From our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. Charlie few have held as many highlevel positions in the Foreign Service as bill burns. He was deputy secretary of state from 2011 to 2014. Prior to that, he was undersecretary of Political Affairs and was u. S. Ambassador to both russia and jordan. He holds the highest rank of the Foreign Service of career ambassador and is the second serving diplomat in history to become deputy secretary. He retired last year and is president of the Carnegie Endowment for international peace. I am pleased to have him at this table for the first time. It is great to have you. Based on everything you know and as you see the world today, tell me what the threats are that you consider the most serious and immediate. Bill isil gets a lot of attention and is an important challenge for the United States and our Coalition Partners to focus on. There are a lot with aggression in the ukraine and the media challenge. There are a lot of overarching challenges. Climate change and what that can mean as a Genuine National security problem over time. Cyber issues. Developing rules of the road not just in commerce but in National Security for dealing with that whole set of issues. And we are reminded of that with the ebola crisis most recently. That is an area where there has been a great deal of progress over the last two administrations. President bush 43 launched and president obama has continued, making a huge difference in the lives of people in africa and around the world. Charlie is the middle east the highest or does it have a special place for you . Bill its a part of the world you never have the luxury of neglecting or ignoring. If you look at the challenge and the old order we became accustomed to, a bunch of that is crumbling in the middle east today. You have the phenomenon of failed or failing states, out of which extremist groups like isil emerge. Charlie lets talk about that. The failed states are possibly syria, libya, yemen they are the dangerous thing that can happen. If you are a failed state, you have possibilities of al qaeda or someone like that. Finding refuge and a power source as well. Bill it is a region that is as uncertain as the middle east. It is acquisition for further territory. It is also important to demonstrate and expose the fact that they are not able to succeed in governing in those areas where they do control. Kind of the eighth century playbook used by the leadership, delivering things the people want. People can find purpose and economic and political opportunities through other kinds of models. In iraq, it means appealing to the sunni Arab Community so they feel a sense of inclusion. And the Iraqi Government something they havent felt in recent years. Its working with important partners whether it is jordan or tunisia, to develop that. Charlie another success story. Bill it is a grim terrain right now but its a reason to invest in those kind of places and help them to succeed. Charlie the immediate threat of isis, whatever term we like to use, to stop their expansion into new territory. Bill and in iraq, there is clearly a strategy for beginning to first stop and i think the momentum has been stopped. Mosul is a huge challenge but an achievable one. Charlie they will do it when they have the iraqi army on the ground . Bill it is a reasonable approach, i think. It will take time to rebuild and and retrain the iraqi military. I am confident that it is possible to roll back those gains. That is the security dimension of the challenge, which is extremely important. But there is a political dimension. It involves giving sunni arabs more of a sense of participation in the political system. Charlie has the Prime Minister change made a difference . Bill i think it has. Large parts of the nonshia population felt alienated and i think the new government is making a serious effort to be more inclusive. It will be absolutely essential. If there is to be enduring success against isis. Charlie the egyptian foreign minister said if all else fails, we have to stop isis and we should be prepared to provide troops in that effort. Our Coalition Partners prepared to do that because isis is that kind of emergency . Bill once they are trained and equipped, there is the potential to roll back. It is a much bigger challenge. I think it will be important to look to other Coalition Partners as well as turkey to see what kind of contributions they can make over time. Charlie what about not being stopped . Bill i think they recognize the threat. It is an encouraging sign and i think it will require that kind of sustained coalition to succeed. Charlie it comes down to the ground troops, doesnt it . And in iraq, you have the iraqi army. Susan rice was here recently. Everybody knows now because some of the language that she used. The top priority in syria has to be isil. Then they can go back to whatever considerations they have for the syrian government. Bill i think it is the immediate threat and the priority. As long as the asad regime is there, it is a magnet for foreign fighters and others who flocked to isil. It is difficult to see a more stable future for syria unless you have a transition of leadership in damascus as well. I think ultimately there will have to be leverage on the ground to produce the circumstances in which you might be able to make progress diplomatically. Charlie meaning what . Bill meaning that the regime will not be able to sustain itself the way it is right now. Whether the principal backers can see more clearly if they want to see a stable syria, a syria that is not a platform for all sorts of extremist groups. You have to see progress towards that kind of transition. Charlie you really are as good a diplomat as we can find. What you have to do is you have to meet the challenge of isil and support moderate ranks and whatever you can do to make them the primary focus of your attention. And you have to deal with asad in a diplomatic way. Are the russians and the iranians prepared to do that . And what do you have to do to encourage them to do that. Bill syria and russia are vulnerable. Charlie putin to have an ally in power in the middle east, it is a place to communicate. Charlie there was a point where assad thought he might lose and he had to think about what his options were. Bill there was a point in the winter of 2012 or 2013 where the russians were a little bit nervous about asads future. The balance on the ground started to shift against the regime. They intervened in the serious way. I think we can recreate it in the future. The human suffering in syria is so horrific. A huge challenge of reconstruction whenever that day comes. The sooner you have that traditional leadership the better for all. Charlie is it a battle of supremacy in the region . Bill i think with the assad regime on the outside, i think he felt betrayed. That entered into it as well. It is a combination of factors right now but the animus and the determination is quite clear. Charlie you have met with the iranians, tell me about the nature of their country and the possibility for regime change. All of that. Whether it is support for bill not so much hamas. When you look at iran or the nuclear issue, you have to embed it in a strategy and be clear eyed about the fact that it threatens us and our friends in the region. But within that strategy, its extremely important to prevent the iranians to acquire the Nuclear Weapons and it would multiply exponentially any of the dangers mentioned in the region. I have been convinced that the best of the available alternatives is through a strong and negotiated settlement. I think it is possible to reach that kind of a settlement but by no means a sure thing. Charlie why do you think its possible . Bill because we built up a fair amount of leverage over the time. They have taken their toll on the iranian economy. I think in part we have demonstrated alongside the leverage a willingness to engage seriously, to work out with our partners, a settlement that would allow the iranians to have a Nuclear Program under sharp constraints. I think it is possible to achieve that kind of a settlement. Charlie turn it around. Why should they do it . They dont believe, i assume, that they did not have this sophisticated sense that if we get weapons or cause for proliferation in the region, its not good for us. So we will forgo our effort. Bill it is hard to generalize. The Iranian Regime have a very suspicious view of these negotiations as well. Charlie who represents the hardliners . Bill a lot of people around the Supreme Leader. Charlie what about him . Bill from everything i know hes always been suspicious and skeptical of negotiations. Suspicious of american motives. I think we helped demonstrate in 2013 that both sides can comply and deliver on the commitments. That has created a pretty Solid Foundation it has some clear sense of what the consequences are. Charlie can sanctions be snapped back. Bill if you have an iranian leadership, i think it is possible to constrain, in a very systematic way, irans program. And to deter it from seeking out of that program. The president said it is probably less than 5050 and can be accomplished. Charlie i asked susan rice if this would be the crowning achievement. Bill if the president along with our International Partners could produce the kind of strong agreements that he has outlined and i have tried to describe, i think it would be a significant achievement. It has to be embedded in a wider strategy for dealing with other aspects of iranian behavior. We will push back against that and reassure our friends and partners in the region. Trying to produce that strong negotiated thing is best of our available alternatives. Charlie and the number of centrifuges to go forward. How would that work . Bill just in the process of being negotiated, its important to produce as long a duration as possible. A long time in which the rainy and Nuclear Program was under Sharp International constraints and you have intrusive verification and mechanisms to ensure against any kind of a breakout. Charlie what is the point of 12 years rather than bill the longer the better, in many respects. Charlie its a number they would accept, i assume. Bill i think its a sensible starting point. What i think what you want to do is prolong that as long as you reasonably can. And to ensure that that breakout is preserved over that time. Charlie if they are trying to do something in secret, they could not achieve it . Bill the interim agreement was through 2013 and we managed to introduce some new verification inspection measures. We would have to build on that. There has never been any perfect guarantee. But having those kind of intrusive transparency measures is going to be absolutely crucial. Charlie what would happen if there was an attack on their facilities . Will it delay their Nuclear Effort . Will it lead to some kind of action against people in the region and perhaps here . Bill all of the above. Experts have looked at this issue and concluded if you took military action, you could certainly set it back by two or three years, whatever length of time people conclude. You also probably drive the program underground if the iranian leadership had not yet made a decision to try to weaponize it would reenforce or accelerate that kind of decision. You can see a crumbling of what has been painstakingly built up, the economic pressure and sanctions. This all at the time when you have no shortage of instability in the region already. There could come a time if we are not able to reach this kind of agreement under lots of different circumstances. When you look at the alternative, the best of the available alternatives is clearly, in my view, the strong negotiated agreement. Charlie and you think they would be prepared to do that at some point . And they are certainly prepared to make a rational choice . Bill i think it is possible. Its not a certainty. There are gaps that need to be bridged between here and there. Charlie what do we know about the ayatollah . Bill not a lot, is the honest answer. He is someone that has always been suspicious of the United States and built his worldview around animus towards the United States. It is difficult to consider a negotiated solution to the Nuclear Challenge when you have that kind of suspicion. Charlie does his opinion matter . Bill i think it does. He was elected president and was able to bring in a foreign minister that i believe is committed from the point of view of iranian interest. I think it suggests that there is some space there on the iranian side. Charlie someone who spoke the language and communicate. You would not presume he was a favorite of the Supreme Leader although i heard he had some connection to the Supreme Leader. Under the ahmadinejad regime. Bill and whether we can bridge that gap, i honestly dont know. It is worth testing because the alternatives have much bigger downsides. Charlie what is the hardest thing to get done . Bill there are a number of issues and its hard to disentangle. Probably the immediate lifting of sanctions on the front end and our point of view. You want to have a phased easing of sanctions over time. In return for performance. The whole issue of enrichment capacity and how to get to that one year breakout. Verification has to be negotiated in a very painstaking way to make sure that the rest of the International Community have, for the iaea, the kind of access that we need. You know, i think that there has been some sort of progress. Charlie tell me about the rivalry between saudi arabia and iran. Obviously, two different branches of islam. Two powers. One has cultural heritage. And they are essentially enemies. Competitors, i believe. Bill there is a sunni and shia dimension and a persian and arab dimension that add layers of complication. Charlie but its a competition to have the most influence in the region . Bill i think thats right. I think there has been a wider iranian influence if not hegemony in the region. The saudis see that as threatening and its true of a lot of our other partners in the gulf. I think that kind of rivalry will be with us and the region for some time to come. However, the issue of the nuclear question is resolved. Charlie is there a difference in terms of where the israelis see where the iranians are or is it safely how they measure the threat to them . Bill in terms of the analysis over the last few years, very intense consultations have gone on and my impression has been that there is a fair amount of common understanding of where the Iranian Program is. There is a difference of view and the Prime Minister has been very clear about this in public about what constitutes an acceptable threshold. I think the Prime Minister has made clear that any Enrichment Program at all is threatening. Charlie the imminent danger the potential danger. He has not made a decision. Bill leaving my job in government, that was certainly the analysis by my colleagues. Charlie they want to get there as fast as possible. Bill the only policy, coldbloodedly, is that they might make that decision. Charlie and what you want to do do is restrain their ability and deter them. An iranian says, you have Nuclear Weapons. Israelis have Nuclear Weapons. They are not in the nonproliferation agreement. You are. Bill i think its an argument of selfinterest for iran. Because ultimately, with any government in all the years i have been a diplomat, thats what you appeal to. It seems to be that the downsides far outweigh the potential upside. You look at the International Pressure thats been built up against iran. You look at the president s determination to ensure that iran does not acquire Nuclear Weapons. It carries obvious risks to try to move down that road. Charlie its our decision. Its our country. We are not threatening anybody and we reject your idea that its not in our selfinterest. We believe it, end of story. Bill the iranian leadership has said it is not interested in acquiring a nuclear weapon. Charlie its a guest speaker against the kuran and all that. Bill some people at some point might try to make a different decision. Charlie did they ask you to write a memo about the risk of invading iran . Iraq. Charlie what did you tell the secretary . Bill ryan crocker and a couple of other colleagues did most of the work on this. But secretary powell at the time was quite concerned about the possible consequences. In diplomacy or statecraft, you have to think about the consequences. I remember it was 8 00 one evening, page 14 of a single spaced paper and he said time is up. I think he conveyed it to the white house, as an expression of concern about all the different kinds of things that could go wrong. If anything, it was an argument to make sure we have company on the take off. Charlie does that mean there was a serious debate about the wisdom of invading iraq . That he had two of our best diplomats do a hardheaded analysis of the risk or the advisability . Are these all the risks with this policy . What you hear, conventional wisdom in some corners, that it never took place. The idea of the debate in the Bush Administration never took place. Bill i can only speak to my experience and there was debate about how to go about this kind of a challenge and think through carefully the different consequences. I reread that paper a couple years ago and we got it about half right and half wrong. I am not trying to suggest we had any kind of monopoly. Charlie i like the idea of looking at history. The argument made by many is that it was part of the fallacy of the program. There is no sense of what happens after you invade. Bill in hindsight, that is pretty clear. Especially when dealing with a society as complicated as iraq once you take the lid off on the society which, as you can see, had a lot of potential sectarian passions that can spell out. Charlie as we have seen. Bill its an argument when you think about these changes, thinking about the alternative. What comes after. Charlie we saw it in the arab spring. Bill it doesnt make the choices any easier. You have to act to avoid a humanitarian disaster that drives the policy. It is easy to underestimate the unintended consequences. Charlie so the president , what is it you understand the president s policy to be because of the lessons of iraq and afghanistan . Bill more generally . Its not an argument against a military dimension of dealing with some of the challenges that we see in the middle east. Lots of problems are not going to have a military solution. They might have a military dimension. Its an argument about thinking carefully about those kind of questions. What comes after connecting the means to an end. A vital interest to the United States. It will be absolutely indispensable. Charlie syria and the red line, without debating that, when people say something, they do it . Bill words matter. But that case, you can make a pretty credible argument. Charlie it is an interesting thing for me because so many of our allies took offense and fear of the decision not to go ahead. Notwithstanding the russian deal. Bill the outcome that was produced largely through john kerry and working with the russians was successful from the point of u. S. Policy because you removed the Syrian Chemical Weapons program. You look at isils gains, and if there had been a chemical weapon stockpile there still vulnerable charlie they wouldve had access to it, perhaps. Assad would not be in power if hezbollah hadnt double down. Two things happened. Hezbollah doubled down and the u. S. Could not find the way to enlarge and support a moderate force. Bill the assad regime is good at repressing its people and holding on to power. There was a moment in the winter of 20122013 where they were back on their heels. The situation on the ground was shifting against the assad regime. Hezbollah doubled down and intervened in a pretty serious way. And after that moment, they tightened its grip. Charlie do you see the moment where it happens . Its a tough call. If you pushed more and he had been toppled, your worry is what follows him. Bill that is a huge question and i think people would be kidding themselves if they said that there would be an easy answer to that question. A transitional regime away from assad is essential for syria and the people of syria. Charlie what a great country, so rich in cultural heritage. Some people look at it today and see all kinds of violations. They see a russia leader seemingly motivated by the collapse of the soviet union. Although the driving force may not be to restore it but do something else. How far has he been willing to go in your judgment . Bill my years in russia have been a long exercise in humility about my analysis. Charlie because he surprises you . Bill he is a tactician and he has shown that with the ukraine. The thing to remember about russia is he is playing over longterm a relatively weak strategic hand. Russia is basically a onedimensional economy. It had the potential to diversify. It has a smart and well population but it has not done that yet. Corruption is eating away at the rising middle class. Demography is a huge challenge. The whole expanse of the earth there are only about 30 million or 40 million russians. Looking across a very long border at more than one billion chinese. Russia has a lot of challenges. In ukraine, you see the most significant challenges since the end of the cold war. Its important for us to continue to work with our European Partners to produce steady counter pressure, to do everything we can to help ukrainians rebuild. The best antidote to putin is to show that the ukraine can climb out of the hole its in. Charlie Henry Kissinger sat where you have sat, and you both are students of foreign policy. He said, we have to recognize russia has an interest in the ukraine and a history in the ukraine. How do you recognize that in terms of the solution of the future of the ukraine . Is it that they choose where to go . Or do you do more to tailor your impact and create a circumstance so that that element of russiaukraine will be stabilized . Bill russians dont get to make ukraines sovereign choices no more than we do. I think you have clearly seen an interest in some sort of association with the European Union and they see that as offering a lot of economic opportunity. Charlie and in doing that, do they give the back of the hand to russia . Bill not necessarily. Without being pollyannaish about it, and recent circumstances make it hard to think in these terms. It is entirely conceivable that ukraine that has more of a connection to the eu can be of benefit to russia as well. Economic connections will be very important. It is not impossible to find that kind of balance. A lot of that sense has been lost in the crisis over the last year. Charlie it must be frustrating to be a diplomatic you think the other person cannot think rationally. Bill sometimes but you dont get to do things rationally all the time. One of the starting points for sensible diplomacy is understanding the way in which whether it is your counterpart on the other side of the table or a country or society, you dont have to accept that. You have to understand it. Charlie understand their interests and how do you address their selfinterest. Bill you do. I fall prey to this where americans think about its always about us. But its not. Its not what animated the arab spring and everything thats come since then. You dont have to accept it or indulge it. Charlie somebody said to me the first question they always ask is, what do you want . What is it you want . Once you understand that, you can deal with rationality and possibility of variation of that. Bill and you have to understand what you want. If you go into a negotiation and are not absolutely certain about what you want otherwise, they will figure it out for you and its not a good way to negotiate. Charlie another thing that interests me is how you try to make sure that you avoid the mistake that explodes. Im talking about 1914. The idea that there is something you dont see that has the potential of inflaming everything. Charlie its where communication bill its where communication become so important. There is no substitute for people communicating with other people. Edward r. Murrow. He once said to a group of young diplomats that the most important link is the last three feet. One person talking to another. Charlie what is the most interesting part of your career . Bill i have been really lucky. I had a great run over those 33 years. From the early stages when i worked with secretary baker, it was a moment and kind of an intersection of historical developments. The end of the cold war, desert storm, madrid. German reunification. Charlie this is 1988 . Bill to 1993. President bush 41, colin powell. I learned about how to think and act strategically. Charlie what did you learn . Bill a lot of the things we have been talking about. How to seize moments. Baker, after putting a great deal of effort in developing a coalition helped achieve victory in desert storm. He saw the moment to move ahead to the madrid peace conference and make progress on the arabisraeli issue. In houston, he has a wall filled with cartoons. All of which were deeply skeptical about the first eight of the nine trips we took to the middle east. Persistence was really important. Charlie he spoke about this idea, looking at syria. He went 14 times. Assad said, no. We are not getting into the coalition. Bill and baker, i admire the way he narrowed down peoples choices and stripped away the arguments. He did it with assad, Prime Minister shamir, the palestinians. He was able to produce something in madrid that few people thought possible when he made the first of those nine trips. I thought it was really admirable. Charlie he also had one of the most important qualities a secretary of state can have. The knowledge that he has the president s ear, the best political friend of the president. Bill and a lot of other qualities. Much like Hillary Clinton in a lot of ways. Both Hillary Clinton and baker no one was better prepared than them when they walked into a room. That is really important in not just a negotiation but any kind of diplomatic interaction. They both think strategically as well. Those are the qualities that make for very good secretaries of state. They were trying to solve a problem. Charlie what about the trip to china . The idea . Bill Hillary Clinton had a lot to do with it as well in the sense that i think you saw it in the first trip and since the secretary of state. I think they both charlie the dinner was to asia. Bill i think they both understood the significance of asia as the center of gravity in the International System as far as i can see in the 21st century. It doesnt mean its the only important thing. Its unique. It was a pivot at the outset. Any American Administration will have to look in many different directions. I think it is logical, and it built on the last administration to try to rebalance, reprioritize, the approach to asia. Charlie as you well know, the Prime Minister is coming here to speak for the congress. I have talked about that controversy recently with susan rice. What are the consequences of that . Bill i have long believed that u. S. Israeli relationships are important. It is not a partisan issue. The strength of that relationship is important in a moment where the middle east is in such disarray and filled with such uncertainty. There was not that kind of coordination. It is unfortunate. It does not diminish the importance of the relationship but it does not help. Charlie and they are engaged in a political campaign. Bill the timing makes it much more complicated as well. Charlie did they make Real Progress with respect to the step forward on the israelipalestinian issue . Hes clearly worked hard at it. Bill hes right to work hard at it. The people in tahrir square, cairo, they concluded may be the issue doesnt matter so much anymore. I think it still matters. For palestinians, israels security, a lot of people across the region. The United States, whether you like it or not, has a unique role to play in the diplomacy of that issue. Charlie what is our role . Bill to try to see if we can work with both parties as well as with key arab players and others around the world. To see if we can come up with a process that produces the kind of two state solution that lots of people have talked about. Charlie there are two ideas here. Some people argue you cannot have an israelipalestinian agreement without the u. S. Involvement. Others will argue, which is not necessarily contrary to that you can never have an israelipalestinian peaceful existence that doesnt start with the two parties coming together on something. They have to want it and want it badly and understand the consequences of not having it. Bill the simple answer is yes. I think both parts are true. There is no substitute for people in the region seeing the importance of moving in that direction. I think the u. S. Has an Important Role to play in helping encourage that. Charlie do you have any optimism that this will be a possible outcome . Bill i still hope it will. I am still convinced a two state solution is in the best interest i think it is starting to slip away. I dont think it has slipped away but as each year goes past, more and more issues kind of corrode the atmosphere between israelis and palestinians, and the wider region. Its a real shame. Israelis, palestinians, and the wider region. Its a real shame. It doesnt have much to do with the palestinian issue but i do think for israelis and palestinians, it is by far the best outcome. Charlie what is the biggest impediment to that happening . Bill i think you need to have a sense of urgency. Charlie they certainly have that. Bill both parties have to demonstrate that to make it possible. And you need leadership that will take advantage of that moment. Charlie with all the consequences for a one state solution, which is not a solution, they would argue that because israel does not want to be put in that position, it is not a place to at the same time, one of the principal arguments being made by the Prime Minister is this notion of a jewish state. Bill i think it is very difficult when you look at the forces of democracy and reality. Arabs being the majority. The jordan river. To the mediterranean. You look at forces of technology. Israel has a lot of support from the u. S. And has enhanced security over recent years. It is hard to predict what new technology will produce in terms of threats to israel. And ideology. The region is being more radicalized as well. They create a sense of urgency trying to seize the moment before us and make progress on that. Charlie and clearly all the other problems are not because that israel and the palestinians reached an agreement. As long as its there, its a problem in the region. Bill it is. Its a problem in israels longterm security. Without a two state solution you end up with a lot of difficult challenges to deal with. Longterm occupation, thats not healthy. Charlie i find in terms of israeli leaders that i know and have interviewed, there is an awareness of that. Occupation is not a healthy thing. For the psyche of a country. Bill it can be just as corrosive for israelis as it is the palestinians. Charlie do you say goodbye or do you say im going to go over here and do this for a while and maybe i will see you back . Bill i had a wonderful run. I am proud of the colleagues i served with over the years. The country i served. Charlie suppose you had been the deputy secretary of state. Suppose someone had been secretary of state becomes president. And says, i had a great deputy secretary of state, he would be perfect secretary of state. Bill i was really lucky in the 33 years i had and i am lucky to be at the Carnegie Endowment. Charlie succeeding a great woman. Bill jessica did a wonderful job and i will do my best not to screw it up. Charlie a pleasure to have you on this program. Thank you for joining us. See you next time. Cory live from pier three in san francisco, welcome to bloomberg west. Stocks close a big month on a down note. Overall, the nasdaq was up 7. 1 this month, climbing within 1. 2 of its march 2000 record. The biggest monthly gain since 2011. Did comcast and Time Warner Cable restrict Entertainment Companies . The s. E. C. Is investigating as