>> from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> good evening. i am filling in for charlie rose who is on assignment.

we begin with the escalating crisis in the middle east as the volley of rocket fire between israel and hamas intensifies, israeli prime minister bibi netanyahu said the cease-fire is not even under consideration. thomas is saying pretty much the same. the palestinian health ministry as saying over 70 people have been killed, most of them civilians. rocket fire is reaching deeper into israel although no israeli casualties have been reported as of this taping. we now turn to the abc correspondent who is in gaza. where's the sense where you are, is there a feeling that we are seeing the beginning of an all-out war between the israelis and palestinians? >> it certainly feels like we are on the edge of it. there is this course of the sounds of war whether it is the missiles landing or artillery coming in from offshore or the outgoing rocket fire. this does feel like a place

under siege but life has not ground to a halt. people are still out in the streets. there is less hustle and bustle and fewer people out. i was talking to some friend to say in tel aviv people are still out surfing, they're on the beach in the cafés but you have the sirens going off all the time across israel. people looking for cover and rockets incoming that are being intercepted by the iron dome in the skies above. the secretary-general of the un said this region is on a knife's edge and it certainly does feel like that. it feels like it is about to get worse before it gets better. >> there is a sense of déjà vu here. when you have those attacks coming from hamas, the israeli response went on for about eight days. how is this different? >> this feels a lot more intense.

you have prime minister benjamin netanyahu and the military talking about the prospect of a ground incursion. it is shaping up to look that way. i was talking to a military analyst a short time ago who thinks there will be a limited incursion. you have three brigades of israeli troops on the border and a fourth that will comment by the weekend and by 2012 there were four brigades that did carry out an invasion. >> are we looking at potentially the reoccupation of the gaza strip? >> bit -- that is something they are trying to avoid. they are extremely lucky -- trying to come in here. this is something they are considering because they do want to stop this rocket fire. there is no sign of a cease-fire inside. the other option to stop that rocket fire may be to come in

here with ground troops. >> the nightmare scenario is you would have rocket fire landing at the airport in tel aviv. is there any indication that hamas which has much more rocket power than they did in 2012, that they have the capability to hit that airport and what would happen if they did. >> it would cripple israel. if flights are so going in and out, if you were able to stop flights and ground that to a halt, israelis have limited options in terms of getting out of israel. it would make israel more of an island. that is a lot more impressive and distractive and powerful. we have seen rockets flying out of here going 100 miles north to the city and they have unveiled rockets they have been using before. if anything these are rockets

that we believe are designed by the iranians. they have a much longer range. in 2012 we saw a rockets being fired at tel aviv and jerusalem. they are going a lot further and with the unveiling of this new arsenal they can hit almost every square inch in israel. >> you are on the ground in gaza city. what is your sense talking to people, tacking to palestinians, obviously there is anger toward the israelis. is there not support for what hamas is doing and what is the endgame, what are they trying to achieve with these rocket

attacks? >> there is a huge amount of outrage. the majority of people killed are civilians, noncombatants, not militants. a lot of them are women and children. when you drive around and you see these houses that have been blown apart and you have these massive craters, people have lost their livelihoods. they are not turning around and saying we want hamas to stop firing rockets. hamas is a difficult situation. they're not nearly as powerful as they once were. their financial base has been eroded. they no longer have strong relationships so they have been painted into a corner and one of the things they have tried to do is establish a relationship with fatah, the other palestinian party to create a unified government. effectively over the course of

the past few weeks with israel's operation in the west inc. following the kidnapping of those three israeli teens, that has been dismantled. they have been weakened and during that operation they have re-arrested more than 50 hamas leaders that have been released as part of that deal from a couple of years ago. the main demand of hamas is not only that israel stop its strikes on the gaza strip are they releases prisoners and allow the palestinians to create a unified government. >> thank you for joining us. please stay safe and thank you for your report. we will see you on abc news. >> thank you. >> joining me now are two distinguished guests, vice admiral bob howard is the former deputy commander of centcom. he has commanded troops in afghanistan and iraq.

admiral howard graduated high school in tehran and is fluent in farsi and is also an abc news contributor. john mclachlan is the former director of intelligence at the cia and serves on the advisory board and is a distinguished practitioner in residence at johns hopkins university. i'm pleased to have both of them on this program. you have written two columns over the past few weeks that are truly when you add them up quite frightening. the first you say that iraq is potentially going to cease to exist as we knew it. it was created in 1920 and the redrawing of those orders could result in a middle east at risk of a full-scale regional war and in the second column you talking bout the echoes from 2014 and

1914, the beginning of world war i. >> this is probably the most complicated and dangerous time that i have seen in that part of the world for all the reasons i mentioned in this columns. i think one of the problems we have now is everyone in the area is linked to someone else so if you look at iraq, the kurds in the north have rather and in iran, syria, turkey. if you look at isis, the group that is rampaging through iraq and is seeking to consolidate a territory bounded by the tigris and euphrates through serious you have a group that is linked to sunnis throughout the middle east. and the governing group in iraq in baghdad, you have a group that is linked to iran and to

shia throughout the region. the conflict spills out beyond its borders very easily. when i say that there are parallels with 1914i am not saying that we are on the verge of a world war. but what we think we are on the verge of is a situation where conflict is going to be very hard to stop and hard for national decision-makers to make choices. we were talking a few minutes ago, if you look at the extremist group that is rampaging in iraq now, on the one hand they are opposing assad in syria. we oppose assad in syria. right away and making decisions about opposing assad or that

group, an american decision maker has a difficult choice. the only sensible way is to oppose them both but that is hard to do the same time. in every case you can look at the government in baghdad. we are allying ourselves with iran. in a sense for that is fine. it makes it more difficult for american decision-makers to make crisp, clear decisions about what to do next. as someone who is looking in from the outside that they are having trouble deciding. >> there was a sense that we were on the verge of u.s. airstrikes against isis. >> it does feel like paralysis. it is difficult for the u.s. government at that level to deal with more than two or three or four crises at a time. the problem is there our fires burning everywhere.

you have the middle east most obviously. you have serious problems with russia. you look at the far east, i could make the case that what we see going on in the south china sea and the east china sea might be the most dangerous place in the world for a series of reasons. you look out at the world now where you cannot exactly work on two or three crises and figure out, but the others aside for while. they are all burning at the same time and it is hard for the u.s. government to organize itself and deploy forces to do with all those things simultaneously. we are not used to doing that.

>> you were deeply involved in the fight against al qaeda in iraq which is the group that we are seeing reemerging, isis. is this a regional -- a group with regional ambitions that wants to set up its caliphate or is this a group that some suggest may be more of a threat than bin laden's al qaeda was? >> the al qaeda that we went after in 2001 when we went into afghanistan and iraq is different than what we're seeing today. the core element as the secretary of defense said is we had somewhat evaded them at the strategic level. and yet the franchise is alive and well. if not growing. part of that is because these populations on -- in iraq and syria where they cannot depend

and rely on a central government to secure them and provide for them have to turn to these other elements through intimidation or the ability to provide security or resources appeals to them and that is the broader issue we will see across the region. i would like to go back to something john talked about earlier. the dilemma this administration faces and this rapidly changing series of events and what it means to our national security concerns. last year we were seriously considering striking assad in retaliation for his use of chemical and biological weapons and to prevent the further use. >> we thought we were 24 hours out. >> that was our national security concern. we did not take that and now look at the situation. aside may be the better option than these extremist groups that pose an existential threat to

the nations that border so if your strategy was previously to contain that problem now that it spilled over to iraq. >> is the threat assad or isis? >> you cannot discern one that is bigger than the other. you have to start with isis. isis is a big threat. there is a couple of things that is different about this phenomenon and we have seen the past. they have succeeded so far in something that al qaeda never succeeded in and that is grabbing territory and holding it. we do not know a lot about what they are doing inside of that territory. there are some indications they have learned from the past that you cannot simply brutalize the population and impose sharia law without providing public services. they have begun to do that. everything from trash collection to postal services in some areas. >> what is shaping up here is a terror state in the heart of the

middle east. going back to something i wrote with regard to 2014 versus 1914, we are not anticipating a world war but at the same time, all the major powers have serious interest here. the u.s. i do not think in the end can tolerate what isis is turning into. that raises the question, how do you combat it, with bases, drones, capture operations, how do you do it question mark how do you combat this terrorist group which is holding territory and which has said that it aspires to attack the united states ultimately? the larger threat in the middle east is this possibility of a terror state taking shape. it is not exactly poised as david ignatius said the other day.

it was born with a so that -- a suicide pill in its mouth. someone will destroy or will self destroyed. so far that is not happening. >> i am always sensitive to the word terrorist and clearly defining what the problem is. these are violent radical islamists and they have controlled territory before. they controlled afghanistan and their partnerships before 9/11, after 9/11 we realized they had controlled than influenced -- an influenced area info tab. no other nation or country's acting unilaterally is really able to influence those areas without a partnership and support from us. >> you were involved in the fight against al qaeda in iraq and the effort against -- that was a long, tough battle.

it involved having a government that we can work with. how do you do it now without any u.s. personnel besides a couple hundred trainers on the ground? >> we developed capacity, capability, tools to do that. we never had before and we can mentioned the fusion of intelligence, a collection of large amounts of data. drones, other techniques and procedures that allowed us to get after this but the issue is access. how did you bring that to bear and to do that you need to control not only the land but the airspace in iraq before we turned over sovereignty. we had that access. and afghanistan we had that access. we do not have that same access

now and we never had that access in syria. until you have that partnership honoring the sovereignty of those nations and those nations want your assistance, you're not going to have that access. access is the critical component. >> isis is working hard to consolidate and advance its gains in syria. things have stalled a bit in iraq so they are pushing into serious with the effect of their success in iraq ringing new recruits in syria. they are taking over the largest oil facility. let's assume this continues. at some point they u.s. has to say how do we get at this? >> one area that will be threatened by them is the kurdish area which i expect now they have raised the issue of a

referendum on independence. i can imagine they will have such a referendum and they will be independent or quasi-dependent. maybe at some point they will be seeking things from the u.s. to defend themselves, weapons, intelligence, and so forth. maybe will he time -- it will be time to request bases in kurdistan to attack isis. i do not see how you attack isis unless you have close in access. there is jordan but jordan has its problems. you are out in iraq except with a small group of advisers. you're not going into iran. >> will there be agreement with iran, and if that happens, then what? >> what i have always expected to happen here and we will see that when we got close to july 20 we will be close enough to an agreement to not want to give up.

they would the request as allowed to extend for numbers of months, another six months. i would not be surprised if that happens. the core issue is this. it genuinely wants to move into a more productive situation. he lives in a system where there are a lot of constraints starting with the supreme leader. he is on a short leash. he is walking a tightrope here to get an agreement. as the supreme leader said the other day, they want more capacity to enrich uranium and so far this agreement -- than this agreement is permitting them so far. even if it isn't a low level.

-- is at a low level. the chances of negotiating a pretty good. >> rahani is concerned with the sanctions and it highlights how effective that is to bring them to the bargaining table. at the end of the day there is negotiations that will be predicated on their path looking at her way get relief from the sanctions. >> you graduated from the american school in terror and in 1974. >> i did. >> you have been in that embassy. >> graduated from high school in downtown tehran. >> do you think you can walk

into another [indiscernible] they are hopeful that something will come from this. they believe rahani is a different breed of cat and he wants to prove that he can look router as well. >> getting an agreement is important. that would be a revolutionary development in relations with iran. it would not change everything else that we object to in iran's behavior. there is support for has blogged and terrorism but it would be an opening wedge to a better relationship with a country that is, along with israel, only one

of two countries in that part of the world that actually exert sovereign control over their territory. >> are we back to saying what can we do to prevent them from getting a bomb or a timeline for intentional israeli airstrikes or american airstrikes? >> we're back to all of that. one of the complexities is we entered into this negotiation that has strained our relationships with saudi arabia and israel, both of whom are skeptical about iran's intentions, motives, and plans. if we get this agreement than it plays back into those relationships as well in ways that will change them. >> it is important to remember, iran has processed in touch -- enough enriched material to make a bomb. they have fuel rods but the fact they have that capacity is a problem so we will have to find a solution to ensure that they do not meet that objective is part of the negotiations. we cannot live with them having that capability.

>> i wanted to ask you about afghanistan. we seem to be in a situation where we could be falling apart there is well. we have the presidential election and the runoff and there is the dispute over what happened, whether or not there was widespread fraud. >> at some point there will be fraud in any election there. the world community has to say it is over, it is settled, there has to be a president. if they do not settle this will happen here as international assistance to afghanistan will not be sustained. >> the majority of the budget -- the country will lapse back into the kind of warlordism and openness to terrorism and taliban searching that we have seen in the past or it a lot is at stake here and we need to get

this bilateral security agreement or we will see not a perfect parallel but a deterioration that will mirror to some degree what we are seeing in iraq. >> what do you make of this? you saw comrades die in afghanistan and iraq. you have a situation where both countries seem to be at risk of giving back everything that was gained. >> i would not characterize it. i would say both countries have evolved. given the opportunities that our conflicts and what we did in those nations, it will be up to those people to realize the potential. i had a meeting with abdullah abdullah. he was concerned about the bilateral support. your country is asking me to sign this bilateral support

agreement but your president announced everyone is leaving in two years and the agreement was 10. the good point is we made a commitment for 9800 troops for the next two years, thereby setting the conditions for the contributing nations who made the commitments and tokyo and chicago to provide those funds for security and for economic development. having that force is to ensure and guarantee that development can conquer rests with both those candidates. they both realize how important it is for the long-term future of afghanistan so i agree with john. let's see how this plays out but with of those candidates realize how important this is. i am optimistic we will get resolution or some agreement

that will not split the country and we can move forward. >> what i am hearing out of the white house is a threat that if they cannot come to an agreement, resolve this dispute over the election, that the u.s. not only pulls up militarily but the financial support for that government. can we allow afghanistan to default to back where it was? >> i hope you're hearing exactly that. the threat. they have to come to an agreement that it would be disastrous if it played out in that way and we did follow through on such a threat. we have to be -- one of the problems is the u.s. has to be deeply involved in all of these areas. trying to influence them and we are at a moment in time where our influence is at a low ebb in that part of the world. >> we look at surveys of the american public, there is

fatigue and when you look at our policy there was -- it was a mistake to make a threat to syria and not follow through on it. even though one can argue that there were benefits from the reduction of chemical weapons. the effort to pour so much effort into the middle east peace process while all the other fires are burning puzzled a lot of people in the region. a lot of things like that have led to a moment when i think the u.s. is simply not carrying this clout that it once did in that part of the world. again withdraw from iraq, if you're not present, virtual presence is no presence. >> would this happen if we had struck an agreement to leave behind that small force in iraq to 5000 or 6000 that was being talked about? would we have seen isis taking over?

>> the chances would have been diminished. we said earlier this is very complex. the caveat is even had we stayed, syria would still be raging and much of what we see happening in iraq is a combination of two things. the fact that we are not there advising, insisting, striking, and the fact that syria has been raging in a way that has eroded, really erased the border between iraq and syria so that that has simply spilled over into iraq. combine that with the policies of government in baghdad, al-maliki who sees toupees sunni

-- who ceased to pay sunni militias who were opposing extremists in anbar province who sought to arrest the sunni finance minister. all those together caused what we are seeing in iraq now but with the chances be diminished -- would the chances be diminished if we were still there? yes, i believe it would. >> are you more pessimistic when it comes to iraq? >> the threats are greater as well. that is a more existential threat to the neighboring countries. far beyond the threats that -- we have to remember our goal was to create a sovereign nation and government. we met those objectives, so this decision was an iraqi decision and not central government. i think we are a different time now where we are looking at that issue of what assistance they want, what are we willing to provide.

>> they practically begged for airstrikes. >> you cannot do airstrikes without the broader mechanisms and capabilities that make them effective. this was the same issues when we looked at strikes into syria. if you strike an airfield, what does that accomplish in and of itself? this is much more difficult. your entities and people within a mixed population is a much more challenging and difficult situation where it is civilian casualties, that will cause them to be against the government. much more precise intelligence. >> this whole movement becomes an existential threat. we see the impact on lebanon and jordan. that has broader ramifications beyond their borders as well. >> the president has authorized 300 special operations forces.

>> they can help mentor and guide that fusion of intelligence and operations. making iraqi forces more productive and capable. we have become the best joint force that has ever existed. >> i wanted to ask you as the former deputy director of the cia about the way this news out -- the latest news out of germany where the cia station chief has been thrown out of the country by the german government. how unusual is it for a station chief in an allied country to be expelled? >> a couple of points. this sort of thing happens from time to time in the world of espionage. so it is not strikingly unusual. it has happened before. second, i am sure we will get through this. germany and the u.s. are about as close when it comes to allies

as you can get and -- >> this is pretty serious. >> it always seemed serious in the moment. we have gotten through this sort of thing before. we share too many interest to let this be a permanent obstacle to our engagement. why do countries do this? >> why do we have to spy on our allies? >> why do they spy on us? because even allies do not share every single interest that you have. that is a law of nature in the international system. and they will tell you most of what you need to know but there may be some things they do not tell you that you would need to know in order to formulate your policy as wisely as you can. i recall when the first controversy with germany flared.

it was not long a bride who said -- it was madeleine albright who said when i was you and ambassador the french are monitoring me. it is the sort of thing that i gets out into the public arena it becomes a big controversy. it is incumbent on both governments to figure out how to walk it back and keep their relations on a normal keel. we will get through this. >> thank you for joining us. ♪ >> we now turn to matt bradley in baghdad. you have been in baghdad for about a month. what is your sense of life in baghdad while all that is going on up north is happening, does it feel like a city that is under siege? >> it is really not a city that is under siege. there is a curfew at midnight which is nothing new to

residents of baghdad. life is going on as usual. people are doing business. everything is carrying on his -- as normal. security -- everything is carrying on as normal. security is a little tighter. otherwise my things are going just as they were. the only difference is in certain areas where there is a mixed sectarian presence. we have increased reports of violence. >> does maliki look determined to stay in power? you get the sense that there is no solution with malki remaining -- with maliki remaining as prime minister. >> maliki is more than determined to stay in power. he is fiercely sticking to his position which is that he got a plurality in the april 30 elections and it is his electoral right to remain in the prime minister position. he is not going to be budging.

we are starting to see dissent in his coalition and these are the groups that propelled him to political power. he might start to defy as people step away. we might find he will start to budge himself. >> the president authorized 300 special forces to advise the iraqi military. have you seen any signs of them, do we have any sense of what they're doing as they get ramped up? >> the iraqi military has had limited success is on the battlefield. we have seen them move closer to the city of tikrit.

the u.s. advisors are telling iraqis they should not draw the enemy into an urban warfare situation. they should secure the highways and try to choke the area and prevent the islamic state fighters from getting in any further than they have. the whole situation is in a slow boil. it will take a very long time for the military to make it all the way up to mosul. >> thank you. ♪

>> hello and welcome. my name is tommie smith. it is my privilege and honor to sit at charlie's chair and charlie's table. we will discuss the world cup. it starts every 4 years and started june 12. it is down to two teams. joining me now is the venue director for the 1994 world cup.

he is the ceo of relevant sports. and the coach of the new york cosmos. welcome. 1994 was a great year. you have been watering the seeds all along. do you think this goes back to 1994? >> think there were seminal moments in this country. the cosmos early on in the 70's were one of those moments. the 94 world cup for u.s. soccer

was a seminal moment. back in those days, we weren't even sure that we were going to fill the stadiums. attendancegreatest ever and it still stands today. i remember filling up the stands for saudi arabia and morocco. can't even fill up the stadium in saudi arabia for this. americans responded really well. the other moment was the kickoff of major league soccer. i think absolutely. now, we have this moment where you are filling up stadiums for justng parties which is extra ordinary. >> you captained the team for two world cups. what you think of the world cup team this time around, the americans? >> i think they certainly were and ita difficult group was a great achievement to get out of that group. i think the team was set up really well to get results. i think that is where some of the other teams faltered, where

they were trying to play good football. thehink it was really good approach they had. during the first win was fantastic. the momentum carried on from there. it was difficult against belgium. i think talking about on the field, we can play better, certainly. tim howard was amazing, but we would rather be shooting six times versus giving it up. overall, what it did for u.s. soccer in this country is a big achievement. >> they out into the round of 16, but they only went as far as they went the previous world cup. what does it take for the u.s. to get to the next level? in the semi been finals since 1930. what is it take to get back to that semi final? >> i think it is a lot of different things, certainly. the league needs to continue to improve. i feel that we need to develop

good types of players. we had a lot of very good players, but in defense and midfield and attack, we lack some special players that do something different when you need it and against the big teams. i don't have the answer to that, or the magic wand, but certainly across the country, across all levels there aren't a lot of resources being put into it, a lot of work to develop future stars. i think we are in the right direction. >> you are from venezuela. what does this world cup mean and what will you remember, what to you will you take away as a south american? >> we saw that it would be dominated by the south american teams european teams that were and we saw some able to compete under difficult conditions. many people thought they had a look at germany. many people thought they had a great team and great layers, it and it woulders,

be difficult to play in brazil. so i think the europeans can come to south america and come -- compete. i think we will remember that europeans can come to south america and compete. it is a world cup in which we saw a lot of goals. were able tole, perform very well. there were many interesting things about this world cup that i think will remain forever as being very successful. coached one of the sexiest names in soccer. everyone remembers the new york cosmos. what can you take out of this world cup that you can apply to the cosmos? thef we're talking about on field, there are many things. you saw a lot of interesting things. teams are going back to playing three in the back. i can find many great things that we can look into what was in the world cup. as a nation, as the united

states and us being here, especially in new york, the interest that is world cup the interest that people are looking into it who were not interested before. it is a good time for soccer in the united states and a good time to build up our project. we can take a lot of good things from the world cup. claudia, -- claudio, you have a team that will come in 2015 playing in yankee stadium. what would you be looking to get out of this world cup were them? >> the power of team versus individuals. there are individual stars in the media and everyone loves to see them and hype them up. it was great to see the good teams and the performances, the likes of chile and colombia. the germans defined them more than anyone. whoough we had david villa

is a big star, the focus is to make sure that we have a collective team working together. that will take you further than anything and that is very up important. >> you must be rubbing your hands with all the teams you are bringing here. there has never been a buzz like it before. >> there has never been and that is a big difference. in the past, it was more ethnically driven. you have people from italy, claudio is from argentina, gino is from argentina, a lot of different routes. -- thats predominantly was predominately who is interested. now it is folks who love the nba and the nfl. you see it all the time now. that is the big difference that we are seeing here in the states. >> the things that stand out in this world cup. i'm a simple fellow. unlike when the referee pulls out the shaving cream. i can understand why gets in the players boots.

he never seems to get it on the ground in the right place. going into the finals, who did you pick, claudio? brazild argentina versus in the final. i did change my pick to germany argentina in the round of 16. i'm not making that up now. >> i picked argentina versus brazil. i picked germany to lose to italy because they always lose to italy. i picked also brazil versus argentina. i thought argentina was going to make it all the way. i thought brazil being in their own country could make it. i believe that germany was always the best team, but i thought they would struggle in -- in brazil and south america. they prove me wrong. wife will check all your times to see if there are black spots. >> i picked argentina, but i don't know what the hell is going to happen. >> it is been a very high-scoring world cup.

we haven't heard one complaint about the ball. you think that is good? or have the goals come from that? been, whichhere has has been great, outside of luis , and a few minor incidents, the best thing about this world cup has been the soccer on the field, the goals, the attacking style of play that the teams played in. credit to the coaches and players. i think for the most part, look at the refereeing, you can always find some mistakes. i have been impressed. it is been really good area they have learned from past world cups were there are a lot of -- it was all about speeding up the game. it was great. i think this world cup was for me the best one, definitely. >> i agree in the sense that this world cup was marked by team spirit more than anything else. there are great players, we have messi, rodriguez was

probably the biggest are the scum out of this. i think it is the team effort and spirit. when i was over in europe where i have to go for business, everyone kept saying to me about the u.s. that they have great team spirit. not just the u.s., but costa rica and other teams, even the dutch, the team spirit, a collective spirit, argentina still have with them that professionalism. it is a team. everyone is playing for each other. >> they showed the most in the brazil game. that specific game against germany, they lacked somebody that could be a leader, even though the teams have shown that they need to play together. you always need somebody that can push the whole team as

mascherano did yesterday. >> to expect this will be high-scoring final? on the othertina side and the way they have been playing? no. i think they will be very pragmatic. they will be very tactical and weight and not do what resulted. i think it is not going to be a high-scoring game, but it will be a great final. >> are you surprised that so many big teams are home before the postcards? england, italy, portugal, they just didn't get there. >> don't forget spain. >> i wasn't so much surprised with italy and england because they were in a difficult group. one was going to go home. i was first apprised that both of them went home. think we were all shocked. no one expected them to collapse as they did all at one time. you see this do world cup going, the final. >> i think argentina is going to win. it is something for me, it is a

story that has to end. messy his greatest player and he will lift the trophy. i think they're going to find a way. you could see in the last two games of their gotten better. i just have a feeling he hasn't laid great the last two games, but i have a feeling in south america he is going to lift the trophy and get all that weight of them are donna weight that is hanging over him off of him. i don't know what it is, i have a feeling, maybe it is my heart and not my head, but i'm going to stick with that. >> for argentina to win in brazil? in mara cannot? rt on oureduardo to show who wrote the book six games that shocked the world. he went back to six terrible games that happened in brazil, including the 82 game where they lost to italy. ,e said almost prophetically

right before the game is going to kick off, in the morning. he said i hope i don't have to write another chapter. because that would be seven shocking. i think he is sitting there writing right now. >> i also think the final, germany, if you look, they played great against roosevelt. that was crazy. >> i think the only thing that -- as low this year , soccer issed to say a game is played for 90 minutes and when it is over the germans have one. i think that is going to happen. we look forward to seeing the cosmos in action. charlie, you have some great teams coming. there's no excuse for people not to say good soccer in the united states. claudio, your new team is playing in yankee stadium of all places, the bastion of new york sports. thank you very much. it has been great having you all here tonight.

i hope you have enjoyed it. >> thank you. ♪

>> live from pier 3 in san francisco, welcome to "bloomberg west," where we focus on innovation, technology, and the future of business. i'm emily chang. this hour, we take you inside to look at a ride sharing service in new york city. lyft is famous for its cars that was supposed to start its service in queens, but that is not going to happen. they claim that lyft violates state and local laws. they claim a temporary restraining order ag