>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: you have held as many high-level positions in the foreign service as bill burns.

he was deputy secretary of state from 2011 to 2014. prior to that, he was undersecretary of political affairs and was u.s. ambassador to both russia and jordan. he holds the highest rank of the foreign service of career ambassador and is the second serving diplomat in history to become deputy secretary. he retired last year and is president of the carnegie endowment for international -- i am pleased to have him at this table for the first time. it great to have you. based on everything you know and as you see the world today, tell me what the threats are that you consider the most serious and immediate. charlie: isil gets a lot of attention and is an important challenge for the united date and our coalition partners to focus on. there are a lot with aggression in the ukraine and the media challenge. there are a lot of overarching challenges.

climate change and what that can mean as a genuine national security problem overtime. cyber issues. developing rules of the road not just in commerce but in national security for dealing with that whole set of issues. and we are reminded of that with the of bowl the crisis most recently. that is an area where there has been a great deal of progress over the last two administrations. president bush 43 launched and president obama has continued making a huge difference in the lives of people in africa and around the world. charlie: is the middle east the highest or does it have a special place for you? bill: it's a part of the world you never have the luxury of neglecting or ignoring. if you look at the challenge the old order we became accustomed to, a bunch of that is crumbling in the middle east today.

you have the phenomenon of failed or failing states, out of which extremist groups like i sold a merge -- isil emerge. charlie: let's talk about that. the failed states are possibly syria, libya yemen -- they are the dangerous thing that can happen. if you are a failed state, you have possibilities of al qaeda or someone like that. finding refuge in a power sources well. bill: it is a region that is is

uncertain does the middle east. it is acquisition for further territory. it is also important to demonstrate and expose the fact that they are not able to succeed in governing or those areas where they do control. kind of the eighth century playbook used by the leadership delivering things the people want. people can find purpose and economic and political opportunities through other kinds of models. in iraq, it means appealing to the sunni arab community so they feel a sense of inclusion. and the iraqi government something they haven't felt in recent years. it's working with important partners whether it is jordan or tunisia to develop that.

charlie: another success story. bill: it is a grim terrain right now but it's a reason to invest in those kind of aces and help them to succeed. charlie: the immediate threat of isis, whatever term we like to use, to stop their expansion into new territory. bill: and in iraq there is clearly a strategy for beginning the first stop and i think the momentum has been stopped. it is a huge challenge. charlie: they will do it when they have the iraqi army on the ground? bill: it is a reasonable approach, i think. it will take time to rebuild and

retrain. i am confident that it is possible to roll back those gains. that is the security dimension of the challenge, which is extremely important. but there is a political dimension. it involves giving sunni arabs more of a sense of participation in the political system. charlie: has the prime minister change made a difference? bill: i think it has. large parts of the non-shia population i think the government is making a seat -- a serious effort to be more inclusive. it will be absolutely essential. if there is to be enduring success against isis. charlie: if all else fails, we have to stop isis and we should be prepared to provide troops in that effort. our coalition partners prepared to do that because isis is that kind of emergency? bill: once they are trained and

equipped, there is the potential to roll back. it is a much bigger challenge. i think it will be important to look to other coalition partners as well as turkey to see what kind of contributions they can make overtime. charlie: what about not being stopped? bill: i think they recognize the threat. it is an encouraging sign and i think it will require that kind of sustained coalition to succeed. charlie: it comes down to the ground troops, doesn't it? and in iraq, you have the iraqi army. everybody knows now because some of the language that she use. the top priority in syria has to be isoil.

then they can go back to whatever considerations they have for the government. bill: i think it is the immediate threat and the priority. as long as the regime is there it is a magnet for foreign fighters and others who flocked to isil. it is difficult to see a more stable future unless you have a transition of leadership in damascus as well. i think ultimately -- there will have to be leverage on the ground to produce the circumstances in which you might be able to make progress diplomatically. charlie: meeting what? bill: meaning that the regime will my be able to sustain itself the way it is right now. whether the principal backers can see more clearly if they want to see a stable syria a syria that is not a platform for

all sorts of extra missed groups -- extremist groups. it you have to see progress towards that kind of transition. charlie: you really are as good a diplomat as we can find. what you have to do is you have to meet the challenge and support moderate ranks and whatever you can do to make them the primary focus of your attention. and you have to deal with it in a diplomatic way. are the russians and the iranians prepared to do that? and what do you have to do to encourage them to do that.

bill: they are vulnerable. charlie: to have an ally in power in the middle east, it is a place to communicate. charlie: and he might lose and he had to think about what his options were. bill: there was a point in the

winter of 2012 or 2013 where the russians were a little bit nervous about the future. the balance on the ground started to shift against the regime. they intervened in the serious way. i think we can re-create it in the future. the human suffering in syria is so horrific. a huge challenge of reconstruction whenever that day comes. the sooner you have that traditional leadership. charlie: is it a battle of supremacy in the region? bill: i think with the assad regime on the outside, i think he felt betrayed.

that entered into it as well. it is a combination of factors right now but the animus and the determination is quite clear. charlie: you have met with the iranians, only about the nature of their country and the possibility for regime change. all of that. whether it is support for -- bill: not so much hamas. when you look at iran or the nuclear issue, you have to embed it in a strategy and be clear about the fact that it threatens us and our friends in the region. but within that strategy it's

extremely important to prevent the iranians to acquire the weapons and it would multiply exponentially any of the dangers mentioned in the region. i have been convinced that the best of the available alternatives is through a strong and negotiated settlement. i think it is possible to reach that kind of a settlement but by no means a sure thing. charlie: why do you think it's possible? bill: because we build up a fair amount of leverage over the time. they have taken its toll on the iranian economy. i think in part we have demonstrated alongside the leverage a willingness to engage seriously, to work out with our partners, a settlement that would allow the iranians to have a nuclear program under sharp constraints.

i think it is possible to achieve that kind of a settlement. charlie: turn it around. why should they do it? they don't believe, i assume that they did not have this sophisticated sense that if we get weapons or cause for proliferation in the region it's not good for us. so we will forgo our effort. bill: it is hard to generalize. they have a very suspicious view of these negotiations as well. charlie: who represents the hardliners? bill: a lot of people around the supreme leader. charlie: what about him? bill: from everything i know he's always been suspicious and

skeptical of negotiations. suspicious of american motives. i think we helped demonstrate that both sides can comply and deliver on the commitments. that has created a pretty solid foundation it has some clear sense of what the consequences are. charlie: can sanctions be snapped back.

bill: bill: i i think when you're is a reasonable length of time. if you have an iranian leadership, i think it is possible to constrain in a very systematic way, iran's program. and to deter it from seeking out of that program. the president said it is probably less than 50-50 and can be accomplished. charlie: i asked if this would be the crowning achievement. bill: if the president along with our international partners could produce the kind of strong agreements that he has outlined and i have tried to describe, i

think it would be a significant achievement. it has to be embedded in a wider strategy for dealing with other aspects of iranian behavior. we will push back against that and reassure our friends and partners in the region. trying to produce that strong negotiated thing is best of our available alternatives. charlie: and the centrifuges to go forward. how would that work? bill: just in the process of being negotiated, it's important to produce's longer duration as possible. a long time in which the rainy and nuclear program was under

sharp international constraints and you have intrusive verification and isms to ensure against any kind of a breakout. charlie: what is the point of 12 years rather than -- bill: the longer the better, in many respects. charlie: it's a number they would accept, i assume. bill: i think it's a sensible starting point. what i think what you want to do is prolong that as long as you reasonably can. and to ensure that that breakout is preserved over that time. charlie: if you are trying to do something in secret, they could not achieve it? bill: the interim agreement was through 2013 and we managed to introduce some new verification inspection measures.

we would have to build on that. there has never been any perfect guarantee. but having those kind of intrusive transparency measures is going to be absolutely crucial. charlie: what would happen if there was an attack on their facilities? billet delay -- will it delay their nuclear effort? will it lead to some kind of action against people in the region and perhaps here? bill: all of the above. experts have looked at this issue and concluded if you took military action, you could certainly set it back by two or three years, whatever length of time people conclude. you also probably drive the program underground if the iranian leadership had not yet made a decision to try to weaponize or enforce or

accelerate that kind of decision. you can see a crumbling of what has been painstakingly built up the economic pressure and sanctions. this with the time when you have no short of a -- shortage of instability in the region already. there could come a time if we are not able to reach this kind of agreement under lots of different circumstances. when you look at the alternative, the best of the available alternatives is clearly, in my view, the strong negotiated agreement. charlie: and you think they would be prepared to do that at some point? and they are certainly prepared to make a rational choice? bill: i think it is possible. it's not a certainty. there are gaps that need to be bridged between here and there. charlie: what do we know about

the ayatollah? bill: not a lot, is the honest answer. he is someone that has always been suspicious of the united states and build his worldview around animus towards the united states. it is difficult to consider a negotiated solution to the nuclear challenge when you have that kind of suspicion. charlie: does his opinion matter? bill: i think it does. he was elected president and was able to bring in a foreign minister that i believe is committed from the point of view of iranian interest. i think it suggests that there is some space there on the iranian side. charlie: someone who spoke the language and communicate. to presume he was a favorite of

the supreme leader although i heard he was a -- he had some connection to the supreme leader. under the almond and a shot regime -- i'm at in aahmadinejad regime. bill: and whether we can bridge that gap, i honestly don't know. it is worth testing because the alternatives have much bigger on es. charlie: what is the hardest thing to get done? bill: there are a number of issues and it's hard to disentangle. probably the immediate lifting of sanctions on the front end and our point of view. you want to have a phased easing of sanctions over time.

the whole issue of enrichment capacity and how to get to that one year breakout. it has to be negotiated in a very painstaking way to make sure that the rest of the international community have for the iaea, the kind of access that we need. you know, i think that there has been some sort of progress. charlie: tell me about the rivalry between saudi arabia and iran. obviously, two different branches of islam. two powers. one has cultural heritage. and they are essentially enemies. competitors, i believe.

bill: there is a sunni and shia dimension and a persian and arab dimension that ad slayers of complication. charlie: but it's a competition to have the most influence in the region? bill: i think that's right. i think there has been a wider influence if not hegemony in the region. they see that as threatening and it's true of a lot of our other partners in the gulf. i think that kind of rivalry will be with us and the region for some time to come. however, the issue of the nuclear question is resolved. ♪

charlie: is there difference in terms of where the iranians are or is it safely how they measure the threat to them? bill: in terms of the analysis over the last few years, very

intense consultations have gone on and my impression has been that there is a fair amount of common understanding of where the iranian program is. there is a difference of view and the prime minister has been very clear about this in public about what constitutes an acceptable threshold. i think the prime minister has made clear that any enrichment program at all is threatening. charlie: the imminent danger, the potential danger. he has not made a decision. bill: leaving my job in government, that was certainly the analysis by colleagues. charlie: they want to get there as fast as possible. bill: the only policy

cold-blooded lee, is that they might make that decision. charlie: and what you want to do is restrain the ability and attorney them -- and deter them. and iranian says, you have nuclear weapons. israel ease have nuclear weapons. they are not in the nonproliferation agreement. you are. bill: i think it's an argument of self-interest. because ultimately, with any government in all the years i have been a diplomat, that's what you appeal to. it seems to be that the downsides far outweigh the potential upside. you look at the international pressure that's been built up against iran.

look at the determination to ensure that iran does not acquire nuclear weapons. it carries obvious risks to try to move down that road. charlie: it's our decision. it's our country. we are not threatening anybody and we reject your idea that it's not in our self-interest. we believe it, and a story. bill: the iranian leadership has said it is not a interested in acquiring a nuclear weapon. charlie: it's a guest speaker ron -- against the kuran and all that. bill: some people at some point might try to make a different decision. charlie: did they ask you to write a memo about invading -- the risk of invading iran? >> iraq. charlie: what did you tell the secretary? bill: ryan crocker and a couple

of other colleagues did most of the work on this. but secretary powell at the time was quite concerned about the possible consequences. and diplomacy or statecraft, you have to think about the consequences. i remember it was 8:00 one evening page 14 of a single spaced paper and he said time is up. i think he conveyed it to the white house an expression of concern about all the different kinds of things that could go wrong. if anything, it was an argument to make sure we have company on the take off. charlie: does that mean there was a serious debate about the wisdom of invading iraq? that he had two of our best diplomats do a hardheaded analysis of the risk or the

advisability? are these all the risks with this policy? what you hear, conventional wisdom in some corners, that it never took place. the idea of the debate in the bush administration never took place. bill: i can only speak to my experience and there was debate about how to go about this kind of a challenge and think through carefully the different consequences. i reread that paper a couple years ago and we got it about half right and half wrong. i am not trying to suggest we had any kind of monopoly. charlie: i like the idea of looking at history. the argument made by many is that it was part of the fallacy of the program.

there is no sense of what happens after you invade. bill: in hindsight, that is pretty clear. especially when dealing with a society is, kidded as iraq -- as complicated as iraq kept the lid on the society which, as you can see, had a lot of potential sectarian passions that can spell out. charlie: as we have seen. bill: it's an argument when you think about these changes thinking about the alternative. what comes after. charlie: we saw it in the arab spring. bill: it does make the choices any easier. you have to enact a humanitarian disaster that drives the policy. it is easy to underestimate the unintended consequences.

charlie: so the president, what is it you understand the president's policy to be because of the lessons of iraq and afghanistan? bill: more generally? it's not an argument against a military dimension of dealing with some of the challenges that we see in the middle east. lots of problems are not going to have a military solution. they might have a military dimension. it's an argument about thinking carefully about those kind of questions. what comes after the means to an end. a vital interest to the united states. it will be absolutely indispensable. charlie: syria and the red line

without debating that when people say something, they do it? bill: words matter. but that case, you can make a pretty credible argument. charlie: it is an interesting thing for me because so many of our allies. took offense and fear of the decision not to go ahead. notwithstanding the russian deal.

bill: the outcome that was produced largely through john kerry and working with the russians was successful from the point of u.s. policy because you removed the chemical weapons program. you look at isil's gains, and if there had been a chemical weapon stock tail there still vulnerable -- charlie: they would've had access to it, perhaps. assad would not be in power if hashezbollah hadn't double down. two things happened. hezbollah doubled down and the u.s. could not find the way to enlarge and support a moderate force. bill: holding on to power. there was a moment in the winter

of 2012-2013 where they were back on their heels. the situation on the ground was shifting against the assad regime. hezbollah doubled down and intervened in a pretty serious way. and after that moment, they tightened its grip. charlie: do you see the moment where it happens? it's a tough call. if you push more and he had been toppled, your worry is what follows him. bill: that is a huge question and i think people would be kidding themselves if they said that there would be an easy answer to that question. it is essential for syria and the people of syria.

charlie: what a great country so rich in cultural heritage. some people look at it today and see all kinds of violations. they see a russia leader motivated by the collapse of the soviet union. although the driving force may not be to restore it but do something else. how far has he been willing to go in your judgment? bill: my years in russia have been a long exercise in humility about my analysis. charlie: because he surprises you? bill: he is a tactician and he has shown that with the ukraine. the thing to remember about russia is he is playing over long-term a relatively weak strategic hand.

russia is basically a one-dimensional economy. it had the potential to diversify. it has a smart and well population but it has not done that yet. it is eating away at the rising middle class. demography is a huge challenge. the whole expanse of the earth there are only about 30 million or 40 million russians. looking across a very long border at more than one billion chinese. russia has a lot of challenges. in ukraine, you see the most significant challenges since the end of the cold war. it's important for us to continue to work with our european partners to produce steady counter pressure, to do everything we can to help ukrainians rebuild. the best antidote is to show that the ukraine can climb out of the whole -- hole it's in.

charlie: henry kissinger sat where you have sat, and you both are students of foreign policy. he said we have to recognize russia has an interest in the ukraine and a history in the ukraine. how do you recognize that in terms of the solution of the future of the ukraine? the you choose where to go? or do you do more to tailor your impact and create a circumstance so that that element of russia-ukraine will be stabilized? bill: russians don't get to make ukraine's sovereign choices no more than we do.

i think you have clearly seen an interest in some sort of association with the european union and they see that as offering a lot of economic opportunity. charlie: and in doing that, do they give the back of the hand to russia? bill: not necessarily. without being pollyanna show about it, recent circumstances make it hard to think in these terms. it is entirely conceivable that ukraine that has more of a connection to the eu can be of benefit to russia as well. economic connections will be very important. it is not impossible to find that kind of balance. a lot of that sense has been lost in the crisis over the last year. charlie: it must be frustrating to be a diplomatic you think the other person cannot think rationally. bill: sometimes but you don't get to do things rationally all the time. one of the starting points for

sensible diplomacy is understanding the way in which whether it is your counterpart on the other side of the table or a country or society, you don't have to accept that. you have to understand it. charlie: understand their interests and how do you address their self-interest. bill: you do. i fall prey to this where americans think about it's always about us. but it's not. it's not what animated the arab spring and everything that's come since then. you don't have to accept it or indulge it. charlie: somebody said to me the first question they always ask is, what do you want? what is it you want? once you understand that, you can deal with rationality and possibility of variation of that. bill: and you have to understand what you want. if you go into a negotiation and

not absolutely certain about what you want -- otherwise, they will figure it out for you and it's not a good way to negotiate. charlie: another thing that interests me is how you try to make sure that you avoid the mistake that explodes. i'm taking about 1914. the idea that there is something you don't see that has the potential of inflaming everything. charlie: it's where communication -- bill: it's where communication become so important. there is no substitute for people communicating with other people. edward armor all -- edward r. murrow. he wants said to a group of young diplomats that the most important blink is the last three feet.

one person talking to another. charlie: what is the most interesting part of your career? bill: i have been really lucky. i had a great run over those 43 years. from the early stages when i worked with secretary baker, it was a moment and kind of an intersection of historical developments. the end of the cold war, desert storm, madrid. german reunification. charlie: this is 1988? bill: bill: to 1993. president bush 41,: powell colin powell. i learned about how to think and act strategically. charlie: what did you learn? bill: a lot of the things we have been talking about. how to seize moments.

baker, after putting a great deal of effort in developing a coalition helped achieve victory in desert storm. he saw the moment to move ahead to the madrid peace conference and make progress on the arab-israeli issue. in houston, he has a wall filled with cartoons. all of which were deeply skeptical about the first eight of the nine trips we took to the middle east. persistence was really important. charlie: he spoke about this idea, looking at syria. he said, no. we are not getting the coalition.

bill: and baker, i admire the way he narrowed down people's choices and stripped away the arguments. he did it with assad, prime minister shamir, the palestinians. he was able to produce something in madrid that few people thought possible when he made the first of those nine trips. i thought it was really admirable. charlie: he also had one of the most important qualities a secretary of state can have. the knowledge that he has the presence here, the best political friend of the president. bill: and a lot of other qualities. much like hillary clinton in a lot of ways. both hillary clinton and baker no one was better prepared than them when they walked into a room. that is really important in not just a negotiation but any kind of diplomatic interaction.

they both think strategically as well. those of the qualities that make for very good secretaries of state. they were trying to solve a problem. charlie: what about the trip to china? the idea? bill: hillary clinton had a lot to do with it as well in the sense that i think you saw it in the first trip and's secretary of state -- since the secretary of state. i think they both -- charlie: the dinner was to asia. bill: i think they both understood the significance of asia as the center of gravity in the international system as far as i can see in the 21st century. it doesn't mean that it's the

only -- it doesn't mean it's the only important thing. it's unique. it was a pivot at the outset. any american administration will have to look in many different directions. i think it is logical, and it built on the last administration to try to rebalance, reprioritize, the approach to asia. charlie: as you well know, the prime minister is coming here to speak for the congress. i have talked about that controversy recently with susan rice. what are the consequences of that? bill: i have long believed that u.s. israeli's ration -- u.s. israel he relationships are

important. it is not a partisan issue. the strength of that relationship is important in a moment where the middle east is in such disarray and filled with such uncertainty. there was not that kind of court nation -- coordination. it is unfortunate. it does not diminish the importance of the relationship but it does not help. charlie: and they are engaged in a political campaign. bill: the timing makes it much more complicated as well. charlie: did they make real progress with respect to the step forward on the israeli-palestinian issue? he's clearly worked hard at it. bill: he's right to work hard at it.

the people into rear square -- toahrir square, cairo, they concluded may be the issue doesn't matter so much anymore. i think it still matters. for palestinians israel's security, a lot of people across the region. the united states, whether you like it or not, has a unique role to play in the diplomacy of that issue. charlie: what is our role? bill: to try to see if we can work with both parties as well as with key arab players and others around the world. to see if we can come up with a process that produces the kind of two state solution that lots of people have talked about. charlie: there are two ideas here. some people argue you cannot have an israeli-palestinian agreement without the u.s. involvement. others will argue, which is not necessarily contrary to that

you can never have an israeli-palestinian peaceful existence that doesn't start with the two parties coming together on something. they have to want it and want it badly and understand the consequences of not having it. charlie:bill: the simple answer is yes. i think both parts are true. there is no substitute for people in the region seeing the importance of moving in that direction. i think the u.s. has an important role to play in helping encourage that. charlie: do you have any optimism that this will be a possible outcome? bill: i still hope it will. i am still convinced a two state solution is in the best interest -- i think it is starting to slip away. i don't think it has slipped away but as each year goes past

more and more issues kind of corrode the atmosphere between israel he's, and the wider region. it's a real shame. -- israelis palestinians, and the wider region. it's a real shame. it doesn't have much to do with the palestinian issue but i do think for israelis and palestinians, it is by far the best outcome. charlie: what is the biggest impediment to that happening? bill: i think you need to have a sense of urgency. charlie: they certainly have that. bill: both parties have to demonstrate that to make it possible. and you need leadership that will take advantage of that moment. charlie: with all the consequences for a one state solution, which is not a solution, they would argue that because israel does not want to be put in that position, it is

not a place to -- at the same time, one of the principal arguments being made by the prime minister is this notion of a jewish state. bill: i think it is very difficult when you look at the forces of democracy and reality. arabs being the majority. the jordan river. the mediterranean. you look at forces of technology. israel has a lot of support from the u.s. and has enhanced security over recent years. it is hard to predict what new technology will produce in terms of threats to israel. and ideology. being more radicalized as well. they create a sense of urgency trying to seize the moment before us and make progress on that. charlie: and clearly all the other problems are not because that israel and the palestinians reached an agreement. as long as it's there, it's a problem in the region. bill: it is.

it's a problem in israel's long-term security. without a two state solution you end up with a lot of difficult challenges to deal with. long-term occupation, that's not healthy. charlie: i find in terms of israeli leaders that i know and have interviewed, there is an awareness of that. occupation is not a healthy thing. for the psyche of a country. it canbill: it can be just as corrosive for israelis as it is the palestinians. charlie: do you say goodbye or do you say i'm going to go over here and do this for a while and maybe i will see you back? bill: bill: i had a wonderful run. i am proud of the colleagues i served with over the years. the country i served. charlie: suppose you had been the deputy secretary of state. suppose someone had been secretary of state becomes

president. and says, i had a great deputy secretary of state, he would be perfect secretary of state. bill: i was really lucky in the 33 years i had and i am lucky to be at the carnegie endowment. charlie: succeeding a great woman. bill: jessica did a wonderful job and i will do my best not to screw it up. charlie: a pleasure to have you on this program. thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪

>> i am phil mattingly. >> and i am mark halperin. >> with all due respect to the other nations governors -- >> it is cpac, day two. today's lineup, jeb, rand, rubio. we will start with the man who