>> from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> thank you for joining us. >> i also thank you. >> it is a pleasure to see you.

>> i am quite gratified to see you after one year. >> the united states has announced bombing raids in syria. they notified the beforehand. were you notified? >> this does not mean that the united states of america these of the its bombardment informed iran deviously, or will inform iran on the nuclear talks in a general fashion, this topic was touched upon. they had a general conversation about it, about the fact that the u.s. intends to extend the range of airborne bombardments we had in iraq. nothing precise, nothing that came prior to the previous

bombardment of syria. >> do you approve of what the united states did? >> what is the meaning, does the united states think that with bombardments we will be able to destroy terrorism? and make them suffer damages? if that is the lot that it is simply thinking. including the fact that this terrorism has been taking the lives of syrians for the past three years, now the united states is combating them and defeating them? >> i assume they became alarmed by the success of isis. >> in any fashion the terrorist groups in syria have attacked many villages, killed an incredibly vast number of people.

concord cities during the last three cities, and the united states not only did not show any reaction, but sometimes the tone was something that was perhaps encouraging. >> the president said the reason they did not support forces was because they feared weapons would fall into the hands of those you described as terrorists. >> in any fashion what did these people obtain the arms? countries supplied them to these terrorist, assisted them financially. there were certain countries that encourage them. all of these supporters must be held to account and be made to answer for the killing that has taken place over the last three years.

>> my impression of your argument is that arab countries who are now engaged in the fight against isis earlier, supported the rise of isis. >> in any way, you are fully aware that not only regional countries, but also some countries from outside of our region were supporting various terrorist groups. these types of supports have come in various forms, some financially, and some made a passageway to the field of battle.

some encouraged in media. all of them in one fashion or another encouraged and supported these terrorists. whereas terrorism is always bad, without exception, you cannot say now it is good. it is always bad and evil. >> why would these government support terrorism? >> unfortunately the world of politics, the understanding for some is such that when an objective becomes paramount importance for example, the

toppling of a government becomes of utmost importance, they allow themselves to use any means to reach their own objectives, these means, these tools can be used against them. >> you are suggesting saudi arabia, qatar, turkey, supported the terrorists because they wanted to overthrow president bashar al-assad. >> i did not name any countries, but be that as it may come it is your wish to interpret that any way you wish. you are free to do so. numerous countries that with the governments were opposed to the government in syria and were under the impression that by supporting these terrorists they were succeeding in toppling that government. they were quite wrong. >> do you believe the attacks will have the possibility of toppling the assad government? and that is the intent? >> the objectives of the use

bombardments are not clear and we do not know the final objective. the in game for those who carry out the air bombardment rate anything can be the object to. in our opinion, if the bombardment campaign is not within the framework of international law, it is to be condemned. if the objective is to combat terrorism in a nation, in a country territory, without coordination with the government, at the request of that country, such action, whatever the intent may be, can be considered an invasion. >> even though it is not an attack against the government of syria.

it is an attack against people who have been barbaric in their actions, the attack is against them, not against the syrian government. the administration communicated that through the syrian government. >> let's assume they can ask. that would be one way of going about it. a third-party, a third government defines on her own to target certain areas of the nation through aerial bombardment. it is quite meaningless to enter their country in any way shape or fashion. these are wrong actions.

>> even though you have been outspoken and characterizing isis as a threat, you have made it clear that they have to be stopped. for even using the name of islam. >> that is correct, absolutely. this is a terrorist group. they are extremely dangerous. extremely savage and barbaric. and inappropriately and wrongly used the name of islam in the face of muslims in all of their actions, unequivocally are against the culture and the teaching, and traditions of islam. that doesn't mean a country, another country without coordination and permission of the central government of the demise country can enter their airspace, albeit, and carry out an air bombardment campaign.

i think this is clear for everyone to understand. they need to do so with the permission of the government of that country great >> what are your conditions for iran to be engaged in the battle against isis? what is necessary for iran? >> i spoke with this previously. any country in whose territory terrorists are active, if the government requests the islamic public of iran, we will assist against those terrorists. >> that is true in terms of your previous relationship fighting in the civil war in syria. assad has characterized all the

opposition forces as terrorists. >> what i am saying is that if we label a group as terrorists, we are not seeking to speak of something that we have doubts about. a group in a country are carrying forward terrorists. if the government of that country formally requests of us to assist the government against a group of terrorists, we will certainly render that assistance. >> is there a possibility here of some kind of grand bargain in which if there's progress in the nuclear talks he would be more acceptable to participating in the fight against isis?

>> we do not connect the issues. fundamentally, the nuclear talks and the fact that we must all of us have tangible progress in resolving issues, we believe the resolutions of those issues benefits all. it benefits the region and the entirety of the world. outside of the nuclear issue, we fundamentally are against terrorism, steadfastly. if we have the opportunity to combat terrorists, we will do so. terrorists in danger and threaten everyone. both countries in which the terrorists operate, as well as others. terrorism is borderless. it does not remain constant. it is quite mobile.

like a parasite that moves from one region to another. no one can feel as being safe from that parasite until that parasite, those microbial beings exist in a certain area, we most only concentrate on the eradication. we can only have peace of mind at a time when terrorism no longer exists and the terrorists no longer see a conducive environment or atmosphere for their activities. until such time there exists a conducive environment for the growth and their expansion this is an incredibly threatening phenomenon not just for one, but for a multitude of regions. >> why do somebody terrorists seem to invoke the name of islam in their recruitment? >> evil uses the wrong of the

righteous in order to reach their objectives. no one will ever say i am an oppressor, i am evil. be on my side. if they wish to be able to attract recruits, they will come up with slogans that are desirable in our region. the faith is attractive for the youth of our region. our youth is in love with the islamic culture and the islamic teaching. some have managed to take

advantage of this law and use a mask to use a face to mask the realities of their beings, and unfortunately in our region because of the hegemony of the world power, wars and everything that has taken place, affected people in the region, a lot of the youth have lost their hope. this hopelessness is a path that makes them more ready and available to go towards empty slogans thinking that will be their salvation.

thinking they can rise from the oppression that they have seen, and rid the region of that oppression. it is always like that. some have always managed take advantage of the righteousness and good grade this group is abusing the faith. >> the battle has to do not only on the battlefield, but in terms of reaching and debating in the world of ideas. >> the roots of terrorism must certainly, within cultural and social as well as political

frameworks, be addressed within those frameworks only. terrorism cannot only be defeated with the bombs or weapons, we must ultimately eradicate the violence from the mind and mindset and viewpoints of the youth. we must behave so they do not believe that with violence they can reach objectives which may be perceived wrongly in the mind of this youth as holy objectives. they cannot keep thinking this is the way to reach the objectives. we must give them the correct explanation, the correct interpretation from a cultural angle, from social angles. from the eradication of poverty and addressing poverty. a lot of economic issues, and that can become fertile ground for violence. therefore, if you really want to look at terrorism for what it is, the evil that it is, and combat it, we must have an extremely holistic approach to it and approach it from every angle. if we only focus and concentrate on the different branches, other than trimming those leaves and branches, because the roots are embedded in the ground, that tree of evil will flourish and grow again. down the line we will face the same tree am only stronger. and more deeply rooted. >> in this context where'd you put the shia?

>> the tensions between different faiths has always been something i can line up people against one another. always in our region, from the old days. they said when oppression wanted to enter the region and take advantage of the region's people and resources, they seek to do so by creating gaps between the different faiths. so these religious beliefs are something that in their mind can easily justify mining people

against one another. those who keep thinking about the conflict between shia and the me are certainly against both sects. many believe that a religious culture has no place in society. these have been the multiple tools that have been used throughout the region, the reality is that both shia and sunni believe in one holy book, in many common thoughts and beliefs. >> many people view the struggle in the middle east today be on the struggle against terrorism as a struggle for influence in the region between 2 primary powers, i ran in saudi arabia. a contest for implements.

-- a contest for influence. >> iran and saudi arabia have lived across the water closely for many centuries. saudi arabia even now, many of them traveled to iran every year for pilgrimage. many iranians go to saudi arabia for pilgrimage as well. we have always been neighbors that throughout many years of long history have managed to live well next one another. saudi arabia could be a regional power. iran could be a regional power. there are others. absolutely. there were other regional powers. >> turkey. >> surely. we must live next to one another.

even now the united states is power. the european union is a power. it doesn't mean there aren't multiple centers of power. progress can be realized through the distraction or weakening of one another. the best solution for mutual progress is for both countries to collaborate and cooperate, and seek to obtain mutual objectives for the progress of not only one another but the region as a whole. someone could interpret it as the one seeking hegemony. other countries are also seeking hegemony. we have never sought regional hegemony.

we are not seeking it today. nor will we ever. in the past 200 years of our country we have never invaded another country. there were countries who were born in an extremely weak fashion next to our borders. we let them grow and cooperated next to them. you saw after the downfall of the soviet union quite a few small countries to the northern border of our country came into being in existence. we recognized their legitimacy. we collaborated with them. we must all learn useful coexistence with one another. particularly neighbors towards one another. this is the only way to realize progress. >> enough suggested there is some progress with saudi arabia because your foreign minister talked to the foreign minister of saudi arabia enough suggested there is a dialogue there.

>> certainly it is so. saudi arabia is our neighbor. we have had a very good relationship with them in the past. now vis-à-vis our mutual objectives, we don't have any particular challenges. perhaps there are differences of opinion vis-à-vis certain regional issues. whenever conflict of opinions my differences rise, the best way to resolve those is to talk them out and reach a solution. >> why don't you sit down with the president of the united states while you were in new york? you know where i'm going. you are the prime minister of britain. one of the president of the united states? talk about what divides you. talk about terrorism, talk about

where you can cooperate. talk about respect. >> between the united states and america, throughout the last 30 years, conflicts and tensions have existed. quite a few. you are fully aware of the history of this relationship between the countries during the last three decades. one day these difficulties must be resolved. i do not believe that between iran and america there must be perpetual distance, a special gap and tension. i do believe that one day these tensions will come to an end.

one day these distances will be shortened. the two people will not allow such gaps to exist. but have to decrease these gaps, to resolve the issues and difficulties, of course now between iran and the united states, we do have direct talks. they are talking to one another. one day, perhaps there will be a need to forge talks at a higher level.

we must interpret under what conditions to reach what objectives. but we must accept is that we must look towards the future that encompasses the benefits and the interest of both nations and both people. >> the united states has imposed sanctions against iran. are they effective, are they causing pain? to the iranian citizens? >> when a country uses a legitimate tools and causes for the delayed the receiving of medications by those who are gravely ill, this causes hardship for those who suffer illness because of the lack of medications in their country. sanctions are oppressive and unfair. they have been quite damaging at a human level if nothing else. you are fully aware during a time people either did not have access to medication or had to pay exorbitantly high prices.

they could not obtain the tools that they needed because of the sanctions. all of this and aggregate means aid nations have suffered. these pressures are exerted, perhaps involuntarily, against the source. it is a double-edged swords. both sides will suffer the pain for the composer, and for those on whom it is imposed. what is important is our people did not surrender in the face of sanctions. for their own right, they have stood up for their own rights. and fundamentally we see sanctions as a wrong path to follow, a wrong tool to use. and the path to resolve any issues that may exist between two countries, as you touched upon.

it is a table of conversation and talks, and understanding. not using a legitimate tools. >> why not talk to the president? >> i did answer this question. between two nations whom have suffered many problems between one another, and difficulties towards one another, if one day the appropriate foundation hasn't been late for such a meeting, if the appropriate name has not been calculated, it will not be fruitful. today, the conditions do not dictate such a meeting. we do not want to put on a show. we do not enjoy a show or theater. that is of the united states do not wish for. >> nor does the president want to do that. >> therefore, let's let the time mature.

upon which such talks in such meetings can be fruitful towards resolving problems and issues. >> what this time have to cure? what is it that time will take care of? what is the essence of the conflict? is a nuclear? they believe weapons? is it political? >> it in minutes from this. this.emanates from we can sometimes assume denying reality because those realities may not be very comfortable. we may be under the wrong impression we can change reality is when the islamic revolution took place in the people of iran

succeeded with their own will and managing the affairs of their country, and someone who was being managed by the united states was made to leave that country for good. united states is not want to accept this. perhaps they thought they could deny this reality or change it. or the previous experience through which they topple the presidents, perhaps they thought they could be repeated. they did not reach an understanding of the islamic revolution. that was the starting point of this conflict. we solve during the holy defense for against iraq the americans did not show unacceptable behavior.

they supported someone who was an attacker, and invader. you know everything else that has happened leading us to where we are. legal sanctions against the country. these are not fruitful. these create gaps and increase the size of these gaps. we must take actions. we must show our goodwill so that these gaps will increase. if we made a mistake in the past it doesn't mean we need to repeat it. we are not doomed to repeating mistakes. when american politicians and the american government take the certainty, these decisions will change noticeably. they should be deciding to accept their realities of iran,

the realities of a nation of iran, the unalienable rights of the people. >> the nuclear issue has a deadline. he said it is 50-50. what do you think? do you think you will reach agreement with the united states over nuclear issues by november 24? >> what i can say is that if the serious will exists on both sides, this agreement is within reach. from our side, certainly this series will does exist in order to reach an agreement. so that we can resolve and put away the points of contentions that exist. at the same willingness must exist in the counterparts. we must not seek to chant

slogans, we have been victors in these negotiations and other sites have been losers. what if we both say the only slogan we chant is not that has to be a win-win situation for all sides involved so the rights of all nations are respected, and ultimately all international rights and laws can be respected? certainly before the deadline we will succeed in resolving this issue. >> describe your win-win. what is a win-win for the president of iran? >> it has been what has been in international agreement rate we have the agreement to use all

nuclear for civilian purposes. we must be treated like other countries. if there are reasons for lack of confidence we are, the conditions must be created as a win-win for both sides. it means that iran must be victorious in safeguarding every right to use peaceful nuclear energy and technology, and are assured with certainty there'll be no deviation. >> no nuclear weapons, but the supreme leader has said iran needs 190,000 centrifuges. is that reasonable? >> what we want is to have the ability to use various sources of energy. meaning having the ability to provide for electrical needs through various ways. we do have a power plant. we are in conversations with russia. we are in talks with russia for power plants. we do want both in the construction of power plants to reach a point of self-sufficiency, to build a nuclear power plants ourselves, and provide for our own fuel with self-sufficiency. you do know that when a power plant is made operational, it can function for 50-60 years. three times a year the fuel needs to be replaced. three times a year we do need to provide for new fuel and bring it to the power plant. we do need to be self-sufficient in the arena of providing fuel for our own needs for at least one installation, as well as the reactors used for radioisotopes. we want to provide for the fuel needed for that. >> no nuclear weapons, but the

supreme leader has said iran needs 190,000 centrifuges. is that reasonable? >> what we want is to have the ability to use various sources of energy. meaning having the ability to provide for electrical needs through various ways. we do have a power plant. we are in conversations with russia. we are in talks with russia for power plants. we do want both in the construction of power plants to reach a point of self-sufficiency, to build a nuclear power plants ourselves, and provide for our own fuel with self-sufficiency. you do know that when a power plant is made operational, it can function for 50-60 years. three times a year the fuel needs to be replaced.

three times a year we do need to provide for new fuel and bring it to the power plant. we do need to be self-sufficient in the arena of providing fuel for our own needs for at least one installation, as well as the reactors used for radioisotopes. we want to provide for the fuel needed for that. the calculus between our experts and subject matter is to be able to provide the fuel needed for installations such as the one we have, and the toronto reactor used for medical research and nuclear isotopes. if we can reach these objectives we will have a need for 190,000. it is the fuel needed for one power plant. >> do you believe the president

attacks against isis and syria will be successful? >> the united states air bombardments? >> with the support of the free syrian army. that is the strategy. >> it is not clear for us. what they are seeking. whether they are under the pressure of their domestic public opinion and they want to put on a show for public consumption or they are after a tangible objective in the region. it is not crystal clear for us. what i can tell you is no terrorist group can be eradicated through aerial bombardment. >> no one believes that. the united states doesn't believe that. they understand that. they are focusing on the

training of the free syrian army. >> and other words they want to put more fuel on the existing fire. >> they want to destroy the terrorists. >> this is not the way, sir. the way to combat terrorism, sir, is not for us to give birth to another terrorist group to stand up against an existing terrorist group. these are the mistakes that have composed the rings of the chain that have taken us from where we are to where we are today. we must accept the realities. we cannot organize armed groups of fighters in order to reach

our objectives. thus far, they were settling mistaken, those who equipped and trained these terrorist groups. the same mistake will be repeated. i thank you. i hope i was able to answer the questions. god bless you. >> thank you. ♪

>> let's talk first about what everyone is talking about in terms of conflict with isis. how do you see the strategy of the president and those in the region and people who were from the gulf council? is that coalition building? >> it is indeed. it is high time to take military action to stop the advance of isil. it is neither islamic or a state.

it poses a threat to the whole world. >> i want to then go to the ukraine, and the threat they are. the president seems to make it clear that this is in fact russia, or if president putin moves on a nationstate in the balkans there will be a response. they should understand that. >> yes, indeed. that was a clear message from

the nato summit in wells. we adopted a plan which will mean a more visible nato presence. the russians know if they were to attack an ally they would meet not only troops from that ally, they would meet nato. >> what about ukraine? what is necessary there to send the signal? >> there is a clear difference between being a member of nato and not being a member of nato. if you are a member you are covered by -- [indiscernible] an attack on one is considered an attack on all. if you are not a member of nato you are not covered by that clause. however, we have decided to step up military cooperation with the ukraine at the wales summit. we took this issue that will help the ukrainians defend themselves. >> what do they need? >> web nato can provide is defense in training activities,

advice, systems, defense reforms. we will invite them to participate more intensively in nato exercises that would help modernize the military build in their capacity. >> i have heard responses about where putin intends to go. he was reacting and got into a place that was way beyond where he wanted to be. that he doesn't like the hand he

is playing. the other is that it is exactly what he wants to do. edit as part of something that has concerned him for a long time. that russia needs to be surrounded by a barrier to the west. >> i have no doubts that putin's ambition is to reestablish a sphere of russian influence in the neighborhood in the form of soviet space. >> and defensive measures. >> both, i would say. also to prevent countries in russia's neighborhood, -- conflicts in the region. this goes beyond the ukraine, beyond crimea. it is in moldova. just to mention some of the conflicts. the russians think that as long as these countries are unresolved, nato and the european union will be slow to bring that into the organizations.

>> do you think he saw weakness in the actions of the president? >> i think we have demonstrated unity and cohesion. have seen unity between the european union. we have sent a clear message. putin counts on western reluctance. i have no doubt that continued russian destabilization of the ukraine should be met by broader economic sanctions. >> you believe there is a political solution. do you not? >> the only sustainable long-term solution is political

solution. >> what would be the outlines of that? >> first of all let me stress that it is for the ukrainians to decide what should be a long-term solution without outside interference. in that respect i welcome president poroshenko has proposals to reform the ukrainian society to

decentralize powers as requested. i think the current political leadership in kiev has done a lot. >> you think putin is prepared for that? or will have to be cold worst into that because of the impact of sanctions? >> let me be frank with you. president putin, sometimes you see withdrawal of russian troops. afterwards you see a buildup of russian troops. all with the aim to confuse the public in western countries. there is a clear pattern. whenever we have meetings or going to have meetings that could result in tougher sanctions then putin makes some moves. it is a game. while issuing accommodating statements, then they continued destabilizing the ukraine. >> three steps forward, two

steps back. in that case you are gaining. >> not three forward. less. i am very much concerned. this is dramatically changed situation in europe. we have spent more than 20 years to build a constructive partnership with russia since the end of the cold war. i would say we have had generational obligations to try and to use the new situation after the cold war to build a constructive relationship with russia. clearly today russia considers us not a partner but an adversary great we will have to adapt to that. >> you're adapting by this rapid response force. tell us about that. >> it is a spearhead force that can be deployed rapidly within few days. it can be deployed to an ally

that has been attacked or threatened by a potential aggressor. in order to be able to receive such reinforcements quickly, we would have to prepare reception facilitators. pre-precision supplies, infrastructure, including bases and ports. you will see more visible nato presence in the east. >> has the crisis reminded us of why nato was created? there was a since before the crisis, what does nato do? all of a sudden there is an almost demand that nato show what it is about. >> yes.

clearly the question has changed from why nato to more nato. it has become clear to everybody why we still need nato. now, we are faced with completely new security situations in the east because of russia's legal military actions. you see a crisis to the east and southeast even from cyberspace. for all of these reasons we need a strong collective defense. this is the reason why we need to invest more in securities and defense. during the last five years the russians have increased their defense spending by 50% while nato allies have decreased defense spending by 20%. that is not sustainable.

>> what would be for nato and acceptable russian influence? >> i would not accept it. >> there is nothing. even though they have a long history. >> why couldn't russia and the ukraine live side-by-side in peace and harmony, and let the ukrainians decide what is the future of their country. it is not for the russians. it is not for us. it is for the ukrainians to decide. we should respect that. but if they want to be a member of nato?

>> then we will deal with it as we deal with all other applicant countries. let me remind you by the way back in 2008 at the nato summer,we made a decision the ukraine will become member of nato. provided they wish to. >> that was a bad day for vladimir putin. >> he didn't like it. [laughter] he then invaded. >> bottom line is you shouldn't underestimate his determination. he has a clear line. he has a clear strategy. he has clear tactics. he has made a clear stance and strong determination.

>> i think i said it as prime minister. i have not changed. >> my question, is it there? a strong determination? >> both. he has demonstrated that he does what he says. >> nato is more relevant than ever. >> yes. it has been relevant all the way through. now it is clear to everybody why we need nato. >> thank you for joining us. a pleasure to have you here. [applause] ♪

♪ >> live from pier three in san francisco, welcome to "bloomberg west." i'm emily chang. ahead this hour, apple fires back at critics over so-called bengate. apple says it received only nine complaints from customers about their iphones bending and says it subjects the phones to rigorous tests. that has not stopped the stock from plunging today. the u.s. government is warning of a new security flaw that may be worse than the heartbleed bug.