Transcripts For KQEH Charlie Rose 20170118

Around the different agencies that have been detailed to the white house with. They are extremely knowledgeable, experienced and effective, and i have been very proud to lead this team as weve tried to ready the next administration for the challenges that they will face. So i hope that they will trust in the wisdom and experience of the career Civil Servants and Foreign Service and military. Rose susan rice for the hour, next. Rose funding for charlie rose has been provided by the following and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and Information Services worldwide. Captioning sponsored by Rose Communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. Rose several days and counting for you as the National Security advisor to the president of the United States. Are you ready to leave . Very mixed feelings, charlie. Its been an extraordinary privilege to serve our country again and serve particularly under this president. I love the work that i do. I love the team that i work with. So i will be very sorry to leave that. On the other hand, after eight years either as National Security advisor or u. N. Ambassador and, frankly, two years prior to that supporting president obamas election, ten years intensity working on some of the most intractable and challenging problems, there is a real part of me thats looking forward to getting a rest. Rose what have you learned close to power, the National Security advisor, the person who presents the options to the president . Well, there is a great deal ive learned but let me talk a little bit about what ive learned about being in the role of National Security advisor. First and foremost, its my job to ensure the advice, analysis and recommendation provided to the president of the United States are thorough, well thought through, based in fact and fairly reflect the opinions and the recommendations of the cabinetrevel National Security rose and if there is conflict, make sure he understands there is a conflict, which im sure often hams. It happens enough. And vitally important my colleagues at the principals table and the president can can can trust i am not putting a filter on that or spin, whatever is the nokidding view of the president s cabinet officials is fully and fairly represented to him. Rose what are your impressions of Michael Flynn . Well, charlie, i cant say that i know him well. We have spent a number of hours together in our meetings where i have been trying to very hard to make sure that we are giving him the information he needs and the new team needs. Rose do you have an impression of his curiosity, his intellect, his values and judgments . Its not appropriate for me to characterize my successor. I will say this, hes been civil and respectful. Our meetings have been constructive, and i think we are doing the business that we are meant to do together of affecting this handoff. From the National Security Councils Point of view, we have been working since the beginning to have the year, 2016, that is, to prepare for this transition, obviously without knowing to whom we would be handing off. I have personally reviewed over 100 transition memos to general flynn and those on his team. In addition to that, at the lower levels, weve prepared another 175 pieces of paper. Theres a huge volume of material that we have provided to them for their consumption and, on top of that, weve sat down for many hours to talk through the most salient challenges they will face and to be responsive to their questions and concerns. Rose you also know well what the president elect has been saying, whether its n. A. T. O. Is obsolete, whether he is prepared to withdraw sanctions if the russians will give him something, what indication does that give you about where Trump Administration is going . Well, charlie, i think like most American Consumers of the news, were all watching and listening and trying to figure out what this portends. Weve heard different messages. From the cabinet no, maam kneels. From the cabinet nominees and from the president elect himself at different times on different topics. Well have to wait and see. Rose what are the lessons you want to impart to Michael Flynn. The necessity of running a transparent and honest process and serving the president elect, soon to be the president , with the integrity and the fairness that this position requires. Secondly, it is essential to be a consumer of the substance. There are no short cuts in this business and even if your vehicle for a communication is a short cut, the substantive policy work that comes bhiemed it has to be serious and rigorous. Ive also tried to impart the quality of the staff that we are handing off to the new team. The National Security Council Staff are 90 career experts from around the different agencies that have been detailed to the white house. They are extremely knowledgeable, experienced and effective, and i have been very proud to lead this team as weve tried to ready the next administration for the challenges that they will face. So i hope that they will trust in the wisdom and the experience of the career Civil Servants and Foreign Service and military. Rose let me turn to whats your biggest nightmare . What has kept you up of late . Whatever idea expresses the sense that, as you sit here with me, this is what worried me the most . I have a number of worries, charlie. I wish i had one. In all honesty, this is a world where the nature of the threats is very diverse and the challenges are multiple. So let me list a few. I think anybody in my position would worry about a catastrophic attack on the homeland or on american personnel abroad. So thats nightmare number one, and particularly if it were, god forbid, to be combined with some form of weapon of mass destruction and terrorism. We need to be concerned about potential, deliberate or inadvertent, for russia to miscalculate and provoke a conflict in the european theater. I say that because russias actions have been increasingly aggressive, whether surveilling our diplomatic personnel and harassing them, making very unsafe approaches on the seas and in the air, and i think its unclear what putins intentions are, particularly after the annexation of crimea and the illegal occupation of ukraine and, in fact, also, the atrocities hes been a party to in syria. So i worry about russia. And then there are the less probable but catastrophic scenarios. A pandemic flu, frankly, is a major concern. North korea continuing to advance and perfect its Nuclear Missile program. Even an unforeseen conflict between indiana and pakistan. Both Nuclear Armed nations that are constantly scirm skirmishing in kashmir. Rose Vladiir Putin said tuesday he accused the Outgoing Administration of trying to undermean President Trump by false allegations. He described the dossier alleging trumps Sexual Activity at a moscow hotel was faked and charged it as being worse than prostitution. Hes talking about your administration. Vladimir putin saying Vladimir Putin has told more lies tha than i can count, whetr about syria, ukraine or his role in interfering in our elections. So i dont take anything he says as gospel truth and, in this case, its completely dishonest and counterfactual. President obama had no knowledge of and no role in this alleged dossier, and, obviously, it is the consensus, highconfidence view of our collective 17 intelligence agencies that Vladimir Putin made a deliberate attempt to interfere with our election. Thats the fact. Rose to interfere with our election and to make sure that donald trump was elected . I dont think its possible to say to make sure. Rose or to help. But to assist by denigrating secretary clinton. Rose so putin wanted to thats what our intelligence rose do whatever he could to benefit the election or add to or contribute to . That is what our Intelligence Community has concluded. Rose so what if we done . This goes to the heart of the democratic process. It does. Rose have we retaliated in kind . Have we done something so mr. Putin either face to face in china or overseas that putin says, im not doing that again . There are different stages to this. We have retaliated and responded in a serious fashion and weve said from the outset that we respond in a manner and a time of our own choosing and not all of it may be evident to the american people. Rose but it has begun . It has begun and, in fact, a significant element of it was announced at the end of last month when the president sanctioned the Russian Military intelligence and other russian intelligence agencies and their leadership for their direct role in trying to involve themselves in our election. He also expelled 35 russian intelligence officials, closed down two very valued facilities that they operated in the United States, put out in great detail the forensics that showed how russia conducted these attacks, and a variety of other significant steps. Now, charlie, you mentioned china, and back in early september, as we were beginning to see indications of this, the president did convey a very forceful message to president putin. And its our assessment as were having greater confidence in the sac base for our conclusions. The Intelligence Community made it clear what we had seen, that russia was playing a nefarious role at the highest level designed to interfere in our election. The fact of the matter is russias behavior, bad as it was, and it was significant, could have been worse, and i think might have been word had it not worse had it not been for the fact that they understood that there would be potentially very significant consequences. Rose have they stopped . Doing what . Rose hacking. No. Rose can you prevent them from hacking . No. Look, russia and other state and nonstate actors will continue to hack. The hacking the problem with what they did in the election, this went beyond intelligence gathering. This went beyond hacking. Rose this is hacking to do what . To acquire information and use it to influence the election. Rose Samantha Power made a speech in which she basically said this demonstrates how committed russia is to breaking rules and tearing down the existing world order she cited ukraine, crimea and syria. Thats interesting, breaking the rules and tearing down the existing world order. Is that what Vladimir Putin wants to do . I dont know that thats an think hes certainly trying to bend the rules of the world order, and i think he is certainly trying to manipulate the rules to his benefit. So his invasion of ukraine and annexation of crimea was a blatant violation of International Rules and norms and he did so to advantage his own interests. At the same time as hes doing that, he purports to Uphold International Law by virtue of his role as a permanent member to have the security council. So there is a duality there. When its convenient for russia they are violating International Rules and norms. Samantha points to syria as another example. In other ways it tries to wag its finger and be the great champion of the International Rules and norms. So its a dishonest game, a manipulative one, but its all about serving what he believes to be his interests. Rose is it fair to say Vladimir Putin said the u. S. Russia relationship is as bad as hes ever seen it . I think you and i are old enough to remember the cold war and, so, i think we need a little bit of perspective even in the midst of what is a difficult period in our relationship. Theres no doubt. I would not be prepared to characterize it that way and, in fact, even as we have reached very difficult times by virtue of whats happened with respect to our election and ukraine and syria, there is still other areas where the United States and russia on a daily basis are working together and are continuing to find areas where our interests coincide, for example, implementation of the Iran Nuclear Deal as well as rose john kerry said to me last week they were a great help to getting that deal done. That is true, and thats where their interests and ours coincided. We negotiated and were both still add hearing to the new start treaty to reduce our nuclear arsenals. So there are areas where our interests converge and we are able to cooperate. There are increasingly a number of areas where they diverge. Rose donald trump, the president elect, has said hes prepared to consider reducing the sanctions if there is an action on the part of Vladimir Putin and russia, suggesting something within the nuclear treaty. Can you imagine circumstances in which it would be appropriate to reduce the sanctions that have been posed by your administration . We have different sanctions for different purposes, charlie. We have sanctions on russia for their annexation of crimea and ukraine. For those, weve said as long as theyre holding on to crimea there are certain sanctions that are going to remain in effect. When it comes to ukraine, if russia were to fulfill its commitments and fully implement the minsk agreement we have separate ones that involve human rights. We have other sanctions that relate to their involvement in the election, and i think for this latter group of human rights related and election related the bar ought to be very, very high for reducing those sanctions because the damage has been enduring. Rose china, donald trump is talking about taking a new look at the one china policy. You think thats a wise i think the to do . I dont. The one chin policy has served the United States, taiwan and china well, and it has been a foundational element of the u. S. China relationship since normalization back in 1979. We are a friend and partner of taiwan. We adhere to the taiwan relations act. We provide defense equipment and support to taiwan, and that has served taiwan and the United States well. But to abrogate the one china policy or to bring it into ancillary negotiations, say on an economic or trade issue, i think would be a grave mistake and i think we will find that china, with whom we have managed to forge a far more pragmatic and effective relationship where we cooperate in a far wider range than ever before, whether Climate Change or peacekeeping or Global Health or nonproliferation, and we manage our differences and competition whether in the economics sphere tore the South China Sea in a constructive fashion, that whole balance could be upset in a very devastating way. Rose not only that, north korea. In fact, china, for better or worse, is an indispensable player when it comes to north korea. Our Global Economy is such that the u. S. And chinas economies are intimately linked. They hold a high proportion of our debt. There are just many ways in which we cant afford to play fast and loose with what is the most consequential bilateral relationship on the planet. Rose but heres what some people are looking at, and they asked themselves, they see xi jinping at davos giving a major speech, the first time china has been there, basically saying globalization is good, when the whole populous revolution is about globalism is bad. Hes over there saying we believe in world market, we believe we have to monitor what happens in gmobalization, its almost like china is saying we are the champion of globalization, not the United States. Well, the United States has been the biggest beneficiary of globalization and free trade and open markets. It has reinforced democratic rule in many places, its raise eds living standards, and the exports are a huge basis of our economy. So i think we would be very remiss if we ceded the mantel of leadership on free trade and economic openness to china, and thats why the president has been so committed to the transpacific partnership. Rose which he did not get passed. Which was not passed by congress. Rose which is an act of president ial leadership. First negotiating the deal and getting trade Promotional Authority which we did to enable it to be passed and then, unfortunately, in the latter month of the year, the leadership in congress made clear they wouldnt take it up. Rose tell me where you see the possibilities of chinese relationship. Youve cited some of the things that worked. On the other hand, they are much more aggressive in the South China Sea, even building up those islands with military and defensive equipment. They are building up their navy to be an outreach of their global power, they are a continent that you know a lot about have a presence in africa. China is, for the United States, the most consequential bilateral relationship in the world, and we have to manage it very carefully. Ive spent more time traveling to china as National Security advisor than to any other country. I have personally been engaged very directly with my chinese counterparts and met myself with xi jinping on a number of occasions in order to help shepherd this very complicated relationship. It now spans the entirety of the u. S. Government, everything from wildlife trafficking to Public Health in africa to our defense relationship. Its complicated, its intense, its got economic and security dimensions to it, and we need to recognize that, you know, when the United States and china can solve problems together, thats beneficial for both countries and for the world, and we saw that most dramatically in the climate sphere where our leadership enabled the Paris Agreement to be forged. When the United States and china are in confrontation, whether in the economic sphere or the security realm, its quite dangerous and we have to be very clear to stand up for what we believe in, and thats freedom of navigation, freedom of overflight. Well fly and sail and operate rose what will stop him from going ahead and adding to their presence in the South China Sea . Charlie, they have been adding to their presence and other claimants have been adding to their presence. China is obviously the largest player in that regard. But what weve insisted on, and we dont take a view on whose claims are legitimate under international law, is that we are the United States and our commercial and military vessels will operate where we need to, we will defend our allies, we will defend the International Rules and norms, and weve done that, and china doesnt like it and there is potential for our disagreements in this realm to escalate. But for now, we have managed them and i think managed them responsibly. Ill give you another area where we have had major differences but weve managed to mitigate the conflict and turn down the temperature and thats in the cyber realm. China has been very aggressive over many years, particularly in using the cyber tools to steal economic assets, right. Rose the argument being made, often made by the United States and the president complained about it roundly to xi jinping, that the government of china was benefiting businesses theyre stealing our stuff from our companies rose to give to their company so they would have an advantage in the world market. They used cyber enabled espionage for person gain. Rose did they stop . Much reduced it because in september of 2014, on the 2515, i apologize 2015, on the eve of xi jinpings visit to the United States, following my visit to china in august, we made very clear that unless this stopped and unless we reached an understanding about what the rules of the road were going to be, and they foreswore not only in word but deed this commercial espionage using cyber, that we were going to impose sanctioned and they understood it so we reached a fivepoint agreement that the president announced here in september, and i think if you will ask our commercial partners, u. S. Companies or our Intelligence Community, they will all say that the frequency and the nature has been reduced, not eliminated. Rose but do you agree that donald trump as a candidate for president of the United States was able to speak to people who lost their jobs and be able to tell them that it was in part because of unfair trade practices by china and the loss of their jobs and the moving of factories and all of that has to do the question im sorry. Ill let you finish it. Rose that china was not playing on a level Playing Field and it was going to cost american jobs and he would do something about it even if it meant imposing a 45 tax. There is no question we have had a number of economic grievances as relates to china and we need to deal with them each in their own rights. We have taken more trade actions against china, including this past week the aluminum realm, for where we see unfair trade practices. So were enforcing the rules of the road and making sure the american companies, where there is disadvantage, there is add cat and full retaliation. On the other hand, we have to be realistic. Our economies where intertwined. A 45 tariff on chinese goods will not only harm china, it would harm the United States, it would trigger a trade war, and president xi jinping has been clear about that and thats not good for us or the Global Economy. So we need to find calibrated and responsible ways to protect our businesses where they are threatened and industry and not tank the Global Economy in the process, and where we have workers that have been displaced or disadvantaged by trade with china or in past our currency concerns with china, we need to defend them not only in the relationship with china but in terms of helping them adjust back here at home. Rose we clearly saw the impact of sanctions in iran. We got a nuclear deal out of that. Yes, we did. Rose can you tell me one way that sanctions against russia have altered their policies . Well, lets go to the ukraine because those sanctions have been in now longer than any of the others. Ones we just discussed related to the election have been in place only since last month. I think on the ukraine sanctions what we can say is that the United States working in concert with europe and having a unified approach to sanctions certainly has created economic pain in russia and exacerbated what has already been a precarious situation because of lower oil prices. It led to the minsk agreements that were signed but not fully implemented. Its both. There would be no minsk agreements and no agreed framework with how to resolve the conflict without the United States and europe and the other members of our partners in the g7 staying together. So i think its important the pressures remain in place until minsk is implemented. In the meantime, we have supported ukraine to develop its economy, to get back on its feet, to build up its defensive capabilities. Rose do you think the russians are going to once again change their policy about crimea . Isnt that a done deal . They may think its a done deal. Its not accepted by anybody else in the international community. Its not been acknowledged or validated. Whether they change their posture, charlie, im not here to predict thats going to happen tomorrow, the next day or next year, but what i can say zits not been accepted by any country as legitimate. It was an illegal annexation of another countrys territory. Rose which stands today. It stands and it cant be accepted. Rose let me move to what has been troubling for you, for the president , for the country, syria. You have said you were not in favor of the United States intervening in a civil war between Bashar Alassad and whoever the rebel forces were. Intervening militarily. Rose intervening militarily. Russia did intervene militarily, and it looks like their intervention made a significant difference. Does that hurt our standing in the world . Charlie, what i think would hurt our standing far more than russia deciding to commit itself militarily rose we didnt go in, russia went, in the results were on their side. Theyre taking the losses, theyre bearing the cost of what we think is a misguided policy to back assad. But what are our interests . Is it in the United States interest to get involved in another hot war on the ground in the middle east . We dont think so. Rose that begs the question as to whether there is an allearntive to getting hold up. Weve got an hour here. Let me finish. Rose please. Yes. I apologize. The other thing that is in our interest is dealing with the terrorist threat that has arisen in iraq and syria and doing so in an effective and sustainable way. So we have been involved, we are involved militarily in syria, but to try to defeat i. S. I. L in a coalition with others and in iraq the same way, working with the iraqi government, and weve rolled back the games i. S. I. Ls made over across 50 of the territory in iraq and syria weve taken out many of its senior leaders, and as i think well see in mosul and will see in raqqa, that campaign is making political progress, that service our direct interests because there are people both in iraq and to a great extent in syria that are plotting to attack the United States and our European Partners and others, so thats where we need to engage. A choice to involve ourselves in the Syrian Civil War would have been very punch a war of choice and one where our direct interests in the president s judgment, and in my judgment, frankly, were not implicated to the extent that it warned the loss of American Life and rose and what happened was the failure of negotiations between the russians and the United States so far in order to find some alternative to Bashar Alassad. Whether or not the United States had chosen to intervene in syria, and as i said rose they have intervened. Militarily in the civil war. Rose they have intervened. No, charlie, im talking about whether we got involved in the way russia got involved and we have not and i think that was the right choice. This conflict will have always needed to end at the negotiating table, theres no question about that. So going back to the beginning, before it was the u. S. And russia talking, it was the United Nations hosting talks in geneva back in 2012 and 2013. We have been involved in these negotiationnegotiation from they beginning because the only sustainable way, in our judgment, to end the conflict and see assad leave the scene will be through goashed settlement. Rose the only alternative farce you, the president and secretary of defense and the National Security apparatus in the United States was concerned was a significant number of boots on the ground, that was the only thing, in your judgment, that would have turned the civil war in the favor of the rebels against Bashar Alassad is this. Im not even sure that would have. But you were asking rose you know nothing that would have turned it against assad . Well, if we got enmeasured intensely in the enmeshed intensely in the war in syria prior to russian intervention, i cant predict with certainty what that would have had, but that would have been the most direct and impactful way to try to affect the situation as we had done years before in iraq with tens of thousands of u. S. Troops on the ground, and we saw in that circumstance that, as important as the gains that were made in that conflict on the ground were, they proved ultimately to be very fleeting in their sustainability. Rose but look at the consequences, and i know to ask any question of you and the president how much every one of you has an wished over this, an wished over this. You dont look at aleppo and not feel. Nobody does. Rose the tragedy there. Understand that. But the question is were your assumptions right, because of the ramifications . Look at europe and what happened with migration. Look at the political future of one of the president s best friends, angela merkel. Shes facing reelection and is not altogether sure. Look at whats happened to the rise of populism, all a product in part in part. Populism had many other dimensions. Rose i agree, but in part. Weve discussed some of them. Rose jobs and globalization. Exactly right. So let me say this, theres no doubt that what has evolved in syria as a result of the civil conflict, particularly the refugee outflow and particularly the outflow thats gone to europe has been destabilized, no question about that, but the United States getting involved in the war on the ground or air wouldnt have resined the fact of the refugees, it might have even exacerbated it. Rose but you didnt do anything i want to be clear about this, not anything, because as i said you had a presence on the ground and tried hard and had men and women on the ground, but the argument is made, you know, was there nothing you could do . The president has said in exit interviews, you know, that he asked people constantly was searching for alternatives and youre saying and hes saying we found no way lets be clear what were talking about here. Were talking about was there a military way to affect the outcome of the civil war such that assad was defeated and the opposition victorious. Rose and the answer to that is . The answer is, as you said, we have wrestled with this problem 16 ways to sunday, rolled over in our minds and at the principals table rose you wanted to find a way to do that but every potential option. Well, not that we couldnt, but we assessed the risks and costs of much increased american, u. S. Direct military involvement in the civil conflict were not outweighed by the benefits and, so, to involve the United States directly in a civil conflict where we are putting american lives in significant numbers on the line to try to defeat assad, we judged, and history may take a different view, was not ultimately in americas interests. We didnt do nothing. We have been actively involved in trying to end this war from the beginning, through diplomacy. We are the biggest provider of humanitarian assistance providing over 6 billion to the people who have suffered from this conflict. Weve supported our European Partners and played a role in trying to support the maritime interdiction. Weve supported the neighboring countries like jordan, lebanon, turkey, that have needed support and, above all, weve taken the fight to i. S. I. L rose im going to come to that. Which is a threat to the United States and to europe. Rose so you look for alternatives and couldnt find them, even though we didnt find suitable alternatives, satisfactory. Of course, there were people advocating for a no fly. So lets talk about that, for example. What would a no fly zone have done . The concept was the create a swath of territory, most of the time it was dued ton northern border of syria with turkey, where people could flee the fighting and have relative security, okay. That was the concept. No fly zone, however, and, by the way, just to be clear, and try to prevent assad from using air power, barrel bombs, whatever, against civilians, we could have done that but it would have been at great cost to the counteri. S. I. L campaign in terms of diversion of assets and resources. Rose we dont have enough power to do both . Were doing a lot of things in the world simultaneously. No, the answer is, had we chosen to enforce the significant no fly zone it would have taken away assets from the countersite in iraq and syria. We didnt think that would directly serve our proximate interests. Moreover, you cant just have people protecting folks on the ground by air, you need someone on the ground provide progress teaks and not n. A. T. O. , turkey or anybody at that time was willing to provide that protection. So it was an idea that sounded good in theory but when you peeled it back and thought what would it entail, what diminution for our support for the i. S. I. L campaign, who would provide the ground force . How many air caps would that require . It didnt make sense. Rose to your point as well, you never know if you go into a civil war and defeat the regimish and that wouldnt have defeated the regime. It just would have protected rose let me make my point. Yes, im sorry. Rose if you go into a civil war and defeat the regime you dont know what will follow. True. Rose all you have to do is look at the arab spring and be confirmed in that view. Thats true, too, charlie. The fact of the matter is one of the reasons why a negotiated solution is the only sustainable one is because thats the only way to have influence of who comes behind. Rose history will have a hard look at this. They will indeed. Rose and the pain is deep, and it continues and it continues. It continues and, charlie, you know, as you said yourself, this is, in my view, the most difficult, vexing, painful policy challenge that ive seen in my years in government, and there arent any satisfactory, you know, Silver Bullet solutions. If there were, we would have utilized tel them. Rose i. S. I. L, i. S. I. S. , the islamic state. Mosul will be captured reasonably soon, we assume. Im not trying to put a time line on it, but youve made significant advances. Significant process. Rose the iraqis have made significant advances. Yes. Rose there is at some point an effort against raqqa. Yes. Rose they think it will take place in 2017. Yes. Rose that both mosul and raqqa will be captured, and the leadership of i. S. I. L will be captured or killed. Do you believe that . I think there is a reasonable chance. Rose just a reasonable chance . Look, im not rose you were talking about you couldnt get involved in civil war because it took resources away from i. S. I. L. Were going to capture with our partners on the ground posol and raqqa. Youre asking me to be precise about a time line. Rose im trying to get a year. I think it will be done. 100 certain . No. I have Great Respect for ash carters campaign. Rose john kerry thought it could happen. With the extraordinary effect sphoor and weve made more progress in iraq and syria than we judged. So im an optimist. It will happen, but i wont be nailed rose but it wont end terrorism. No. By the way, taking raqqa and mosul is necessary but not sufficient. There, i. S. I. L is, for example, just today putting up a major fight against the russians and the syrians in dara zar, another city south of raqqa inside syria. So its not as if i. S. I. L is only in mosul and raqqa and their leadership is only in mosul and raqqa, but those are the centers of gravity. They must and will be taken, but there is still work to be done and not just in iraq and syria because i. S. I. L has global ambitions and global presence, so were doling with i. S. I. L in places like libya, west africa, in parts of Southeast Asia and in south asia. Rose the longest war in American History is afghanistan. When will it end . Its ended in terms of the United States direct combat world. We are not in combat in afghanistan. Rose the taliban is continuing to fight. The cal ban is continuing to fight and our world now for two years has been limited to training and advising and assisting the Afghan Government forces to deal with the taliban and go after the terrorist threat as it remains, and there is a residual terrorist threat, an al quaida residual which is quite small, an i. S. I. L presence, that we will continue to work with the afghans to defeat. I cant say with certainty how long that will be, but i think the taliban is proving, as you know well, an enduring adversary for the Afghan Government. Rose when you look at iraq, a place that the president said he was going to withdraw from iraq and he did, correct . Yes, he did, in keeping with the agreement that president bush made with the irqi government. Rose what kind of state is iraq today . Do you have confidence in the the Prime Minister . Do you have confidence that they will be able to live with the shia that the shia and sunni will be able to live together in iraq . Iraq is a very complex state with its own builtin fragility, partly due to sectarianism, partly due to an undiversified economy and democratic institutions. I think president abadi has demonstrated admirable leadership, particularly when compared to the sectarian orientation of his predecessor. He has tried to govern iraq in a fashion that we believe, if continued, would be more sustainable than what weve seen in the past, but the iraqi institutions are nascent and fragile and there is a great deal of sectarian divide that remains. Rose john kerry made a strong effort to do something and to bring israelis and palestinians together and, in the end, he could not do it. There is also iran. That agreement has held. The nuclear agreement. Rose the nuclear agreement. 1 year old today. Rose you believe it will continue to hold, that or can the administration thats coming to power do away with it . It could do away with it. Rose what are the consequence ifs they do away with it. Well, let me outline them. First of all, lets step back and, as you said, this nuclear deal that was agreed and negotiated with iran a long with the european union, france, britain, germany, russia and china, as well as iran itself rose the p5 1. The p5 1 plus iran has endured and been adhered to in all of its sellments by the iranian side. In contrast to where we were before the agreement a few years ago, iran has removed twothirds of its centrifuges and disabled them, shipped out 98 of its enriched yiew uranium, poured concrete in the reactor rose so much farther away to produce the materials for a nuclear warhead. At least a year away as opposed to two or three months and thats the success of this deal. And we have achieved the objective of cutting off every one of irans pathways to a Nuclear Weapon without the use of force in a far more sustainable way. So for the new administration or any administration to decide to abrogate that deal, they would be saying that success is not good enough and, instead, we are trying to accomplish something else, and im not sure what that would be. If they were to do that, charlie, what would happen . First of all, iran, which has held up its side of the bargain would be out from under, no obligations, we would have abrogated the agreement and they would have no obligations that bind them to adhere to the steps theyve taken. They could shrink their breakout time without being in the wrong, so to speak. And one other really important point, our partners who negotiated this deal with us, the europe, russia and china who believe in this deal would feel no obligation and be under no pressure to reinstate the sanctions regime that was a major source of pressure on iran. So iran would not only be out from under sanctions, able to pursue its Nuclear Program unconstrained, we would be the outlier, not the leader that we were in building the coalition that got us the deal in the first place. Rose why are our allies in the region, then, opposed to the deal . Well, depends on who youre talking to. They take different views. Israel, youve heard Prime Minister netanyahu be very vocal against the deal, but weve also heard the leadership of the Israeli Military and Intelligence Community say its working and it serves our interests. Rose the saudis and emirates. If you ask the saudis and emirates their view in public rose and private. You ask them what they think, they will tell you that they acknowledge that this deal has extend the breakout time and reduced the nuclear threat. The problem is, charlie, for the region, and lets particularly talk about the gulf states, their principal concern is not only the Nuclear Program, its other iranian nefarious behavior which we too share a serious concern about. Rose its fair to say anything about it. I wouldnt say we havent done anything about it. The nuclear deal was not about terrorism and it wasnt about Ballistic Missiles and other things that concern us greatly about iranian behavior. Our view is and i think if you press them, theyd acknowledge as well that given irans bad behavior, better that it not have a Nuclear Weapons capacity, better that it have a constrained, small, verified, monitored civilian program and that it not have the power to threaten israel or our partners in the region with a Nuclear Weapon. Rose one of the things that you have said, and it is this notion, back to a broad picture of the world, i mean, are we looking, as you leave office, at a world thats much more unstable than when you came, because especially not because of actions by the administration, but the changing complexity of the world, are we looking in 2017 at a much more complex, fragile, unstable world . I think were looking certainly looking at a complex world and, charlie, i said this, for the, last week i said this, in fact, last week at the institute of peace rose thats where i got the idea. The nature of the threats we face is much more diverse. But in other respects, we face it from a position of greater strength. Our economy has rebounded. We are no longer on the verge of a global depression. We are growing now and that is a great source of strength. We no longer have an al quaida core and Osama Bin Laden as the only organization that managed to conduct a plot on foreign soil, Osama Bin Laden is dead and there hasnt been, knock on wood, a successful foreigndirected terrorist attack on our soil. That is better. We are fighting i. S. I. L with a coalition of 68 countries from a position of strength and in a way that is a much more sustainable approach than having to invest tens of thousands of our forces on the ground for an extended period of time. So there are many ways in which we are in a better place than we were. We have a Global Climate agreement which we didnt have and has the prospect for dealing with an existential threat to the planet. I could go on. We have an iran that doesnt have the ability to pursue a Nuclear Weapon, which they did in 2008. But what we do have are other forces that have great greater complexity. Russia has certainly been more aggressive, and we have to point to that. Rose north korea. I think the north korean threat has been gradually growing, but back in 2008, they had Nuclear Weapons and they had Ballistic Missiles. They have continued to pursue those programs, and the sanctions that we have put in place, the efforts and the pressure that we have put in place have been significant, but they have not ended their Nuclear Program. So rose youre talking they soon will have i. C. B. M. S that can deliver nuclear warheads. They may. But this has been evolving. We had a north korea with Nuclear Weapons some years ago, and that problem persists, and it is not getting better. So we want to be clear about that. When you ask me what worries me, that was one of the things i pointed to. But i thought you were talking about things that have evolved and changed that is meaningfully different from where we were some years ago, and i think that what we are seeing is the nature of the threats are more diffuse. They are of a different nature. We have state actors leak russia that are like russia that are problematic. We have nonstate actors like i. S. I. L which is equally a threat and sort of multiheaded hydra if you look at its geographic orientation. We have threats we knew of in 2008 but could arise at any moment like pandemic flu which weve discussed and thats not new but persistent and the risk remains. Rose i notice that in what you have been saying. How serious do you see that . Pandemic flu . A real will risk. Its a fact. It will happen. We have seen it historically over periods of years going back to the most grave instance was in 1918, where, you know, many, many people died, hundreds of thousands, millions had the potential to die from Something Like this because now our world is that much more interconnected through trade, commerce, air connectivity and, therefore, what happens in one part of the world can quickly spread to another. One of the things that this administration has done which is little known, and we did this we started this before the ebola epidemic, was to work with countries around the world to put in place in the weakest links, the poorest, weakest countries of the world, much improved Global Health infrastructure so they can detect and surveil disease, they can contain it before it spreads. We have called this the Global Health security agenda and we have 50 countries or so that are actively part of this, and thats the kind of longterm effort that were going to need to build and sustain around the world to diminish the risk of pandemic, but were not going to eliminate it. Rose but it says two things. Number one, it says these are National Security issues. Absolutely. Rose climate is a National Security issue. Absolutely. Rose pandemics are a National Security issue and theyre transnational like terrorism. Rose like terrorism, so unless you have Global Cooperation exactly, charlie. So i often put it this way, the nature of the threats we face are rarely if ever those that can be if ever be those that can be resolved by the use of force. The most difficult threats we face are going to require effective e collective action, meaning that the United States has to lead, rally other countries to work with us. They immediate to see it as in they need to see it in their interest whether to act, to combat the ebola epidemic where we brought the world to do that, whether to confront aggression through sanctions on russia when it an exes crimea, or whether it is dealing with a new Terror Threat like i. S. I. L. This requires global leadership. The paris climate agreement is a great example. The United States has historically been the leader in this regard uncan deer president obama. We have been very effective in bringing countries together to deal with these transnational and global challenges and thats going to be the responsibility and the imperative for the next administration as well. Rose i thank you for having this trip around the world with us and much success to you, wherever you are going to be. Thank you, charlie. Appreciate this. Its always a privilege to get to talk about such a wide range of issues with you. Rose susan rice, National Security advisor to president obama until january 20th. Thank you for joining us. See you next time. For more about this program and earlier episodes, visit us online at pbs. Org and charlierose. Com. Captioning sponsored by Rose Communications captioned by Media Access Group at wgbh access. Wgbh. Org rose funding for charlie rose has been provided by and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and Information Services worldwide. The following production was produced in high definition. And their buns are something i have yet to find anywhere else. Cause im not inviting you to my house for dinner breaded and fried and gooey and lovely. In the words of Arnold Schwarzenegger ill be back youve heard of connoisseur im a commonsewer i knew i had to ward off some vampires or something. Lets talk desserts