From our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. From east ukraine to the middle east to the south china sea, serious Foreign Policy challenges to set the white house. The situation is an argument stability unseen since the 1970s. Washingtonnow from is jay solomon who covers Foreign Affairs and National Security and carol lee. I am pleased to have the both of them. Welcome. Thank you for having us. Tell me where did the idea come from that you simply see a lot of dots that were connected and you said wait a minute, what is going on . After looking at the dots, tell us what you mean about an arc of instability. Was think for me i traveling a lot with secretary kerry over the past few months. Every week, there was another crisis. Ukraine, iraq, syria, the middle east. It is a continued crises and trying to figure out what is the unifying theme. It was difficult. I think what struck me was the sense we do have a time where the u. S. Is kind of pulling back. A lot of voters wanted that, they wanted to be left engaged. At the same time, there are all these challengers coming whether it is the russians, the chinese, the iranians. Why is all of this happening at the same time and what is the unifying factor . To me, it was this moment in time where we are pulling back at least for the time being militarily. All of these other players are coming into this vacuum, or this area of instability and that is why it seems like it is such a chaotic time. It is a very scary time when you see what is going on in iraq and syria and the ukraine right now. The question is the white house recognize this . Strategy to meet the challenge of this arc of instability . I say im your first point yes, they do recognize this. It is something they are increasingly concerned about. I am also disappointed about given the fact that the president wanted to pursue a proactive foreignpolicy agenda on issues like middle east peace and getting a deal with iran over its nuclear program. They are forced to react to events. He is taking what is what he hopes to be a very active second term and now it is a proactive reactive second term. As far as whether or not he has a strategy to deal with it, i think that is what all of these events happening at one particular time has reignited the debate over the obama foreignpolicy doctrine. You saw the president tried to explain that at west point in may. All of a sudden, they were planning the white house is planning to go on with his campaign to play out the details of the president for policy and all of these events happened one after another. Russia continue to be aggressive, the middle east and syria the war continued. The u. S. Is going back into iraq. You are seeing what is happening in the middle east over the past week. Now, the white house is trying to manage all of these things while still adhering to the president s foreignpolicy doctrine which is that the u. S. Will take a multilateral toroach and does not try not get as involved as it could militarily. That is raise a whole host of questions whether how much of this is the president doing . Attritionvarious u. S. And allies that are nervous about the way he approaches Foreign Policy and how much of this wouldve happened anyway . It is a result for having policies that came before he took office. Jay,n you make the case, as carol was talking about, that president ial policies, his decision in syria not try to arm the moderates, the decision to draw a red line and you have agreement with russia and with hassad which a lot of people say it worked out to be a good thing. Can you make the point that it was the reading of the president and the way he saw the world was the stimulus to people to be more aggressive . I think there is definitely some truth to that. He had these redlines in syria last summer and said repeatedly ssad gases people, we would react and we would europe or some military action last summer and it did not happen. I talked to a number of our allies in the gulf, even over in asia, they said the chinese made a major grab on some of these islands that are being disputed. Would we react, could we react . Do something to challenge our allies, would we react . They look at the negotiations on the uranians on the nuclear issue, is this a sign of u. S. Engagement or u. S. Pulling out . The examples and some of the rhetoric, has made allies nervous. I think some of the positions the president took are totally understandable. I think it is debatable how much the impact the u. S. Couldve had in syria or if you wanted to be sucked into that conflict. Saying these redlines and not acting has definitely been seen by our allies and probably our nemesis in the sense that he is not he might not be there. He might not live up to what he is saying. You covered the secretary of state and carol covers the president. Do they see eye to eye or is john kerry want to engage in more bold foreignpolicy and use of American Force . I think the sense i got is that john kerry is more about that. He was talking about a much more aggressive army and supporting of the opposition. When thehat speech u. S. Look like it was going to take action in syria and got left out on a limb. That is the sense i get. On iraq, too, he probably seem o be much more willing to take action that did not happen. I think that is a fair analysis that kerry is more active than president obama. I think that is right. They see it as the president campaigning on a certain foreignpolicy strategy that was widely supported among American Public. He is sticking to that for better or worse. We have seen for the worse is Foreign Policy standing among the American Public has been at its lowest since it is been since his residency presidency. Part of the frustration on the side of the white house is that he is doing exactly what he said he would do. Yet, that doesnt seem to be exactly what people want. We have talked to european diplomats who say they thought they wanted what obama is doing and now they are feeling a little like he is taking it too far. Perhaps he is overcorrected for what he perceived as president bushs foreignpolicy mistakes. That is exactly what the president did bad. John kerry goes to yale and hees a speech in which basically said we have to be careful, we didnt swing too far to the other side following what president bush had done and get into a kind of extreme isolation. That is right. That is the big question and i think that right now what is happening is that individually any of these crises could be managed by the white house in a way that maybe would not raise those questions. When you have this number of very high stakes with huge , it reallys events puts the pressure on the white house to explain and how they are not over correcting to this. That is what john kerry said about swinging the other way. How they are going to manage it all because one of the criticisms is that maybe these things wouldve happened anyway but when you take Something Like the president s decision to set a redline in syria and then you walk up to the redline and at the lastminute drawback i have trouble with the president since he came into office and covered him and i have never seen a map to go overseas and this away and repeatedly reassure allies that are usually on our side. He is going to have our back. It is something it were to happen. He had to do it in europe for a number of times this year and in asia. Hes going to continue to have to do that if he keeps if these types of things keep taking place and he is perceived as not necessarily being as aggressive as the situation calls for which is what some of his allies are saying at this point. I spoke to some leaders in the gulf and they said to me we think we know where the president stands and we think he has our back but we are not sure. I said, he made a speech at west point and was clear in terms of how the United States will stand where he thinks it is important and interest of National Security. They say, yes, to me. But, it is one thing this make us beach, and then another thing to look in the eye of us and tell us. I have trouble with the president this year where he had to go somewhere and look them in the eye and try to convince them that he will be there. Take saudi arabia for instance, they are very nervous about the u. S. s engagement with iran. He had an engagement and then had to stop and sit facetoface and say i will be there and i am going to do x, y, and z. He is repeatedly having to do that. I think part of the frustration if you talk to people on the white house is that the president gives a lot of speeches but aside for syria which i think turned out to be a pretty consequential decision in terms of perception of this president and the United States, besides that, they have done everything they say they will do. They still continue to battle this perception. Perception is something, particularly when youre dealing with Foreign Policy and the different actors. I think the arab leaders have been particularly interesting in terms of managing allies because there is a string of decisions going back to the arab spring in late 2010 and 2011 that really kind of made air of leaders nervous. This was a close ally and we kind of showed him the door and everybody was saying take him if you kick him out, it would much more unstable. Then, the iran negotiations, which i think people were supportive of, they were happening in secret behind the israelishe saudis and and that fueled the sense of can we trust obama . Is he going to cut a deal with the a rainy and have much broader impact on the weapons impact or impact our interest in iran and iraq. It has been more than one issue going back for more than a few years that has kind of created this unease among our allies, particularly in the middle east. You get the sense that the president has said he worries about making a mistake. He worries most of all about doing something stupid. I dont quite know what he means but i think he means getting sucked into a war like afghanistan or iraq that takes a terrible toll, not only in terms of the most important consequences of human lives, but also treasure and also, it means there is an omission of something he mightve done otherwise. Some other thing in terms of say developing a better relationship with china or with other people in asia. Right . You look at iraq, you can see why. Bush made a decision and it is something the country is grappling with. People in washington there is constant blaming but there is no doubt we unleashed something in iraq that we are still dealing with. It seems to be getting uglier over time. You can understand the hesitancy. I can. A foreignpolicy observers and one of them describe the president has a look before you leap kind of guy and he definitely is. Every big decision, there is a big study group. Decision, afghanistan he really sifted through. Was trying todent sum up his foreignpolicy and his advisers were they would probably say it was essentially do not be stupid. That is his approach on the world stage. Him,might make sense to but it is very unclear to a lot of people domestically and overseas what exactly that means. Lemmie make two points. T the president might say number one, sanctions. Iran is at the table because of sanctions and they put together those sanctions. That is the kind of Foreign Policy the president believes in. Russia,wo, looking at the sanctions have caused russia to pause for a moment in terms of what he is prepared to do. Does the administration have a good point . The sanctions as one of these policies that everyone is claiming credit. The bush administration, the Congress Really drove in many ways. As far as being this destructive to the iranian economy. Of buyinot from the europeans. The negotiations are happening and is really hard to tell if the iranians will go to the levels that is needed to get to an agreement. The deadline is next sunday and i think and i do not think anybody knows. The negotiations have been effective but there is a sense that hasnt gone enough . Is putin really they are Still Standing arms sending arms and the situation in ukraine is still pretty unstable. Is not a clear picture. It has been revolutionary in a lot of ways in the way the abused these sanctions and a lot of different people have been a part of this. Can you make the case in all of this that people were more aggressive than they wouldve been otherwise because they doubted the fact the United States would respond . Certainly, there are members of foreign leaders who would make that case and that is part of the concern that is driving them. Is reassurance obama having to give them. You canook at ukraine, take it on the flipside which is if you are the white house, you are probably really frustrated that these allies who may be criticizing you for not going far enough will not go as far as you want them to go meaning that the president has tried to get countries like germany to go further on sanctions against russia to try to contain this. Has traded a cohesion among europe and the u. S. For what could be a stronger package if the u. S. Move a little further. However, he is battling the fact no matter what the u. S. Does, it is not going to be much of anything if you dont have europeans on board. Thank you very much. An arc of instability unseen since the 1970s a fascinating piece about america around the world. I complement you and the wall street journal because there was another piece over the weekend about jihad. If he really want to go on her stand isi go understand beginningss and all the conflicts in the middle east, especially among those jihadist forces, that is a very good place to stary. T. My thanks thank you, jake. Y. Thank you, carol. Back in a moment. Stay with us. David plouffe is here. He was the Campaign Manager for president obamas 2008 president ial campaign. From 2011 to 2013, he served as Senior Advisor to the president. Former white house chief of staff bill daley has said the president probably took davids opinion with more certitude than anyone else. If david said x i think the president would more often believe x than challenge it. I am pleased to have them here here for the first time. It is great to have the year because i am interested in what you do. We can talk about many things. I intend to talk about Foreign Policy, but in this limited time, what interests me is america. You have done something remarkable and part of two great experiences winning president ial campaigns. Going to the public at different times. On the one hand, you had the magic of a narrative that was overwhelming. The first africanamerican, a man who brought great pride. The second time, it was a different kind of campaign. More of a grind. In the end, youre going to the people and saying support us. You have to understand america, i think, to be elected by americans. Tell me how you see the country and the influence. No one is going to succeed in a campaign no matter the locale, certainly an american president ial election without understanding the country and where they want to go. It is an interesting place we find ourselves in. You have people with Household Income with say 75,000. People below 50,000 are not feeling much better. We need to understand that a lot of people are struggling. They are in fact losing. They feel more secure about their job situation which is great, but the definition of security has changed. It is less about buying a second car or going on vacation than having a car repair bill. A lot of people are struggling. Our country is changing from a diversity standpoint. The middle part of the century, states are going to be unrecognizable compared to where they are today. Technology is playing a huge and i role, although you have a little bit a divide. You and i spend all our time on mobile phones. Not everybody across the country does. What i am struck by is their optimism even during the recession. There is more that you always have to remember and i think the president spoke well on this washington looks like democrats and republicans cant agree on anything, anytime, anywhere. But most americans can they can figure out a way. How can washington do it . We are in a very tough place and i think the republicans bear the most of the it is a big challenge. It is. I think we are in a time when the Republican Party, the base of the Republican Party, cannot be more disconnected from the middle electorate. You have the wings in both parties, the loudest voices get the most attention. You see it is much worse in the Republican Party. And the Republican Party. When a member of the party reaches out to do something that their basis agrees with, to get i and a you a their bases agrees with, they get smacked down pretty quickly. It is with senator manchin and senator toomey did on gun a a a a senator toomey did on gun background checks and gun violence. Really heroic, i thought. Yes. It is a real problem because right now, it is policed by the kind of Entertainment Complex in both parties. The Republican Party is disconnected from reality, in my view in washington. At the same time, the president has terrible numbers. You think that is because of gridlock in washington or because of what . I think he is probably in the mid40s right now. I think you will see those numbers go up. He is improving, is he not . It will take a while. Second terms are difficult. We have the Attention Span of a gnat in the country. News cycles are like 15 minutes at most now. You have been around for seven years. I think washington remains dysfunctional. Most voters do not blame the president but he is the one in charge so they are dissatisfied. Theres no doubt the shutdown did real harm to the economy. They didnt seem to just blame the republicans. It seemed to be a plague on all your houses for the gridlock. I think what they say is youre dealing with a crowd of unreasonable, irresponsible, dogmatic republicans. You are still the president. You are presiding over a time of dysfunction. It happened on your watch and you are partly responsible. People think the president has tried over and over again. They have not seen the results. What matters is what he has gotten done and i think