard to free Lebanon from Syrian influence. And there`s a young government there. And it`s in our interest that Syria stay out of Lebanon and this government survive.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHARLIE ROSE: Joining me now from Damascus is the country`s minister of expatriates, Buthaina Shaaban. She is also a close advisor to President Bashar Al-Assad. Welcome.
BUTHAINA SHAABAN: Thank you, Charlie.
CHARLIE ROSE: What role will President Assad play in solving this crisis?
BUTHAINA SHAABAN: Well, you know, Charlie, for the last five years, President Assad was trying to create the atmosphere in which such a crisis would not erupt. We believe in Syria that the major reason for the eruption of this crisis is the abandonment of the -- the abandoning of the Middle East peace process, and resorting to violence and armaments to solve every problem in the Middle East.
And I think that`s really what is happening. I think the two Israeli soldiers are one issue, but what is happening in Lebanon is a different issue, because Israel is destroying bridges, churches, airports, schools, ports, killing civilians. Israel knows that this is not going to lead to the liberation of the two soldiers. Only negotiations would lead to the liberation of the soldiers, and the liberation of children, women and men kidnapped by Israel and kept in Israeli jail.
So if the world is ready to talk sense and to talk in real terms, of course Syria would be more than happy to play a positive role, not only in solving this crisis, but in really trying to ensure the establishment of a just and comprehensive peace the Middle East, so that such a situation would not occur again.
CHARLIE ROSE: President Bush said that the only -- said yesterday in remarks overheard, because there was a microphone he did not realize was on, that the only thing necessary was for President Assad to make a phone call to Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, and they would stop it without any pre-conditions.
BUTHAINA SHAABAN: Yes. Well, I mean, by saying that, President Bush is ignoring the responsibility of Israel and all the destruction that is happening in Lebanon, and trying to hold Hezbollah responsible for what is happening, which is not the case.
Israel is leading a horrid military crimes against Lebanese. More than 500,000 Lebanese have been displaced in the last week. And I think President Bush has to speak about peace, has to try and make peace in the Middle East, instead of being so interested in making wars in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Palestine, and now in Lebanon. We would love to see President Bush speaking about peace and supporting peace efforts, instead of supporting Israel in all these crimes it`s committing in the region and the instability that has created because of that.
CHARLIE ROSE: You know -- and everybody in the region knows -- that the United States and its relationship with Israel will not change. That the United States feels like that it has a special relationship with Israel, and that Israel is the only democracy in the region, and that support will continue.
BUTHAINA SHAABAN: I think the United States, if it thinks that it is serving Israel by this, it`s really doing a disservice, even to Israel. Because the latest events in the region, and what the destruction, the horrid destruction that is taking place in Lebanon by Israel is really turning the Arab masses so much against Israel and in support of resistance. And I think in the long run, this is going to be dangerous for everyone in the region.
I think Israel and the United States have to believe that unless everyone is secure in the region, Israel cannot be secure. And therefore, coming around the table and talking peace and picking up Arab initiative and ending Israel occupation is not only in the interest of the Arabs, it is really in essence and in the long run in the interests of Israel as well. And I think this is what the American administration fails to understand.
CHARLIE ROSE: Let me ask two questions about your government. The first is, did...
BUTHAINA SHAABAN: Please.
CHARLIE ROSE: ... Syria give the go-ahead to Hezbollah to capture the Israeli soldiers and to engage in conflict with the Israelis when they responded?
BUTHAINA SHAABAN: Well, you know, this is really to -- anybody who thinks in these terms is really to underestimate the importance and the intelligence of Hezbollah.
Hezbollah is a Lebanese resistance party that is a lot more sophisticated and a lot more independent than some people would like to think.
But let me go back to the basics and say that Hezbollah was not even in the existence when Israel invaded and occupied Lebanon in 1982, and Hezbollah came as a response to Israeli occupation. And therefore, it is Israel who is responsible for even the very existence of Hezbollah.
And I think if we want to be constructive, we have to acknowledge that it`s only ending Israeli occupation that will solve all the problems, and that will not make any -- you know, that will make sense in the region. Syria would not go to Hezbollah and say, go and kidnap two soldiers, and Hezbollah is not working under the instructions of Syria. This is too simplistic a logic, really, to understand the complicated reality in the region.
CHARLIE ROSE: For anyone, then, who suggests Hezbollah would not have done this without the consent of Syria and Iran, you say nonsense?
BUTHAINA SHAABAN: Absolutely. Absolutely. I think, you know, I mean, I really would like, you know, the West think in different terms. I mean, why does the West accept that Israel kidnaps 380 children, 100 women, many of them were pregnant, and takes them into Israeli jails, where they are tortured, where they are not even taken to court or any accusation has addressed to them, plus 9,000 other Arab prisoners, and yet the West thinks that`s fine? And the Arabs should not do anything? And they should just accept that and say thank you?
You know, there is a very difficult reality that the Arab people feel -- and Arab life is not equal to human life in Western mind. That is really what most Arabs feel, and therefore that`s why they don`t understand why Hezbollah takes this action, why the Hamas takes another action. Because they don`t hear about Israeli crimes against the Arabs. They only hear about the Arabs` reaction to Israeli crimes. And hence is the imbalance in the Western attitude towards what`s happening in the region.
CHARLIE ROSE: Are you suggesting that Hezbollah had good reason to kidnap Israeli soldiers?
BUTHAINA SHAABAN: Well, I`m suggesting that the whole world should not accept Israeli gross violation of human rights. Ten thousand prisoners. You know that -- you know, I read about women -- that`s what concerns me most -- who give birth to children in Israeli jails, who were not allowed to give their children milk. And when they released 3-year-old boy who was born in prison, Anwar (ph), he came out and said, where`s momma? Where`s my mother?
I mean, I, as a mother and as a woman, I expect the world to hear about Palestinian mothers and Palestinian children, and to be just as enthusiastic for the liberation of these prisoners as they are for the liberation of the two Israeli soldiers.
But let me conclude this statement by saying: What Israel is committing in Lebanon has nothing to do with the liberation of the two soldiers, because Israel knows that the destruction and the military force it`s using is not going to ensure the release of the two soldiers. The only thing that will release the two soldiers is to talk about exchange of prisoners. And therefore, I feel what Israel is doing against innocent Lebanese civilians, killing civilians, attacking churches, schools, ports, destroying bridges, it has nothing to do with the two soldiers. It`s a different plan altogether.
CHARLIE ROSE: I`ll tell you what it has to do with. It has to do with Israel`s belief that Hezbollah has the potential to, with rockets and missiles, to attack its cities. And they are trying now, they say, once and all, to take away Hezbollah`s military capacity.
BUTHAINA SHAABAN: Well, you know, I think they have to believe, Israel has to believe and everyone has to believe that no people throughout history, no people on Earth accepted occupation and sat idle and accepted humiliation and conceded to that. Whether Hezbollah or Hamas or the Arab people or any other Arab party, the Arabs are going to find ways and forms to fight Israeli occupation and to liberate their prisoners and their land.
And therefore, the shortest way in order to save more pain, to save more innocent civilians on both sides is to take up the Arab initiative, where 22 Arab countries said they would like to make peace with Israel, to talk peace around the table, to establish a just and comprehensive peace in the region, and to allow this region to live in peace and security, instead of relying on military force to solve problems.
Military force never solves problems. Wars never solve problems. Only negotiations would be able to bring good solutions.
CHARLIE ROSE: But there seems to be a split within the Arab community. On the one side, you have Saudi Arabia and Egypt and Jordan, and on the other side you have Syria and Iran. Recognizing Iran is not an Arab country, but nevertheless, has a relationship with Syria that seems to be improving.
BUTHAINA SHAABAN: That`s right. Well, it is not as clear split as the Western papers -- I read all the Western papers today, "Los Angeles Times" and "Wall Street Journal," I read them as if it is absolutely, you know, divided between, as you said, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia on the one side and Syria and Iran and the Arab people on the other.
I think there are different opinions about how to handle the current crisis, but I think the opinion that is more realistic is to try and find a just and comprehensive and final solution to the Arab/Israeli conflict, which is the point of view of Syria, which is the perspective of Syria.
But putting the blame on one side or another is not going to solve problems. What Syria is looking for is a constructive approach in order to bring peace and stability into the region and stop this destructive process that started in Palestine, and now in Lebanon, and it is so destructive and so terrible and it leads to nowhere. Because no matter how many Lebanese they will kill, no matter how many Palestinians they will kill, there will always be Lebanese and Palestinians and Syrians rejecting Israeli occupation and fighting against it.
So the shortest way is to end this occupation and talk peace within international legitimacy.
CHARLIE ROSE: The United States or Israel would say to you and to your government, why are you supplying missiles to Hezbollah? The Israelis say that the missiles that are raining down on Haifa come from Syria. They have the mark of Syria on them.
BUTHAINA SHAABAN: Well, I can assure you that Syria has never and is not sending any missiles to Hezbollah. But if you want to listen to the Israelis, they just bombarded four trucks that are carrying medicine to the south of Lebanon, and they said that these are trucks are carrying armaments. I mean, there is so much distortion on the Israeli side of the facts. Yet they blockade things that they do not want the world to hear, and they distort the other facts, and you don`t have to believe everything the Israelis are saying.
I can tell you for certain that Syria is not supplying Hezbollah with anything. But instead of blaming Hezbollah or focusing on who to blame, I think we should focus on solving the problem. There is a very big problem in the Middle East, that Israel is occupying Arab territories, is imprisoning Arab people, is destroying Lebanon, and this problem has to be solved. The Arab/Israeli conflict has to be solved. And Syria is suggesting very constructive solutions, within international legitimacy for the last four years. I believe it is the obligation of the United States as a superpower to take these constructive solutions and apply them, instead of distributing blames to Hezbollah or to Syria or to Iran, which will not lead anywhere.
CHARLIE ROSE: As you know, the Israelis say if Hezbollah will stop the rocket attacks, if they will return the soldiers and if they will remove themselves from the border with Israel, that the Israelis will withdraw their troops and will have a cease-fire, and then withdraw their troops.
BUTHAINA SHAABAN: Well, the Israelis know that Hezbollah is not going to do that. Hezbollah wants an exchange of prisoners, and this is -- you know, this is what Hezbollah has said right from the beginning. And I think they have to make cease-fire, and Israel has to stop the horrible destruction it is carrying out in Lebanon.
I think this is what they have to see. They only see their side of the story. And even the G-8, really, only saw the Israeli side of the story, but they did not see the Arab side of the story, and that has been a very long-standing problem that the Arabs are suffering from.
CHARLIE ROSE: Has Syria drawn closer to Iran because of this crisis?
BUTHAINA SHAABAN: Well, Syria has always been close to Iran. As you know, during the Iran/Iraq war, you know, when the United States, needless to remind you, was supporting Saddam, Syria was with Iran against Saddam, because we knew even then that Saddam was horrid and was doing terrible things to the region. And so, it has been a very long-standing relationship between Syria and Iran.
However, what Syria and Iran want is a peaceful, constructive solution within Security Council resolution, and within international legitimacy. And what we are asking for is an equal human integrity. And I think this is our right to ask for, and I think the West should pay attention to what we are saying, because we are saying things that would shorten the cycle of violence and that would reduce victims on both sides. At the end, people will never give up their rights, but we can shorten the circle of violence by being wise and making peace with the least possible cost.
CHARLIE ROSE: Do you fear that the Israelis will attack Damascus?
BUTHAINA SHAABAN: Well, you know, I don`t know. It is very difficult to predict what Israelis want to say. I think their calculations have nothing to do with wanting this region to be a good region, a stable region.
But Damascus has been here for 6,000 years, and it will always remain here. And, you know, Charlie, when I hear the news, Britain is taking its citizens out, Australia is taking its citizens out, the U.N. is taking its employees out. And I think about the West and I say to myself, it`s very easy for Western governments to take their people out, but they don`t think that there are people here who live here for thousands of years who have nowhere else to go, and who want this region to be a stable and peaceful and secure region.
So whether Israel attacks Damascus or it doesn`t attack Damascus, we are not settlers here. We are natives, we are indigenous, and we will always be here. Whether we die or we live, we will always be here. It`s our land, it`s our territory, and we will protect it and we will live in it.
CHARLIE ROSE: Thank you so much for joining us. I`m about to run out of satellite time. I hope we can do this soon. It`s a pleasure to have you on the broadcast.
BUTHAINA SHAABAN: Thank you, Charlie.
CHARLIE ROSE: From Damascus, Syria, the minister of expatriates, Buthaina Shaaban.
Today`s crisis in the Middle East has had a long and often violent history. This evening, we want to provide some context and some perspective to the conflict. Joining me to help us get through that is Richard Bulliet. He is professor of history at Columbia University`s Middle East Institute. And Bernard Haykel, he is associated professor of Middle Eastern and Islamic studies at New York University. I`m pleased to have both of them here.
Help me understand, should we be thinking more in terms of what`s gong on within Islam as much as we ought to be thinking Israel versus anybody? Does this say as much about what is going on in Islam, between Sunnis and Shias, between the differences in Iran and Syria on one hand, and Egypt and Saudi Arabia on the other?
BERNARD HAYKEL: You see, in the Sunni world, you basically have two forces, two dominant or prominent forces that speak in the name of religion and politics. You have al Qaeda, a very radical, militant interpretation of Sunni Islam, and who are engaged in this kind of wanton killing of fellow Muslums, especially Shiites. And then you have leaderships...
CHARLIE ROSE: Al Qaeda, just to interrupt, al Qaeda sort of began by Osama bin Laden...
BERNARD HAYKEL: Correct.
CHARLIE ROSE: ... who was a Sunni, who came out of Saudi Arabia, which is predominantly Sunni.
BERNARD HAYKEL: Correct. That is correct. And then you also have political leaderships in the Muslim world, represented by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and other Sunni majority countries. And these leaders are considered by al Qaeda and by others to be lackeys of the West, to be corrupt, to be venal, not to represent the interests of the Arabs and Muslims, especially when it comes to the West, the United States in particular, or when it comes to the battle against Israel.
And so there is an opportunity and there has been now, and I think this opportunity has widened and has been made more available to Hezbollah and to Iran because of the Iraq war.
So Hezbollah now is poised to say, look, forget the stuff about Sunni and Shia. The real enemy is Israel, and behind Israel is the United States. And we can make alliances with Sunnis, like they have with Hamas, for instance, which is the Muslim Brotherhood organization in Palestine, and we can fight Israel, and ultimately we can fight the United States, and ignore al Qaeda and ignore the leaderships of the Sunni Muslim world.
And the language that Nasrallah, who`s the head of Hezbollah, the language that he`s using is very much the language of al Qaeda, but sort of distorted or changed somewhat. The kind of language that he`s using is if you kill us, we`re going to kill you. But we`re going to use principles of Islamic war in fighting you.
CHARLIE ROSE: Is there also this difference, in terms of within that world, as far as we know, conventional wisdom is that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda have no political objectives. They don`t want to go take over -- except perhaps for Saudi Arabia, Osama bin Laden there, whereas Hezbollah has political objectives, is a political party, wants to be members of parliament. If you look at al Qaeda in Iraq, they have no program except to kick out the Americans.
RICHARD BULLIET: See, I think part of the problem here -- because I disagree with the way Bernie set it up.
CHARLIE ROSE: Go ahead, then.
RICHARD BULLIET: Because you do have these Sunni governments, and you do have al Qaeda, but there`s a middle term that`s left out, and this is precisely political parties that believe that through an opening up of the political system and elections, that they can actually win enough support to be a major part of the government or to be the government, as Hamas has become, as Hezbollah has become, as the parties we`re dealing with in Iraq, the SCIRI and the Dawa parties, have become.
And I think that they may share some of the ultimate anti-American/anti-Israeli objectives that al Qaeda has, but their notion of how to pursue their way in the world is through a political program that is precisely rooted in different countries.
CHARLIE ROSE: But there is this issue as well. In most of the countries where -- in most of the places, and there have been just a few, where Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon, they have joined the political process, but they don`t want to give up their militia, even if they are the majority, as the Hamas was in Palestine.
RICHARD BULLIET: Yes, but remember, you`re also leaving out the groups that we, the United States, are heavily relying on, which are very, very similar political parties in Iraq. Where we`re asking them to give up their militias, and they`re not doing it. But it raises the question as to under what circumstances do you give up a militia? I mean, if you are going to take over a country, then maybe you give up a militia. But if you`re going to be a minority that is, you know, in some sort of danger, as the Shiites in Iraq surely feel they are from the Sunni insurgency, then maybe you don`t want to give up your militia.
I mean, I think every group would have circumstances under which they would give up their militia. It`s just a question of what those circumstances are.
CHARLIE ROSE: That was the political argument in Lebanon, was it not?
BERNARD HAYKEL: It was. And...
(CROSSTALK)
CHARLIE ROSE: Hezbollah`s militia?
BERNARD HAYKEL: And Hezbollah did not give up its militia, because its ideology and its goals were not just those of the Lebanese political game. Its ideology is an ideology that is pan-Islamist, that argues for -- in terms of Islam and Islamic ideology.
Although they gave up on the hope of turning Lebanon into an Islamic state because of other sects that wouldn`t agree with their vision of what that Islamic state would look like, they nonetheless, with respect to Israel, they maintained a very strong Islamist position, which is to ultimately take over Jerusalem and to destroy Israel.
And this is not just rhetoric. I don`t think it`s purely a rhetorical position.
CHARLIE ROSE: Yes, but Hamas at the time in Petra, Abbas was negotiating or having conversations with Olmert about some kind of negotiation that would result in Israel saying we would give up its territories back to the `67 boundaries, with some differences, and Hamas would recognize Israel`s right to exist. That was the discussion.
BERNARD HAYKEL: That`s right. That`s right. And as to whether Hamas would ultimately have done this and accepted it we don`t know, because of the...
CHARLIE ROSE: A two-state solution.
BERNARD HAYKEL: ... kidnapping that happened and then the...
RICHARD BULLIET: But you also have to keep in mind that in terms of this long-term goal, which may or may not be rhetorical, I`m not sure I`d agree on that, Iran -- and Hezbollah follows Iran to some degree in these things -- Iran has said we`re opposed to Israel. I mean, nobody has been more opposed to Israel than President Ahmadinejad. But their standing policy has been, if the Palestinians make an agreement with Israel, it`s a Palestinian business, and this is one of the - one of the ambiguities ...
CHARLIE ROSE: Right, right.
RICHARD BULLIET: ... as to whether supposing there was a settlement ...
CHARLIE ROSE: Yeah.
RICHARD BULLIET: ... between the Palestinians and Israelis, would Hezbollah feel that they have to back off.
CHARLIE ROSE: Pretty much -- I mean, the foreign minister of Iran, former foreign minister said essentially that on this program. You know, that if the Palestinians want to make an agreement with the Israelis, that`s their business.
RICHARD BULLIET: Right.
CHARLIE ROSE: OK, now. Let me - let me ask this question. The obvious solution to this in the near term is that there`s an exchange of prisoners or, B, the Hezbollah give up the Israeli soldiers. There`s some understanding about what`s going to happen in the southern area, southern border, and the Hezbollah stop shelling Israeli cities and the Israelis pull back from Lebanon. That`s sort of the shape of what probably is going to come out of this. OK, fair enough?
RICHARD BULLIET: That`s what people hope will come out of it.
CHARLIE ROSE: Yeah, OK, that`s what we hope. What long-term consequences are going to come out of this? Are there any significant - significant shifts taking place in this conflict that pretend, good or bad, for the future? Is it in the end about the rise of Hezbollah and because of their relationship with Syria and Iran, Iran`s dominance of the Persian Gulf area?
RICHARD BULLIET: I think the really crucial thing here is what the relationship is between Hezbollah and Hamas. The political leadership of Hamas is located in Damascus ...
CHARLIE ROSE: Right.
RICHARD BULLIET: ... and Hezbollah is in Damascus.
CHARLIE ROSE: Well, the extreme political leadership is located in Damascus.
RICHARD BULLIET: OK, but this is where -- where ...
CHARLIE ROSE: Or the militant.
RICHARD BULLIET: ... where they can talk together.
CHARLIE ROSE: Right.
RICHARD BULLIET: ... Because one of the - I mean, ever since the Hamas government came to power, the United States and Israel and some of the European countries have said, we`re going to try and starve you for cash. We`re going to make it, you know, fiscally impossible for you to govern. One conceivable ...
CHARLIE ROSE: As long as you don`t recognize the right of Israel and accept a two-state solution.
RICHARD BULLIET: Right. So one of the possible avenues now would be to have Muslim states that are financially supporting Hamas go to Hamas and say, look, you are screwing up everything for everybody. We are not going to support you financially unless you let go of your Israeli prisoner.
If Hamas were to be persuaded that it`s in their enduring interest financially and governmentally to let go of the Israeli prisoner and get some financial support for that, it might make a separate deal, and then leave Hezbollah by itself.
The idea that - that Hezbollah, which may have taken these prisoners in support of Hamas, would continue its, you know, confrontation if Hamas makes a deal, then - then it`s a little less clear-cut. And I think that one of the avenues that hasn`t really been talked about is whether there is pressure that can be put on Hamas to settle. Because people are talking about the pressure that can be put on Hezbollah, but only - only people who pressure Hezbollah are Syria and Iran, and both of them are fairly invulnerable to either American or U.N. persuasion.
CHARLIE ROSE: The only people that can influence them ...
RICHARD BULLIET: Yeah.
CHARLIE ROSE: ... you mean by their pressures?
RICHARD BULLIET: Yes.
BERNARD HAYKEL: I also think that if Hezbollah remains on the ground in Lebanon, which I suspect it will no matter what the Israelis do ...
CHARLIE ROSE: That is if they can`t kill all of them, you are saying.
BERNARD HAYKEL: They are too entrenched in Lebanese society. They`re part and parcel of Lebanese society institutionally, politically. You know, they are -- you know, every other person, every other Shiite in Lebanon is a member of Hezbollah. They cannot be removed. And as long as they remain standing after this confrontation, this will be construed as a victory. And if they maintain their allegiance with Hamas, as Dick said, then that will be construed as a major victory for them symbolically throughout the Muslim world, that they were able to withstand an Israeli attack and that they were able to maintain the strong alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine.
RICHARD BULLIET: I think splitting Hamas from Hezbollah is something that is worth exploring diplomatically.
CHARLIE ROSE: How would you do that?
RICHARD BULLIET: Well, as I say, one of them is financially desperate ...
CHARLIE ROSE: OK, sure.
RICHARD BULLIET: ... and the other one is - is really quite secure. So one of them ...
CHARLIE ROSE: Hezbollah is secure and Hamas is financially desperate.
RICHARD BULLIET: Yeah, and you just have a lot more power to persuade Hamas than you have to persuade Hezbollah.
CHARLIE ROSE: Going in, which is stronger, Hamas or Hezbollah?
RICHARD BULLIET: Well, it`s ...
CHARLIE ROSE: Assume Hezbollah was smarter - was stronger.
RICHARD BULLIET: Actually, Hamas probably has a greater power to injure Israel than Hezbollah does. Hezbollah makes no - you know, there have been no suicide bombers in Israel from Hezbollah. They have stuck to Lebanon. They fire rockets, but they don`t go in on the ground, whereas Hamas has a record of suicide bombings and provocations and so forth that - that is as long as you arm. And so Hamas is a greater danger to the -- or has been a greater danger to the citizenry of Israel by far than Hezbollah. But the question is, once it came in power as a government, was there the possibility of that moderating?
Well, to some degree the efforts to frustrate their -- their ability to govern have raised that -- made that a moot question.
CHARLIE ROSE: You were in Saudi Arabia.
BERNARD HAYKEL: Yes, I was.
CHARLIE ROSE: Give me a sense of what they think about the crisis that comes out of terrorism, the crisis that comes out of the conflict with Israel, the crisis that comes out of splits within the Islamic world.
BERNARD HAYKEL: Well, for Saudi Arabia, the problem of al Qaeda is a domestic problem. It`s not an international problem, so it`s something that you have to deal with domestically. And one of the key turning points for them was in 2003, when al Qaeda turned against and started blowing up places and people in Saudi Arabia.
CHARLIE ROSE: American officials will tell you, whether it`s CIA directors or others involved in national security areas, that they -- it was only after they began to have some - those explosions, that they began to truly recognize the threat.
BERNARD HAYKEL: That`s correct. And I think that is correct ...
CHARLIE ROSE: And to do something.
BERNARD HAYKEL: And to do something about it. The other thing that they`ve started doing, and this can be dated very precisely to November of last year was they were not doing anything in Iraq to help the American position. Once they realized that the Iranians were going to dominate the system in Iraq after the Americans were -- would withdraw, the Saudis got heavily involved in - in Iraq, and this has helped ...
CHARLIE ROSE: In what way?
BERNARD HAYKEL: Well, this was helped greatly by the fact that the king of Saudi Arabia at the moment, his mother is from this tribe called the Shammar, and this tribe - the Shammar has about a million tribesmen in Iraq, who are Iraqis. He has very, very strong links to all the tribal leaders, the Sunni tribal leaders ...
CHARLIE ROSE: Right.
BERNARD HAYKEL: ... in Iraq. So he`s been playing that card.
CHARLIE ROSE: What, is he counseling the Sunnis in Iraq to ...
BERNARD HAYKEL: He is.
CHARLIE ROSE: ... to become part of the government and to give up their insurgency?
BERNARD HAYKEL: Yes. He is basically trying to get them to stop -- to crush the jihadis in Iraq itself and to play - to play a greater role inside the Iraqi system so that he can have -- Saudi Arabia can have some influence on this system, and that it`s not to be dominated completely by Iran. And Iran is a major, major worry for Saudi Arabia and has been for a long time.
CHARLIE ROSE: Because Iran will do what?
BERNARD HAYKEL: Their fear is that Iran will dominate the Persian Gulf, and, you know, at some level this is just - you know, the symbolic -- but there are Shiites also in Saudi Arabia.
CHARLIE ROSE: And -- and because Saudi Arabia has had so much influence in the Arab world and in the Muslim world because of their enormous riches?
BERNARD HAYKEL: And they`ve invested a tremendous amount in - in promoting that influence in the Sunni world and they don`t want to see that long ...
CHARLIE ROSE: So they are playing games on both sides of the aisle?
BERNARD HAYKEL: And they - but they`re more specifically worried about the Shiites who live in Saudi Arabia in the oil-rich eastern province of Saudi Arabia and the influence that Iran might have on these populations, on these Saudi Shiite populations.
CHARLIE ROSE: Is it in your judgment of history, as a history professor, inevitable that Iran will be -- come out of all of these conflicts stronger?
RICHARD BULLIET: Oh, I think so. I think Iran is certainly going to come out of this stronger, and this was pretty much on the table after the - after the first Gulf war, which essentially pulled Saddam`s fangs as in terms of his ...
CHARLIE ROSE: Right.
RICHARD BULLIET: ... regional position. But - but Iran also has fears. Iran fears being surrounded and isolated. They are - they`re -they don`t -- that -- they would like to be stronger, and they play the sort of muscle cards these days pretty openly. But there`s also a lot of fear in Iran that somehow they`re going to face, say, a nuclear Pakistan or American bases in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan and Americans in Turkey and so forth. This sense of being surrounded by America is something that they are sensitive to, and they - they really regard Saudi Arabians, some of the sheikhdoms in the Gulf as being American tools.
CHARLIE ROSE: Can you imagine circumstances in which they will give up their desire for nuclear weapons?
RICHARD BULLIET: I think they can be persuaded not to have nuclear weapons, but you can`t persuade them if you don`t talk to them. What the United States has said for many, many years is that we`ll only talk to you, you know, if you give up nuclear weapons, recognize Israel and stop supporting terrorists.
CHARLIE ROSE: And stop supporting Hezbollah.
RICHARD BULLIET: Yeah. And stop supporting terrorism, which was Hezbollah.
CHARLIE ROSE: Right.
RICHARD BULLIET: And - and the Iranians said -- because I used to organize, you know, back channel talks involving Iranians and Americans. And what the Iranians would say is, we`re willing to talk about everything as long as we do so on the basis of equality. But you don`t have a basis of equality as long as you have economic sanctions by one of the parties against the other. So we`re not going to talk to America until they raise the sanctions, which we weren`t going to do and they weren`t going to do what we wanted.
CHARLIE ROSE: Would it have been a good idea for us to eliminate the sanctions?
RICHARD BULLIET: I think there was a time when that would have been -- at least a partial elimination -- would have gone far toward making possible the sorts of negotiations that we now need. The problem is that even though there was a will in the Clinton administration to move in that direction, Congress was strongly opposed to any relaxation of sanctions. And this gets into the domestic problem we have in terms of influencing Congress, as opposed to influencing the executive branch.
BERNARD HAYKEL: By the way, this is mirrored - this -- the situation between Iran and the United States is mirrored identically between Hezbollah and Israel. Because Hezbollah wants from Israel to be accepted as an equal partner in this negotiation. In all of the - in all of the language of the leader of Hezbollah, he basically says, you know, you have our prisoners, we have prisoners. You want -- we want an exchange. We have a border. You respect our border; we respect your border. And when he says you - that Israelis haven`t respected the Lebanese border, he means, you know, all the overflights of the military, the Israeli military planes that have constantly gone over Lebanese territory. And he said, you know, you hit our civilians; we will hit your civilians. So there`s this constant language of parity and of equality.
CHARLIE ROSE: But the interesting thing that one is a nation state and one is simply not ...
BERNARD HAYKEL: That`s right.
CHARLIE ROSE: ... just an organization.
BERNARD HAYKEL: That`s right. That`s right. And the organization -- and this is important, because this language is not just directed at Israel; it`s also directed at the Muslim world, to say look at us, we`re an organization and we speak as a nation. We speak in the name of Islam and in the name of legitimate Islamic sort of just war theory, if you like, and with this other - with this other entity that is an enemy.
RICHARD BULLIET: The irony here is that while we, the United States, don`t feel sympathy to this sort of thing, in Iraq the groups that are almost identical to Hezbollah ideologically are the people that we are relying upon to bring democracy and national government. So it`s very difficult to say that ...
CHARLIE ROSE: You mean the party from which the prime minister comes?
RICHARD BULLIET: Yes, SCIRI and Dawa.
CHARLIE ROSE: Right.
RICHARD BULLIET: We say these are the rocks on which we can build a democracy in Iraq, but - but in Lebanon, we have to oppose Hezbollah. Well, you can`t really work that both ways.
CHARLIE ROSE: Right. Israel. Did they have any choice not to respond and not to try to create this climate of deterrence again?
RICHARD BULLIET: I think that the rapidity with which Israel responded and the evident thinking about target selection suggests that the Israel Defense Force had a contingency plan in case there was a provocation.
CHARLIE ROSE: They clearly did.
RICHARD BULLIET: Yeah. So they were ready for - for this.
CHARLIE ROSE: And were looking for an opportunity?
RICHARD BULLIET: Well, this is what we don`t know. I mean, ready for it, but whether they saw this as a pretext or whether it was -- really came as a shock and they responded because they felt they had to -- I think the response is understood by everyone in the world as being something they had to do in some way.
But to then say that we will not even consider a cease-fire until there is a plan by which Hezbollah will be disarmed, the border will be made completely safe and so forth and so on is to set expectations of the Israeli people beyond what they can -- what the Israeli government can achieve, and to make it extremely difficult for other parties to think of ways to climb down from this, because the -- you know, this is not something where they`re claiming, we want our soldiers back. They`re claiming, we want a total change in the order of power here.
CHARLIE ROSE: Has Israel gone from a state that was in a constant sense of concern about survivability and security to a new level of conflict, which is Israel versus Islam? That will just provide that ...
BERNARD HAYKEL: Yeah.
CHARLIE ROSE: ... there is a bridge too far for them to go?
BERNARD HAYKEL: I mean, I think that Hezbollah and other Islamist groups would like that to be the case, would like to depict Israel as, you know, as this is a conflict between Islam and the infidel. And I think that it would be a great mistake for - for Israel to fall in that - in that trap.
One of the things that they`ve done now in Lebanon is -- and this is the calculation that they had, which is that they would punish the Lebanese so much that ultimately the Lebanese would turn against Hezbollah. And in fact, the -- what we see on the ground -- and I know this from my own family based in Lebanon ...
CHARLIE ROSE: Your family`s in Lebanon?
BERNARD HAYKEL: In Lebanon.
CHARLIE ROSE: In Beirut?
BERNARD HAYKEL: No, in the north.
CHARLIE ROSE: Right.
BERNARD HAYKEL: And I know this from my own family. Lots of people in Lebanon who dislike and detest Hezbollah feel that the reaction of the - of the - of the Israelis is so disproportionate to what actually - to the -- to what Hezbollah did, that lots of people are rallying around Hezbollah, and it`s having the very opposite effect. And I think the Israelis are aware of this, so one has to wonder...
CHARLIE ROSE: Therefore what? They`re aware of it therefore what?
BERNARD HAYKEL: Well, one has to wonder why is it that the Israelis are going, you know, in -- to such an extent to destroy the infrastructure in Lebanon? Is it - is it aimed at perhaps drawing Syria in? Is it, you know, sending a message ...
CHARLIE ROSE: Drawing Syria in so they can attack Damascus and - and ...
BERNARD HAYKEL: Perhaps, yes.
CHARLIE ROSE: I mean, that means - there are two interesting points here on the table. One -- the first one is whether -- the first one is whether they are -- it`s counterproductive what it`s done and - and that people on the ground in Beirut who have no great affection for Hezbollah, because of the destruction of infrastructure that they just built up over the last 10, 15 years, is being destroyed. Progress they`ve made is being destroyed, therefore they blame the Israelis. Is that?
RICHARD BULLIET: Well, that`s certainly is the case right now. Whether it will be the case in three or four weeks, or whether they will turn around and say that somehow Hezbollah is causing our danger, we don`t know.
CHARLIE ROSE: Because they won`t give up the soldiers.
RICHARD BULLIET: The idea that there would be a Syrian intervention, I think, is out of the question. The thing that I think that ...
CHARLIE ROSE: I don`t know, I`m - I`m -- go ahead. Let me -- I won`t interrupt you. Go ahead.
RICHARD BULLIET: OK, but the other factor is that I think that the Israeli civilian population, which has been, you know, tortured by - by suicide bombings hasn`t expected to be -- to feel vulnerable ...
CHARLIE ROSE: From missiles.
RICHARD BULLIET: ... during a war, and that at some point you may have people in Israel getting past the point of saying "we have to crush Hezbollah" to saying, what, why do we have to spend every night in a bomb shelter, when if we negotiated we could get these missiles, you know, finished with.
CHARLIE ROSE: Can you -- OK. And how about the second point? You actually don`t think that Israel has any designs on bombing Damascus or looking for -- that`s what you said? Israel may be looking for provocation to get Syria?
BERNARD HAYKEL: Yeah. I mean, I think that in - in Israel and also in the White House, there are two positions. There is one group that would say that, you know, it`s better to deal with the devil you know than the devil you don`t, and that the Assad regime is a regime we know, they`ve kept the peace on the Syrian-Israeli border for so many years, you know, let`s stick with them.
CHARLIE ROSE: Right.
BERNARD HAYKEL: Especially since if we get rid of the Assad regime, the people who will come to power in Syria will be the Muslim Brotherhood.
CHARLIE ROSE: Right.
BERNARD HAYKEL: The Muslim Brotherhood might, you know, be - very much - might become an al Qaeda type group and so on.
CHARLIE ROSE: Right.
BERNARD HAYKEL: And I think there is a group in D.C., in the White House and also in Israel that says, you know, the Assad regime is - is bad news from beginning to end, and maybe getting rid of them and cutting a deal with the Muslim Brotherhood....
CHARLIE ROSE: Because they - they provide a base for people like ...
BERNARD HAYKEL: Yes.
CHARLIE ROSE: You know, the most militant wing of Hamas, and ...
BERNARD HAYKEL: That`s right. And cutting a deal with the Muslim Brotherhood that`s based all in London, the leadership is based in London and in Paris, and now you have a former vice president of Syria ...
CHARLIE ROSE: Who`s in London.
BERNARD HAYKEL: Who is in ...
CHARLIE ROSE: Paris.
BERNARD HAYKEL: Who is in Paris. You know, you cut a deal with them, and maybe you have a regime that`s better than what you have. Which is also representative of the majority of the Syrian population.
CHARLIE ROSE: All of which suggests, which I started off with, was the context of this is much larger about the future than we might imagine from simply an exchange of soldiers ...
RICHARD BULLIET: Yeah, I think ...
CHARLIE ROSE: ... and prisoners.
RICHARD BULLIET: Yeah, I think that the idea that some people have that we`re going to get a regional war, I don`t think that`s in the cards. That would cause -- that would require Syria or Iran to do something dramatically stupid and overt, which isn`t going to happen, but on the other hand ...
CHARLIE ROSE: They`ll just encourage Hezbollah to be their agents.
RICHARD BULLIET: But - but the -- President Bush has suggested that Kofi Annan should get on the phone to al-Assad and persuade him to ...
CHARLIE ROSE: To persuade Hezbollah.
RICHARD BULLIET: To -- to get Hezbollah to stand down. But, of course, the U.N. has been trying to prosecute the Syrian government for the murder of Rafik Hariri, so Kofi Annan has no leverage in Damascus. Besides which, Syria joined in the first coalition against Saddam Hussein and got no benefits, you know, no thank you from the U.S. for doing that. Then it was very supportive after 9/11 in sharing intelligence over -- about al Qaeda and other terrorists, and it got no real thank you from the United States.
I mean, why Syria -- why anyone would think that Syria would - would respond positively to some sort of negotiating package the U.S. might put forward I think is-- that they - they just do a lot better sticking with Iran and Hezbollah and the growing Shiite dominance in Iraq. I think they feel that their team is on a roll.
CHARLIE ROSE: Yeah, was it - Abdullah, I think, King Abdullah of Jordan that talked about a Shia crescent.
RICHARD BULLIET: That was - it was a little ...
CHARLIE ROSE: A little what?
RICHARD BULLIET: Geographically unrealistic.
CHARLIE ROSE: OK. And he came back and said much more politically he was talking about ...
RICHARD BULLIET: Yes.
CHARLIE ROSE: Let me just...
BERNARD HAYKEL: Nonetheless, I mean, in Iraq, if the Shia were to come to power in Iraq....
CHARLIE ROSE: They are in power in Iraq.
BERNARD HAYKEL: Well, if they were to really properly rule, once the civil war is over and done with, which we still have to go through....
CHARLIE ROSE: In Iraq?
BERNARD HAYKEL: In Iraq. I mean, once that is established...
CHARLIE ROSE: Wait, stop there for a second. We have to go through a civil war in Iraq?
BERNARD HAYKEL: Yeah. I think that we`re seeing the, you know...
CHARLIE ROSE: The beginnings of it.
BERNARD HAYKEL: The beginnings of it, absolutely.
CHARLIE ROSE: Do you agree with that?
RICHARD BULLIET: Yes.
CHARLIE ROSE: Go ahead.
BERNARD HAYKEL: Absolutely. And you know, if the Shia dominate in Iraq, and if, you know, they have a strong ally in Syria, the president of Syria belongs to this heretical Shiite sect, and if Hezbollah remains standing in Lebanon, then you have a coalition of forces there that is quite formidable, and historically quite unprecedented. I mean, you know, that part of the world hasn`t been ruled by Shiites for a very, very long time.
And from a Sunni perspective and from a historical perspective, it`s a major rupture with what`s -- you know, with what is there.
CHARLIE ROSE: OK. That`s the reason I did this with both of you. Let me just leave you with one last question, and I don`t have much time to answer it.
Was it is a significant mistake for the United States in a sense not to be engaged? A, before. We don`t have any real relationship with Syria, although we have an ambassador who they`re speaking to. In Iran, we clearly don`t have a good relationship there. Clearly, we have allowed the Israelis in a sense while Sharon was in power and in the short time that Olmert has been in power, to essentially do whatever they could do, in terms of not standing in the way of some initiated, self-initiated drawing of the boundaries, et cetera. Was it a mistake? And is there a role the U.S. could have played that it hasn`t played up until now and should play immediately?
RICHARD BULLIET: it`s very hard to play it now. What the U.S. should have done years ago was to start having gradually more significant relations, talks with Iran. You can`t do it now because you`re under the gun, and now it looks like you`re capitulating. But in the second Clinton administration, Secretary of State Albright began to sort of soften a little bit on that. We had a much more liberal Iranian regime, and the Bush administration went back to the previous policy of absolutely no contact with Iran.
CHARLIE ROSE: Until they met certain conditions.
RICHARD BULLIET: Yes. And now we`re really suffering from our inability to deal directly with the most important players that are on this other side.
(CROSSTALK)
BERNARD HAYKEL: I think it`s very -- I think it would be very difficult. But, you know, Syria can be talked to, because the Syrian regime wants to assure and guarantee its survival. If the U.S. can somehow, maybe with the Saudis and others, guarantee the survival of that regime, I suspect they can turn, but it would take....
CHARLIE ROSE: So what we`ve got to do is guarantee Assad that his regime can survive, and that we will not allow it to be...
BERNARD HAYKEL: To be taken over by the Muslim Brotherhood...
CHARLIE ROSE: By the Muslim Brotherhood.
BERNARD HAYKEL: Which, you know, which would take some very fancy footwork.
RICHARD BULLIET: And it would also mean we get in bed with another dictatorial regime and say we will protect it, which is not very good ideologically policy. Certainly doesn`t square with the democratization ideas of the Bush administration.
CHARLIE ROSE: Do you think the Middle East is ready for democratization?
RICHARD BULLIET: Absolutely. I think that the longer...
CHARLIE ROSE: If there was an election tomorrow in Egypt, Muslim Brotherhood would win.
RICHARD BULLIET: Absolutely. We`re going to have to go through a really rocky period of having Muslim ideologues play an important role in electoral government, and then they`re going to have to either moderate or be voted out of office. But the longer we perpetuate the dictatorships in the area, the more hopeless our situation becomes.
BERNARD HAYKEL: I couldn`t agree more.
CHARLIE ROSE: So Bush is right when he talks about democratization.
RICHARD BULLIET: Absolutely.
BERNARD HAYKEL: But he should allow the Muslim Brotherhood to come to power.
(CROSSTALK)
CHARLIE ROSE: ... Hamas to come to power, did they not?
BERNARD HAYKEL: He didn`t allow them in Egypt, and you know, he should allow them in Syria. And he should really...
CHARLIE ROSE: Yeah, but I mean, Condi Rice was at least verbally talking about the Egyptians have to change and regimes had to change, because the old way had not worked.
RICHARD BULLIET: And it was all bait and switch from the Egyptian point of view.
CHARLIE ROSE: We`re out of time. Thank you both very much.
BERNARD HAYKEL: Thank you.
CHARLIE ROSE: I enjoyed it very much.
RICHARD BULLIET: Thanks a lot.
CHARLIE ROSE: We`ll see you tomorrow night.
END