perfect person to articulate american values and interests. i thought he went the way towards doing that. host: another person saying thanks for the path president obama has set out on. there will be a nuclear exchange. the only question will be how big? . . east arms race -- egypt, saudi arabia, turkey are all going to

be states that want a nuclear program. there is a greater chance of there is a greater chance of iferation. if it can throw its weight around the region, it could intimidate moderates and emboldened extremists. so there are sets of concerns. i think the caller was referring to the fact that the president said that the united states did not object to iran having some -- civil nuclear power. is that a change in american policy? if i'm correct, secretary of state condoleezza rice said if the issue that iran wanted was in power, we could solve the problem. but i do not think there are any differences between the president and the former administration on the need to stop iran from getting in a car bomb. what is crucial to point out are the people that are the most worried, are not just israel, but it is all the arab states

due to a historic enmity with iran, these regimes are very nervous and quietly working with united states. when the president was trying to see yesterday as we have got to end the gap between what you say publicly and what you say privately, because privately, these regimes are very nervous about iran. but publicly you do not talk that way. , and that has to change, i think the president said. host: we have a history dealing with nuclear power, certainly with china, the policy of deterrence. would that work with iran? guest: when you think about it, you had made with 500,000 troops. in europe at the time of the cold war, you had a whole set of institutions that were in place. you have hot lines between the united states and the soviet union, and even with the cuban

missile crisis. even so, history has told us that there are a lot of different evaluations. iran is threatening to wipe israel off the earth, keeps saying it is going to do that, and there is no communication, no hot line, no diplomatic relations. there is no communication,. . then you have another factor, some of the apocalyptic statements of some of the leadership. ultimately, iran makes a decision on a cost-benefit analysis and they are not suicidal. but this is a whole dimension that we did not have to deal with with the soviet union. the president of iran says statements about the 12th imam, the messiah. but he is not the one who

decides, it is the ayatollah, n who is still in charge. there are a lot of differences in the iran grace vs. the soviet union case in the cold war. -- in the iran situation versus the soviet union case in the cold war. caller: my comment on the speech -- the speech was a very warm speech, especially the one that he did i did not really listen to -- this is a good thing. he did not touch on the sedan issue because sudan is one of the arab nations, and on the

sudan issue because sudan is one of the arab nations and -- host: i should point out that it did come up as a question this morning, the president did talk about the situation in darfur, and we will we talking about his meeting with angela merkel, the chancellor from germany, later on c-span. thank you for the call. guest: i think one of the point here that the caller alluded to -- yes, there was a change in terminology, but i think when the president was trying to articulate american values and interests, he said, look, this idea of 9/11 being perpetrated by al qaeda, some in the muslim world question that if it was al qaeda, there were lured rumors. he said this is the fact. 3000 of my citizens have been slaughtered. that is why we are in afghanistan. i think he tried to be very direct when he said this is the priority of the american president, to protect american lives. but i think he fails by reaching

out and trying to widen the distance between the muslim communities and extremists, that is the best hope, is to isolate. and al qaeda -- i think it is no coincidence that ayman of zawahiri and osama bin laden -- i think given their statements, their most nervous about the president's speech because he was trying to bring people over to the american side, to the west cost side, and to make sure these people are isolated would make clear that there is no justification for the slaughter of innocents. he said if you shoot rockets at women and children, you do not claim moral authority, you abdicate it. so i think he was very consistent there. host: one moment from the speech yesterday that lasted just under one hour, 6000 words, including these brief words in arabic.

>> i am grateful for your hospitality and hospitality of the people of egypt, and i carry the goodwill of the american people in the greeting of peace from the muslim people of my country. [speaking arabic] host: good morning, tom. caller: good morning to you, thank you for taking my call and thank you very much for c-span. it is easily the most insightful picture into the american political scene, and thoroughly enjoyable. and i believe that barack obama is spot-on in his message, ani have agreed with everything that has come along so far. i think that the elections in iran next week will be key because he has already set a

tone that there are millions of voters in iran who are hopeful that his message carries some weight. we may see the dawn of a new era, and that is pretty remarkable considering that barack obama has been in office for less than six months. , let me share with you one of the many editorials -- host: tom, let me share with you one of many editorials. "president obama sounded like he was channeling president george w. bush during his cairo speech yesterday. much of the substance of his address, titled "a new beginning, some of like the same old song. one could easily remove the biographical references, redact a few sentences that were clearly critical of specific bush administration policies, and pass it off as old republican talking points." caller: i find that hard to

believe, particularly because the response to what he has said is entirely different. if it were the same rhetoric or the same intent wrapped in slightly different language, delivered by something who looks a little different than george w. bush, i am certain that the reaction to it would have been identical. but, in fact, it was polarly opposite. so i think that editorial view may be a little out of the realm. .

rejectionist forces. whether it is in iran or lebanon, we shall see. and, in fact, your point about this democracy issue is different than what the previous president, george bush, abdicated. what i think might have been a difference in emphasis was that the last president focused on elections as the only path to democracy. given that hamas won elections in gaza, this president seemed to put a broader focus on creating liberal institutions. judiciary, women's rights, creating the foundation for our elections. words are similar, a think there were definitely some major differences as well.

host: we're spending much of the morning getting reaction to the president's speech in cairo yesterday. our guest is david makovsky. good morning. caller: good morning to david. thank you for c-span. today, i listened to the entire speech. i listened to the whole speech from the beginning to the end. the reason i want to call today is i feel very close to the palestinian issue. i was born a year after 1948. we were moved from a major palestinian cities. they were moved in a sense --

removed in a systematic way. most of us ended up in refugee camps. some of my family came back with the help of the red cross. i was born in 1950. the city overnight turned into a jewish city. yesterday, the president -- which i'm very proud of -- he alluded to the issue of the palestinians by saying that we have a just cause. he said that we were misplaced. i would like you to talk about it. guest: he used the word displacement. i think there is no question that as the historians go over the 1948 war, this has probably been one of the most hotly

contested issues, the refugee crisis and its origins. historians tend to say that the caller is right partly. some of the arabs at the time were displaced. a lot of that displacement -- i do not know his specific case -- happened when the arab states attacked israel the day it was born. i think if there was not a war, you would not have seen a refugee price -- and refugee crisis. you did not see the arab world doing with the arab refugees. you can't just look backward, we have to look forward. how do we bring a solution to bring dignity to all sides? it seems to me, the way is through the peace process. the refugee issue is one of those four core questions that

are going to be addressed. arab leaders admit privately that a lot of the palestinian refugees -- the way to solve this problem is to help those who want to go to this new palestinian state. this is an issue that has followed this conflict for decades. i think there is a way to solve it. host: "the houston chronicle" has this to say about refraining the relationship. among the issues facing the president, stopping violent extremism, dealing with the israeli-palestinian situation, dealing with nuclear proliferation, injuring proliferation, injuring religious freedom, dealing

with the middle east. caller: i would like to ask, does israel have had a right to live here? i would say, yes, i love that country. what they have done. they have made a beautiful, marvelous country. what do they do with all of the money we send? we said millions to help palestinians. what did the palestinians do to help themselves, except to cry that israel has taken their country? i do not like the president. i think he has a moslem heart. thank you so much.

guest: the caller raises a lot of points. briefly, i would say the following. where she is correct is, -- there is a difference between the arab world and the muslim world -- many of the muslim countries do not have relations. he jerked and jordan have diplomatic relations. there are some arabs to say that you have to accept israel as a fact that it exists. i think what the caller may be a learning to is the question is, how many of the arab leaders say, beyond it being a fact, is it morally legitimate? to what extent would they say that there is a right to a jewish homeland like there is a right to a palestinian homeland? i think you need to take it to the next level. both sides have legitimate rights. both sides have a right for a

homeland. i do not think the israelis have a problem with saying that palestinians have that right. i think the president recognizes that. i think that is why he wants to be engaged. host: if you cannot reach us on the phone line, send us an e- mail. good morning. caller: i have a number of points to make. i would like to make a few points. one, the bushes did gulf war one and two for oil. conservatives do not ask very aggression. they do not care about poor very much. they use this bogus argument that says that he jesus never meant for the government to be used to help the poor.

they hate the boorish republican party. if people want single payer health care, google single payer. guest: i have nothing. it was not related to the middle east. host: are you with us? please go ahead. caller: i would like to make a statement about the anchor babies. non-registered citizens -- host: caller, i'm going to stop you there because we are trying to focus on the middle east. guest: we think that sometimes these broad templates of people

saying it is all about linkage and everything is linked in the middle east and other people think that we can just sustain the status quo, we believe that this conflict needs to be solved. we do not buy into the idea that there can be -- it can be addressed through just a lot of pious statements. there has to be a relationship between what happens on the ground with building this to state solution and israel's legitimate security concerns. we think a lot of these myths are perpetuated. we certainly believe in the united states being involved in helping to solve the problem. we just do not think -- america thinks that you can't impose peace on the parties. we can help them, but we cannot

do this for them. we do not believe you can impose peace. some people say that you can impose democracy. the u.s. can try to be a catalyst, but the united states cannot impose. host: our guest is david makovsky, who is the co-author of this book. johnny is on the phone from dallas. good morning on the independent line. caller: good morning. you keep saying, "look forward, don't look back." a man said that his family was killed at gunpoint when he was a child. here is your problem. you want people to look forward, but you never want to fix your past problems. how can you go forward if the past keeps getting in the way? guest: there has been a lot of

suffering here on all sides. the israelis feel that for the last 60 years, there has been a lot of terrorism. the palestinians feel the trauma of 1948 and the trauma of israeli occupation. each side has grievances. i am not saying forget about the past. of course we have to remember the past. i think we cannot just wallow in the past. if we allow each side to just focus on their own agreements, we will not solve the problem. we have to do what we can to say we recognize the past, but we have to move forward in creating hope for both. host: let me pick up on that point. danielle pletka has a piece in

"the washington post" this morning. "consider the task of dennis roskam obamas special adviser to the persian gulf and southwest asia he brought enthusiasm and a deep knowledge to the job, but the peace process was constrained by u.s. laws that reasonably require the palestinian liberation organization to abandon terrorism and recognize israel before receiving aid from the united states. the plo took tentative, initial steps toward recognizing israel, but followed those steps with terrorist activities. iran has until the end of the year to signal serious intent to negotiate a resolution to its nuclear program. administration officials are optimistic that iran is willing to engage sincerely. this final point. the administration should remember a simple rule. once is a mistake.

twice is a pattern three times as blindness." guest: the point is to say that somehow dennis ross might turn a blind eye to the iranian nuclear program. i do not think that is correct. this is a threat to regional peace. it is a threat to american interests. it is a threat to the countries in the region. you could say i am biased because he is michael author, but i cannot imagine any american who is more dedicated in pursuing american interests and to ensure that iran does not become a nuclear weapon state. host: good morning. caller: good morning. praise god. i just wanted to say that i thought obama's speech was a message speech.

we all must make peace with god in order to make peace with each other. i do not care if he is a muslim or a baptist or a catholic. whatever. we all were shipped in different ways. there is only one god. that god is jesus christ. he is trying to gather people -- he is trying to make people come together so we can try to make peace with each other. he has accepted him. let god do his part. we will do our part. guest: i think she is saying correctly that the president is trying to transcend these rifts. the problem is in the middle east, in the name of god, there has been terrorism, violent

extremism. th has been part of the problem. what the president was trying to invoke was the idea that the killing of innocent people is never justified. i think it was a message of uplift. it was a message of trying to use religion for peaceful purposes. host: is democracy viable for the middle east? guest: every country moves at its own pace. i think the president's approach by focusing on institution- building is the long-term approach. if we only define democracy as an election tomorrow morning, we will encounter surprises. the only people who are organized in many places in the middle east are extremists. i think laying the foundation for an independent judiciary to focus on women's rights, media,

all sorts of things like that, laying the foundation is the best hope to ultimately have democracy in these countries. it might not be self-fulfilling immediately because you feel only an election is democracy. you have to lay down that path. i think as we tried to point out in the book, there are those people who say, i do not care what happens in the arab world internally as long as they have a moderate foreign policy. what we found out also is that the internal dynamics in these societies do have an impact on their external behavior. the question is, in what way should we focus? i think a more gradual approach that may be slower is ultimately the surest way over time. host: david makovsky is the

middle east peace director for >> president obama started today in dresden, germany. he later traveled to the buchenwald concentration camp to pay respects. there were stopped in paris and normandie scheduled for tomorrow, and he will mark the 16th anniversary of d-day. he started the trip and saudi arabia before visiting egypt. he gave an address to the muslim world. we will show you that speech sunday at 10:30 eastern here on c-span. next, an arab perspective on the events in cairo.

host: i want to begin with this. it is to the essence of what we are about. people should get out of other people's business, there are enough problems at home to worry about. how do you respond to that? of them goes to the heart of the issue you just raised. you have the president of the united states who travels to the muslim world to deliver a speech. almost as if that part of the muslim world was part of the american constituency. this is something that he talked about during his election period. it was almost as if he was trying to live up to a promise that he had given arabs and muslims to address their

concerns in the middle east. it is just a measure of how interconnected the world has become. it was obvious that he was talking to three different constituencies. although the speech was primarily for muslims, he was clearly talking to israelis as well. you could also see eyes in the back of his head looking at the home base of the united states. when he was delivering that speech. host: he also addressed the issue of human rights. let's share part of that. >> i do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for a certain thing. the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed, confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice, a government that is transparent and does not steal from the and does not steal from the people