news this conference here on the news channel. the six o'clock news is starting shortly on bbc one. translation: in the weeks and months to come, this is the only way to bring about stability. france is not naive when it comes to iran. we have also a lot of respect for the iranian people, which through its history always has shown it strength. we will not repeat the m ista kes strength. we will not repeat the mistakes of the past. each time we tried to unilaterally replace something for our people, we have brought about some more terror. before our allies, we want sustainable stability, and i believe the discussions we have had together make it possible to pave the way for a new agreement, an agreement on which we will work and beyond our european partners, we will involve

regional powers and of course russia and turkey. it is also within this framework together, in the long run, we can't find a solution to the syrian situation. —— we can find a solution. in syria we are together engaged within the international coalition against daesh. that being said, in a long one, we will need to win peace and make sure that syria does not fall into... to that syria does not fall into... to that effect, the approach which is agreed means that we can work, and work on all of this situation, the whole of the situation in the region. and these efforts, to contain iran, we will continue to

work to that effect within the un security council to make sure that humanitarian law, the conditions of chemical weapons are fully complied with and we're working to shoulder responsibilities to that effect. we will also work with partners in building a sustainable political solution, and includes a one that will prevent feeding terrorism in the future. we also talked about the climate, and here also, we know where we stand, france will continue to work on major pieces including the global impact on the environment. i think i can say that oui’ environment. i think i can say that our businesses, our research, can continue to work and create solutions in the field, and we are both in touch to that. now on trade,

like you mentioned it, and i hear what you said when you call upon critical trade. when we look at international trade, we have some colm —— some common challenges. some sectors, we shall work together to make sure that it does not destabilise our market. but i believe we can say that we are building trust to make sure between allies, there is compliance with international trade law, at least france is attached to that. we have oui’ france is attached to that. we have our preferences, we have situations we can probably improve, but i believe that both you and i want to make sure that our businesses, our companies can operate in a long and sustainable and stable framework. mr

president, i meant to mention this that you commented on and allow me to say once again the discussions we have had today, and the ones we will have had today, and the ones we will have tomorrow, half that not only by the strength of our historical bombs, but also by sincere friendship, which i believe we share. —— historical bonds. so, thank you for these extremely warm welcome for these three days spent with you. and thank you as well for being there to meet the challenges which are important for the united states of america, for france and for europe, and important for our people. thank you. thank you. i like him a lot. first of all, i want to thank our vice president and karen

for being here, thank you very much, i appreciate it. we had a wonderful conference today. i think especially the one on one at the conference today. i think especially the or syria? ie at the conference today. i think especially the or syria? and the conference today. i think especially the or syria? and one other topic, out of syria? and one other topic, you mentioned today you thought the leader of north korea has behaved openly and. this is someone who is been accused of stabbing his people, killing family members. what did you mean when you called him that? well, we will start the second part of the question. i hope we'll be able to deal ina

question. i hope we'll be able to deal in a very open and honourable fashion with north korea. i started a process and what i did, everybody thought i was doing it absolutely wrong, but people had been dealing with it for 25 years and nothing happened, and a lot is happening now, i can tell you that. i think it is going to be very positive. i hope it is going to be positive for north korea and for south korea, japan and the rest of the world. but i am starting at a level that frankly i should not have had to start, this should not have had to start, this should have been worked out a long time ago. we were discussing that we shouldn't be having this situation happen to the united states and the world, this should have been resolved by other presidents and by other leaders of other countries a long time ago. with that being said, i think we are doing very well, and i want to see denuclearisation of north korea, a lot of concessions have already been made, we have made no concessions despite some of the media saying that i have made

concessions, i haven't even discussed the concessions, other than the fact that meeting is a great thing, and i'm sure that a lot of other people would like to have had the position we are having. we put the strongest sanctions on a country we ever have put on any country we ever have put on any country by far. china, president chi has been very strong in helping us to solve this problem, in his case at the border. here's a line very little to get through. he is doing that for a number of reasons. we have a good relationship but it is also important in terms of trade. because i do play the trade card. if you look at what's happening with trade in china, it hasn't been fairer for trade in china, it hasn't been fairerfor many trade in china, it hasn't been fairer for many years to the united states and we will solve that problem. in fact we are having secretary managing and a couple of other folks heading over to secretary managing and a couple of otherfolks heading over to china secretary managing and a couple of other folks heading over to china at the request of china, they came here last week, and we are having

substantive discussions on trade. but i think it all plays to the border, and the fact that they have been extremely strong on the border, and very little has got through, much to the surprise of a lot of people. i believe the trade will work out, but i also think that china has never treated us with more respect than they have over the last short period of time. i have a very excellent relationship with president xi and i think that relationship is very important as to what's happening with north korea. the end result is, we'll see. maybe good things will happen, maybe it will take —— maybe we are wasting a lot of time but hopefully it will be good for everybody concerned. as far as syria is concerned, i would love to get out and bring our incredible warriors back home, they have done a greatjob warriors back home, they have done a great job with warriors back home, they have done a greatjob with essentiallyjust absolutely obliterated isis in iraq

and in syria, and we have done a big favour to neighbouring countries, frankly, but we have also done a favour for our country. with that being said, mr macron i myself have discussed the fact we don't want to give iran open season to the mediterranean, especially since we really control it to a large extent, we really have control of it and we have set control of it. so we will see what happens. we are going to be coming home fairly soon. we have finished at least almost our work with respect to isis in syria and iraq, and we have done a job that nobody has been able to do. but with that being said, i do want to come home but i want to come home also with having accomplished what we have to accomplish. so we are discussing syria as part of an overall deal. there may be the iran deal, what they should have done is included syria, and when i say

should have, before giving them iran, $150 billion at one point, $1.8 million in cash, you think about this, before giving this kind of tremendous money, ok, 150 billion, and $1.8 billion in cash, in barrels, i hear it was taken out, and in boxes it was taken out, cash, they should have made a deal that covered yemen, that covered syria, that covered other parts of the middle east where iraq is... were iran is involved, but they didn't do that. so we want to come home, we will be coming home, but we want to have a very, very... we want to leave a strong and lasting footprint andi leave a strong and lasting footprint and i was —— and that was a very big pa rt and i was —— and that was a very big part of our discussion. on north

korea, you said you believe in complete denuclearisation, what does that mean? it means they get rid of their nukes, very simple. it would be very easy for me to make a simple deal and claim victory but i don't wa nt to deal and claim victory but i don't want to do that, i want it —— i want them to get rid of their nukes. president macron, the president referred to a potential deal between the two of you on iran. can you give us the two of you on iran. can you give usa the two of you on iran. can you give us a sense the two of you on iran. can you give us a sense of what that might be hand are you confident you will have assurances from president trump that the european union will be excluded from tariffs on steel and aluminium? as for the second question, ijust wa nt as for the second question, ijust want to be clear on the trade issue. when you look at the trade issue between our two countries, they are balance. there is no unbalanced literature. second, we are following and respecting stability of rules because we are the one who

contributed to the creation of the union and it makes sense to respect the rules we decided to create. in life that is a good method. third, because i do believe that we have a very serious issues, which is ove rca pacity very serious issues, which is overcapacity in steel and aluminium, and it's good to work together, and especially when you work so closely together on security issues like iran and syria. so i'm confident about the future of the trade relationship. i think it is part of a broader picture where our interests are aligned. as for the iran situation, i think that i said in my introduction, the new approach we in my introduction, the new approach we want to adopt, it is exactly what

president trump said, we have nuclear in the short—term, in the long run, we have ballistic activity, we have regional presence in iran. we want to fix the situation. syria is part of this. what we have to work on, obviously with iran and the different regions and our allies, is to find a third deal where we can fix this situation. this is the only way to preserve situation. this is the only way to preserve sovereignty in the region and to build peace in the very long run. otherwise we will have to come back into the region, for sure. and i'm very happy about the discussion we i'm very happy about the discussion we had together, because we raised very new issues and new solutions together, and especially the fact

that the syrian crisis should be pa rt of that the syrian crisis should be part of this broader picture. and the fact that we are here and we are today in syria, together as international coalition against isis, that tomorrow we will have to find a way to fix the situation from a political point of view, not a militarily —— military point of view, which is to set up a series of agreements, part of this big deal in order to be sure that syria tomorrow will be a sovereign country with inclusiveness and free people in the situation to decide for the future. this is very important. that is our duty. and i think we will have a great shot at doing a much bigger, maybe deal, maybe not deal, we will find out. we will know fairly soon. mr president. translation: a question from the

french press. mr president, you were saying there was no plan b, that the iran deal was to be preserved. now you are talking about a new deal with iran. why have you changed your mind? did you join the stronger approach suggested by president trump? is it because he could not convince him? and in addition, do you think those who signed the deal will follow you? when i said there is no plan b, i referto will follow you? when i said there is no plan b, i refer to the fact that there is no b plan, but regarding irani that there is no b plan, but regarding iran i have always been coherent, and we can go back to what isaid at coherent, and we can go back to what i said at the un general assembly in september. i always said that that

we september. i always said that that we needed to add new clauses, the ballistic issue and the regional influence. i do not know what president trump will decide regarding the jcb array. that array is the first period of these three maude country described. so i'm not saying we are running from one deal to another, i'm saying it is one aspect of the problem. i have never been critical of the arrayjcb is president trump has, but no matter the decision that president trump will take, i would like us to work as from now on a new deal, including what is already covered by the deal, thatis what is already covered by the deal, that is ongoing nuclear activities, the longer term activities, the

ballistic activities and the regional influence. so this is constant, and over the past few weeks and indeed today, we have been able to very much talk in detail about concluding the situation in the region and i believe that we have conferred on a common reading of what is happening in syria, in yemen, in iraq in particular. and on the fact that the nuclear issue is not the only one, indeed there is a problem with the ballistic activity of iran, and their presence in a numberof of iran, and their presence in a number of countries in the region, our willingness was indeed to set the conditions for the stability of the conditions for the stability of the region. once we have built this convergence , the region. once we have built this convergence, the idea of moving on toa convergence, the idea of moving on to a new deal that would include the solution for syria, i believe, is a strong step forward, thanks to the discussions we've had today. so i very much would like us to work together with all of our partners,

and the ministers of foreign affairs who have gathered in a small group and they will be doing it again sometime soon. the allied powers, and of course also the regional powers, to work up the level of this small group, it shall have some privileged discussions with russia on “— privileged discussions with russia on —— and turkey on regional topics including syria. so as from now, we will work using that method in favour of work towards a deal. i believe we can combine our common views and differences because we are not ina views and differences because we are not in a vacuum. i have always said we not in a vacuum. i have always said we should not tear apart the jcb array and have nothing else. i think this would not be a good solution.

but once we are placing ourselves in this, the purpose of which two were together an agreement covering the topics i have mentioned, because first of all we can take on board the concerns and criticism of president trump regarding the deal, which like i said, it was supported by the former american administration, but... we can work... it is also about respecting the sovereignty of the state of the region to stop it is not about intervening, it is rather about building a stable framework that will contribute to stability and to peace building. ithink will contribute to stability and to peace building. i think this is what we peace building. i think this is what we have been agreeing upon today. it is not about tearing apart an agreement and having nothing, it is

about building something new that will cover all our concerns. about building something new that will cover all our concernslj about building something new that will cover all our concerns. i might add in countries that are in the area, some of which are immensely wealthy, would not be there except for the united states. and to a lesser extent, france. but forthe united states, they wouldn't last a week. we are protecting... they have to now step up and pay for what's happening. i don't think france or the united states should be liable for the tremendous cost, the the united states is embarrassingly into the middle east as of a few months ago, as you've heard me say before, andi ago, as you've heard me say before, and i don't think —— i don't take responsibility but i would be embarrassed if i had to, $7 trillion, everybody says, we want to be careful with our money. but we

wa nt to be careful with our money. but we want to fix a highway always want to build schools and lots of other things, tunnels, bridges. they say, let's be careful with our money. yet we have spent $7 trillion in the middle east, and we've got nothing for it. nothing. less than nothing. as far as for it. nothing. less than nothing. as faras i'm for it. nothing. less than nothing. as far as i'm concerned. over an 18 year period. the countries that are there, that you all know very well, are immensely wealthy, they are going to have to pay for this. and i think the president and i very much agree on that. and they will pay for it. they will pay for it. i have spoken to them, they will pay for it. the united states will not continue to pay. they will also put soldiers on the ground, which they are not doing. and we will in fact bring lots of people home. would have a strong blockage to the mediterranean, which to me is very

important. because if we don't, you have iran going right to the mediterranean, you're going to have that. but there is a challenge, and nobody knows what i'm going to do on the 12th, although mr president, you have a pretty good idea. but we will see. we'll see also if i do what some people expect. whether or not it will be possible to do a new deal with solid foundations, because this isa with solid foundations, because this is a deal with decayed foundations, it's a bad deal, it's a bad structure, its falling down, it should have never, ever been made. i blame congress, i blame a lot of people for it. but it should have never been made. and we're going to see what happens on the 12th. but i will say, if iran threatens us in any way, they will pay a price like

any way, they will pay a price like a few countries have ever paid. ok? john, please liz green ——. thank you, mr president. a present for president macron as well, but to you first, doctor ronnie jackson president macron as well, but to you first, doctor ronniejackson has run into some serious political headwinds on capitol hill with serious allegations being levelled at him. i'm wondering what you know of those allegations, and do you intend to stay behind him? i haven't heard of the particular allegations, but i will tell you, he's one of the finest people that i have met and i think speaking for melania trump also, he has been the doctorfor president obama, i believe for president obama, i believe for president bush and for me, i have got to know him pretty well, here's great doctor, and it was a suggestion that i know there is an

experience problem because lack of experience, but there is an experience, but there is an experience, the veterans administration is very important to me. we've done a greatjob with the accountability act and many things. we have to take great care of our vetera ns, we have to take great care of our veterans, it's a very important thing. we've done a greatjob. but i told admiraljackson a little while ago, isaid, what told admiraljackson a little while ago, i said, what do you need this for? this is a vicious group of people, they are malign, i live through it, we all lived through it, you people are getting record ratings because of it, so congratulations, i said, ratings because of it, so congratulations, isaid, what ratings because of it, so congratulations, i said, what do you need it for? is an admiral and a great leader and to question him about every little thing, as you know with the success of, like we will be hopefully soon secretary of state pompeo. i heard that he will not be improved at committee, which

would be the first time in many decades that something like that would have happened. —— will not be approved. except i spoke to rand paul, who has really never let me down, rand paul is a good man. and i knew things that nobody else knew. rand paul said, i'm knew things that nobody else knew. rand paulsaid, i'm going knew things that nobody else knew. rand paul said, i'm going to change my vote and devoted and everyone was surprised. he actually got an 11—9 vote. so it was actually 11—9. i believe there was one... what would you call that, john? present. that was a terrific thing. but they failed to stop him. so now, they say, who is next? and this person, admiraljackson, doctorjackson, a wonderful man, i said to him, what

do you need it for? as far as experience is concerned, the vetera ns experience is concerned, the veterans administration, which is approximately 13 million people, it's so big, you could run the biggest hospital system in the world and it's a small—time kanpur in —— compared to the veterans administration. what he is is a leader and a good man. but i said to him, you know what, you are too fine a person. his son has a top student, he isa a person. his son has a top student, he is a high—quality person. i said, what do you need it for? so it is totally his decision. he will be making a decision. but they failed with mike pompeo. and that was a big, big hit because they thought they could stop him. the democrats have become obstructionist, that is all they are good at. they are not good at anything else. they have bad ideas, they have bad politics. the one thing they do is obstruct and that's why i'm waiting, you would

never believe this, i'm waiting for a very good people like the ambassador to germany, hasn't been approved yet, has been in for 11 or 12 months, we have angela merkel, into the united states on friday, we still don't have our ambassador. and at this rate, and many of papers checkedit at this rate, and many of papers checked it out yesterday, they actually said i was right, but it would nine years before these people have been approved and the democrats are taking 30 hours per person, they are taking 30 hours per person, they are taking 30 hours per person, they are taking the maximum time. they are taking the maximum time. they are obstructionist, it is very bad for our country. i said to doctor jackson, what do you need it for? we will see what happens. i don't want to put a man through who is not a political person. i don't want to put a man to a process like this. it is too ugly and too disgusting. so we will see what happens. i will make a decision. are you saying you

will stand behind him?|j make a decision. are you saying you will stand behind him? i will definitely stand behind him, he is a fine man. but he is a man who has just been an extraordinary person. his family, extraordinary success. great doctor, great everything. and he has to listen to the abuse. if i we re he has to listen to the abuse. if i were him, actually, in many ways, i would love to be him, but the fact is, i wouldn't do it. i wouldn't do it. what does he needed for? to be abused by a bunch of politicians that are not thinking mostly about country? i really don't think personally he should do it. but i would stand behind him, it's totally his decision. you said you and president trump came to some agreement on the way forward in syria. us troops are really at the heart of any solution. how long do you believe us troops need to stay in syria, through the de vreede

isas, or do they need to stay through stabilisation period until an alternative to the assad government is formed? first of all, let me say how proud and probably are to be proud of the international coalition today, alongside the united states troops in order to fight against isis. we decided to increase our contribution, and we are increase our contribution, and we a re totally involved increase our contribution, and we are totally involved in this war against isis, for sure. the very first goal of this intervention and the international coalition on the ground is the finish this work with them. and definitely to finish with ourenemies. ourenemies them. and definitely to finish with our enemies. our enemies are isis and the other terrorist groups. beyond this military presence, and beyond our troops on the ground, we will have to build, as i say, peace. that is, a new, inclusive framework in orderto be that is, a new, inclusive framework in order to be sure that syrian

people will have the opportunity to live in peace. all the different ethnics, all the different religious, all the different groups, and to be sure that there is no heggem money in the region. that is a diplomatic work that we have already started, that we have to finish. if you will allow me, i would separate these solutions. we are involved on the ground against isis. we will finish this work and it is not to open a new war or start a new war. at the same time, we have to open the new work together, that is what we decided to do, to build in the region a new framework, especially in syria. we will assess during the coming weeks and months what we must do, because when you are much more at the