destabilizing activities, and the threat from terrorist groups. we are going to work together to address the threats and much of the enhanced security i've outlined will allow us to do that. i want o be clear - -- to be clear - the purpose of cooperation is not to perpetuate confrontation or marginalise iran. none of our nations have an interest in open-ended conflict. we welcome an iran that plays a responsible role in the region, one that takes concrete practical steps to build trust and resolve differences with nations and abides by international rules and norms. as i said before with tensions in the region resolving conflict will need a broader dialogue, one including iran and g.c.c. neighbours. a key purpose is to ensure our g cc partners can deal with iran

politically, diplomatically from a position of confidence and strength. finally, while the summit was focused on security cooperation, events in the middle east since the beginning of the arab bring is a reminder that true and lasting security includes governance that serves all citizens and respects human rights. in the middle east, as we do around the world the united states will speak out on behalf of inclusive governance representative institutions strong civil societies in human rights and we'll work to expand the educational and economic opportunities allowing young people to fulfil their potential. i want to thank all of our g.c.c. partners for making the summit a success. i believe the camp david commitments described could mark the beginning of a new era of cooperation between our countries, a closer stronger partnership advancing us for

decade to come. with that i'll take questions and i'll start with julie payes, baut i promised to -- because i promised to call on her. >> reporter: thank you very much. you mentioned broad support from the g.c.c. to stop iran getting a nuclear weapon. did you get specific agreement from the gulf leaders about a framework or a commitment to not publicly oppose a deal if you reach that. and iran's destabilizing activity in the region how can you assure them that iran would not include that activity if they have an influx of money, when they are accused of doing so now with a weaker economy. >> we didn't have a document that we presented to them to sign on the bottom line - will you approve of this nuclear framework deal because the deal is not completed. in the same way that i wouldn't

ask the united states senate or american people to sign off on something before they see the details, and given i'm not going to sign off on any deal until i have seen the details, i wouldn't expect them to either. what i d hear from our g.c.c. partners was their agreement that if we can get a comprehensive verifiable deal that cuts off the path ways to a nuclear weapon that that would the their interests and the interests of the region as well as the world's community, and so the question then will be is iran prepared to do what is required for the international community, to feel confidence that, in fact, it's not a developing nuclear weapon and have we set up the inspection regimes that allow such confidence to be maintained not just next year or five years

from now butt out into the future. so what we did was we had secretary kerry, secretary ernie monteese involved in the negotiations why it was that we were confident that if the framework agreement were to be solidified that we could verify they did not have a nuclear weapon, that was important to them and gave them additional confidence. there was a concern that i share, that even if we deal effectively with the nuclear issue, that we will still have a problem with some of iran's destabilizing activities, a number expressed the concern that with additional resources, through the reduction in actions, that was it possible

that iran would syphon off resources into more destabilizing activity. secretary jack lew was there to explain there would be no sanctions relief until we confirmed that iran carried out its obligations under a nuclear deal. secondly, we gave them our best analyse of the enormous needs that iran has internally and the commitment that iran made to its people in terms of shoring up its economy and improving economic growth, and as i pointed out, most of the destabilizing activity is low tech low cast activity. and part of my emphasise to them was if we are focussing effectively on the things we need to do to shore up defenses

improve intelligence and the capacity for maritime monitoring of what is taking place in the gulf if we are working in concert to address the terrorist activity and countering terrorist messages coming not just from state sponsors like iran, but broadly from organizations like i.s.i.l., then we'll fortify ourselves, and deal with many challenges and can do so from a position of strength and confidence. it's not to deny concerns there about what happens when sanctions are reduced. it was to emphasise that what matters more is the things that we can do now to ensure that some of these destabilizing

activities is no longer taking place. and, of course, when you look at a place like yemen, the issue there was the state itself was crumbling, and that if we can do a better job in places like syria, yemen libya, in building up functioning political structures it's less likely that anyone including iran can exploit some of the divisions existing. mike viqueira. >> reporter: thank you, mr president. on syria one of the reasons we are here is many of the nations in the region were upset that more than two years ago when bashar al-assad deployed chemical weapons, that there was no military response as you appeared to promise, no retaliation. now there's a possibility that bashar al-assad once again used chemical weapons, what did you tell the leaders that were disappointed last time and will

you use a military response if it's confirmed he uses them again. and a domestic question as well sir, if i could ask that. this is about the environment and the drilling approved in the arctic. this nation, the united states, is now an exporter for the first time in years of fossil fuels, partly due to fracking, something that environmentalists objected to, something that you regard as all of above, an energy strategy. the oil company, shell had a mixed record of drilling in the reemon, many environmental -- region, many environmentalists look at it and wonder if it's worth the risk to drill in an eco system. >> first of all, michael, i don't know the reason you are here but the reason i'm here is not because of what happened in syria a couple of years ago. the reason i'm here is because we have extraordinary challenges throughout the region not just in syria, but iraq yemen, libya, and the costs of i.s.i.l. -- developments of i.s.i.l. and

making sure we don't have a nuclear weapon in iran. with respect to syria, my commitment was to make sure that syria was not using chemical weapons. mobilizing the international community to ensure that would not happen. in fact we positioned ourselves to be willing to take military action. the reason we did not was because bashar al-assad gave up his chemical weapons. that's not speculation on our part that, in fact has been confirmed by the organization internationally charged with eliminating chemical weapons. i don't think that there are a lot of folks in the region who are disappointed that bashar al-assad is no longer in possession of one of the biggest stockpiles of chemical weapons of any country on earth of the

those have been emanated. it is -- eliminated. it is true that we saw reports about the use of chlorine in bombs that had the effect of chemical weapons. chlorine itself has not been listed as a chemical weapon but when it is used in this fashion, can be considered a prohibited use of the community, we are working to investigate that. if we have the confirmation we need we'll work with the international community and the organization charged with monitoring by the syrian government and reach out to patrons of bashar al-assad like russia, to put a stop to it. with respect to the situation in the arctic it's fair to say that i know a little something

about the risks of off sure drilling given what happened in the gulf. no one is mindful of the risks and dangers involved. that's why when shell put in an application several years ago, we delayed it for a lengthy period of time until they could provide us with the kinds of ashounss -- assurances taking account of the extraordinary challenges if, in fact tlsks a leak that far north in that kind of environment. which would be much more difficult to deal with than in the gulf. based on those very high standards, shell had to go back to the drawing board, revamp its approach and the experts have

concluded that they have met those standards. keep in mind my approach when it comes to fracking drilling, u.s. energy and gas has been scpt. i believe we'll have to transition off of fossil fuels as a planet. in order to prevent climate change. i'm working internationally to reduce our carbon emissions. and to replace overtime fossil fuels with clean energies we start at home with all the work at home. to double the use of double clean energy. i think that it is important to recognise that that will be a transition process. in the meantime. we going to continue to use fossil fuels. when it can be done safely and appropriately, u.s. production of oil and natural gas is

important. i would rather us with all the safeguards and standard that we have be producing - oil and gas, rather than importing it which is bad for our people but is also potentially purchase from places that have lower environmental standards than we do. >> thank you. i would like to ask you about trade. the senate moved forward on a bill to improve trade legislation. and moved forward with a proposal to punish countries like china for what they do. can you potentially see yourself accepting senator schumer's language on currency manipulation, and would you veto that.

could you talk about your relationship with senator warren do you regret it's personal with the back and forward on trade. >> that was a second question wasn't it. so that thirdly is what you are saying. >> reporter: quickly, you mentioned an issue of a 2-state solution with israel. i wonder if you would give your reaction with what the pope is moving forward with in terms of recognising palestinians. do you think it's a gooded in, a mistake. first of all i want to congratulate the senate on moving forward and providing me the authority to not only strike a smart, progressive growth trade deal with countries in the asia pacific region and give me the tools to enforce the

agreements, which haven't happened in the past. i want to thank all the senators who voted to provide that authority. or at least begin the debate on moving the process forward. those who didn't vote for it, i want to keep on trying to make the case and provide them the information they need to feel confident, despite the fact that that's been difficult problems with deals in the past the approach we are taking here is the right one, not just for big businesses but for small u.s. businesses and medium seized businesses and ultimately american workers. i would not be promoting any agreement that i didn't think at the end of the day was going to be creating jobs in the united states and giving us more of an

opportunity to create ladders of success, higher incomes and wages for the american people. that is my primary focus. it has been since i came to office. the issue with myself and election is never personal. when you have two close allies it's fun to poke around at it. there's a bunch of some of my best friends in the senate. some of my earlier supporters who disagree on this. i understand because like me they came up through the ranks watching plants close, jobs

being shipped overseas. like me they have concerns about whether labour agreements or environmental agreements with other countries are properly enforced. like me, they have concerns about whether, in fact trade ends up being fair and not just free. and, like me they have a deep concern about global trends we see, and trends in our own country in terms of inequality and what appears to be the effects of automation and globalization in allowing folks at the top to do really really well but creating stagnation in terms of incomes and wages for middle class families and folks working to get into the middle class. so these are folks whose values

are completely in line with mine. i notice there was a statement of principles about what it means to be a progressive by some of these friends of mine and i noted that it was basically my agenda except for trade. it was an area of difference. this comes down to a policy difference and analysis in terms of what we thing is best for our people. our constituents. it is my firm belief, that despite the problems of previous trade deals, that we are better off writing high standard rules with strong enforceable provisions on child labour deforestation, wild life trafficking or intellectual property. we are better off writing the rules for what is going to be the largest, fastest growing

market in the world, and if we don't. china will and other countries will and our businesses will be disadvantaged. and our workers will ultimately suffer. and in terms of some of the fears of outsourcingle jobs it is my belief based on the analysis, that at this point, if there was a company in the united states that was looking for low-cost labour they have no problem outsourcing it under the current regime. and, so what we do have the opportunity to do is attract back companies to manufacture here in the united states. we are seeing that happen. that's why i went to nike, i understand nike has manufactured shoes with low-cost labour in many areas. and that hurt the american footwear industry in terms of jobs in the united states. that happened over the course of the last 30 years, and now, for

nike to announce because of new technologies, they are potentially bringing 10,000 jobs back here because we are up the value chain, we are manufacturing in different ways, that's an opportunity we still have to sell over there to take advantage of those opportunities. that's why my argument is what we need to focus on, to met the same objectives, the shared objectives is the other issues we agree on strong minimum wage strong job training programs infrastructure investments to put people back to work. stronger laws to protect bargain bargaining, and the right for people to have a voice. strong enforcement about overtime. making sure we have paid sick leaf. making sure that we have an honest conversation about our budgets, and that we are not

splashing investments in the future simply to make sure we are preserving loopholes for corporations that don't provide an economic benefit. they'll hep us address the problems we are concerned about. blocking a trade deal will not. particularly since they are the first to acknowledge that the existing trade rules are a bad deal for u.s. workers. if they are not working for us now. how does hanging on to what happens now help american workers, it doesn't make sense i'm for enforcement and the provisions signed. i have expressed concerns about how the currency language that is in the bill is drafted. but i talked to senator schumer and, you know sherry brown and others about how we can work on

language that does not end up having a blow back effect on our ability to maintain a monetary policy. i don't remember what your other question was. oh. well rather than speak for others, i'll just reiterate what i said previously. i continue to believe that a 2-state solution is absolutely vital for not only peace between israelis and palestinians, but for the long-term security of israel as a democratic and jewish state. and i know that a government has been formed that contains some folks who don't necessarily believe in that premise, but that continues to be my premise. and since we are up here at camp david, i think it's important to remind ourselves of the degree to which a very hard peace deal

that required incredible vision and courage and tough choices resulted in what has now been a lasting peace between countries that used to be sworn enemies. and israel's better off for it. i think the same would be true if we get a peace deal between israelis and palestinians, that prospect is distant. i think it's always important for us to cope in mind what is right, and what is possible. last question. scott horsley. >> reporter: thank you, mr president. you mentioned at the outset a need for a world class infrastructure, we are coming up on a deed line for the highway trust fund. with gas prices where they are, why is this not a good time to

consider a hike in the federal gas tax, which might serve the carbon goals you talked about. and since you mentioned the overtime rules, i know it's been 14 months since the labour department put them together, they went to omb, how soon might we see those? >> soon. and with respect to transportation, you are right. now is the time for us to get something done. i'm practical and in order for you ares to get a -- for us to get a transportation bill down i have to get agreement with a republican controlled congress. i'm in discussions with the majority and minority leaders, and the relevant committee chair. we want to hear their ideas, find out what is possible. i think that that is going to be something that we need to

explore, but this is not an area where either side should be looking for political points. this did not used to be a partisan issue. building roads - building bridges - building airports - sewer lines - dams - ports: this is how we grow. in is how america became on economic superpower was investing in our people investing in infrastructure doing it better and faster and bigger than anyone else did. we should do the same thing now. the first republican president, a proud native of my home state named mr lincoln - even in the midst of civil war, was looking at how we join the countries together through our railways and our canals. we should be thinking smaller today, we need to think bigger

in the global economy. so my hope is that we have a chance to have a serious discussion and look at all potential revenue sources. what is true is that the highway trust fund. has consistently gotten smaller and smaller, and adequate for the needs. what is true is patchwork approaches of three months or six months at a time, don't make sense. we need some sort of long of term solution no one foresaw that we could get a dot fix done and saw the long-term problem there, in terms of how we managed medicare payments for doctors. who knows much maybe we might see some intelligent bipartisan outbreaks over the next few month, because i think everyone recognises that this is important.

thank you very much, everybody in you have it, the president of the united states president obama, concluding his meeting with gulf leaders at camp david visiting with the media at camp david. let's bring in marcela for her thoughts on this a former u.s. ambassador to the u.a.e. the united arab emirates and is the president of the gulf state institute in washington d.c. good to talk to you. the single most important thing you heart from the president. >> well i think obviously, reiterating the commitment to the region is important to here. what is important to here is the emphasis on enhancement of the g.c.c. countries in a variety of ways. and i think recognising destabilizing the region and

the focus on enhancing the capacity to respond to the destabilizing activities was important for them to hear and was the main concern. i liked the way the president linked it to this was not in any way to encourage conflict between iran and the g.c.c. countries. a capacity to secure themselves and feel confident. he hoped that this would lead to a political dialogue with iran. >> ambassador, what was the technology the president used low tech low cost activities and suggested that if the countries came together and did more of what is available, and what they were capable of, some of that would be nullified. do you agree with that? >> i think he was making the point whether iran came out of the sanctions. and has additional resources.

and that the meddling and the destabilize activities doesn't cost much. in countries like lebanon, the cost is high they maintain a stead i stream of weapons to hezbollah, and i assume in syria, it is costly. i think his point was some of the meddling they do doesn't cost that much and is not doing to take decisional resources to continue to meddle. the point he made about iran becoming a responsible player is something the g.c.c. countries wanted to hear. because they are concerned that once iran does have a freer hand if you will and sanctions are lifted. there are people that argue that iran can be a responsible player and want to fit in and be seen as a positive element in the region. and others of course are skeptical. i think the president emphasised that point well good to have you on the

programme. i don't know if you'll be back. thank you for your time. thank you for watching i'm tony harris. we'll be back with news in the day. "techknow" is next on al jazeera. per cent >> this is "techknow". a show about innovations that can change lives. >> the science of fighting a wild fire. >> we're going to explore the intersection of hardware and humanity but we are doing it in a unique way. this is a show about science by scientists. tonight "techknow" investigates climate change. >> i can really feel it vibrating now. >> it's science versus politics. >> do you know what this is?