announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: president obama announced on monday the final version of sweeping legislation to cut carbon emission from the electricity sector. they clean power plan imposes the first nationwide limits on carbon dioxide from power plants. it is part of the president's domestic policy. president obama: you know, for the past six and a half years, we have taken on some of the toughest challenges of our time, from rebuilding our economy after a devastating recession, ending our wars in iraq and afghanistan, in bringing almost

all of our troops home, to strengthening our security through tough and principled diplomacy. but i consider no challenge poses a greater threat to our future, to future generations, than a changing climate. charlie: joining me is gina mccarthy, the head of the environmental protection agency, which proposed this regulation. i am very pleased to have you at the table. ms. mccarthy: good to be here. charlie: tell me what this means to this president, because you have a sense of what he hoped to achieve becoming president, and as it winds down in the last quarter, there were certain things that he wanted to make sure he got done. this is not complete yet. ms. mccarthy: we did finalize it. charlie: but it is not complete in terms of the opposition.

ms. mccarthy: that is for sure. charlie: talk about how he feels, because he talks about the unimaginability. ms. mccarthy: we have had conversations about it, and, in fact, the day he asked the if i would become the next administration of the da, i asked if he would do something on climate, because that was the next unfinished business, and he has been eloquent in talking about climate. he talks about his own two daughters. he talks about the science he is seeing, and he puts this in a different way than anyone i have heard. he talks about it as a moral responsibility, and he means that. he is constantly looking at the science and worried about where

the world is heading, and to him, it is just unconscionable that we would not recognize this and take action, because he recognizes what we are doing to the world and what the future might look like if we do not act now. one of the most interesting things he said this week, i think, is that we are the first generation to feel the effects of climate and the last generation to do something about it. charlie: why is it so difficult? why are there so many people opposed? ms. mccarthy: well, charlie, i have been asking that question a lot. and i am looking at public health. that is what i do. and i was looking at the data. 20 years ago, more than that, 30

years ago, you started to get a sense of what was going on and the trends you were seeing, with literally no solution that we could talk about, and that is not going to work. people need to know there is a hopefulness. if you give them a problem that there is no solution, they pretend it does not happen, as they are too afraid of it, and we have been doing that for 25 or 30 years. we can stand up and say in 2012, we spent $120 billion that nobody budgeted for because of the impact of climate. we are getting hammered already. the president announced an entire climate action plan, and that was a cross-administration effort, and it started with the work he did on cars.

that was another area where we had some real solutions to put on the table. we had highly efficient cars. we have electric cars that are being produced, and we wanted to reduce carbon emissions from vehicles, and the automobile industry, they were selling cars that people wanted to buy, and that was a bingo. that was a good one. we did it with heavy-duty vehicles, and we are doing a second round of heavy-duty vehicles, and we are replacing the ozone-depleting substances and we are looking at how we phase out those that are highly warming, and we moved to others, because as time moves on, the united states innovates. other products come up. we have solutions. that is the difference today than before. people did not know there were solutions.

and the reason why we can move forward in the power sector is because the power sector, the electricity industry is transforming already. we are not looking at renewables today. it is happening because the market is demanding it. there is a transition from really heavy, carbon-producing fossil to natural gas, which is much cleaner, and now, we are seeing a growth in renewables. between last year when we proposed this and when we finalized it, it is beginning to take off. charlie: the president, if i understand what he has said, he wants to say to the world, this is our model. we are not just preaching. we cannot urge anyone to do it without doing it ourselves, and here is our program. ms. mccarthy: absolutely. there are three parts.

the first is mitigation, which is what we are talking about. the second is adaptation, and the third was a global solution, so basically what he said was the one thing we know for sure is we will not have a global solution unless the united states takes action domestically. the largest world economy needs to step up, and the rest of the world noticed. we had china stepping up and doing a joint announcement where china for the first time got away from the carbon intensity goals and said we are going to cap and also look at renewables, and then we had brazil. we have had good conversations with india.

charlie: and then you see people like mitch mcconnell from the senate saying, over my dead body. it will kill the jobs of the people who elected me. ms. mccarthy: i do feel for the coal industry and the jobs that they have and the people who rely on those jobs, but the truth is since the 1980's, a lot of those industries have been losing jobs significantly. we are not in the 1980's anymore. it is many years later. we actually have to work with those communities to find out how in a changing world they transition themselves, and that is why the president put together a proposal called the power plus proposal to really start investing in those communities, rather than letting the fear of those communities drive the entire energy and environmental world, but there is no question they will need help. but that has been happening

already. it has been happening for years. charlie: a friend of the president, taught him in law school, raised the constitutional questions about this, the violation of the states' rights. ms. mccarthy: well, i am not a lawyer, and certainly, even if i were, i would not argue with the man. we have operated on cooperative federalism. we are setting a standard that everyone in the world has been telling epa to do. that is exactly what this is. charlie: 2032?

> ms. mccarthy: we are actually going to reduce carbon pollution from the power sector by 30%, 32% from the 2005 level. charlie: that is doable. ms. mccarthy: yes, it is. it was not a goal when we started. it was the finish line when we did the rule. the goal for us at epa is how we capture the best, and they all have to achieve it, and then we count of those reductions. we do it bottom-up, and this is what we came up with, and i think it is a significant reduction, but i think it is an indication the energy world is changing, and so we are riding that wave and pushing it along to make sure it happens. charlie: what about states that say no to clean power? ms. mccarthy: i think they will be few. i think they want to do their own thing and customize their own plan.

we are telling them you can do this in a way that is suitable to you. you can look at energy efficiency. you can look at switches to natural gas. you can look at renewables. do what makes sense for your own economies and your own regions and if they choose not to, epa will do a plan for them, and we also proposed what that will look like yesterday, so they will know. it is not that we will punish them when they come in. it will still be viable and reasonable and affordable for them to do it, but why not do your own? we have great relationships with the state during the outreach, and i think they will step up. charlie: marco rubio, running for president, said if you're a single mom in tampa, florida and your bill goes up $30 a month, that is catastrophic. will your bill go up? ms. mccarthy: no.

this is one of the arguments i am seeing, because it is the most vulnerable and low income communities that we are acting for. they are the ones most damaged by a changing climate. we see it over and over again. we are not going to hurt the very people we are trying to help, so this plan does a couple of things. it provides clean air for our kids, and it provides carbon-pollution reductions. we are talking about a net gain in 2030, every year, about $45 billion in savings, because the energy world always costs money. the energy world in 2030 with this plan will cost less, and it will save lives. charlie: so you say this is simply not true.

ms. mccarthy: net benefits, and the cost to consumers by 2030 will actually be an $85 per year savings, because the world we are looking at is cheaper. it is easier. it is. the first year of compliance, it will be about one gallon of milk, about three dollars. by 2025, that will go down to one dollar, and then the savings accrue, so there is no way we are actually imposing an unaffordable plan on the very people we are trying to save. charlie: what about a carbon tax? there are some who believe in it. ms. mccarthy: i do, too, and the president has always said they are free to do it. the president had to use the authority that his administration has, and the clean air act is not a tax policy. the clean air act is a pollution-reduction policy, and that is what we are going to have.

is the price very high? no. charlie: there are forces against you. they see the stakes are high, as well. what do you think their interest is? ms. mccarthy: well, i can understand the folks who are worried about the coal industry, but i think there are solutions to that. i think we can work with those when the economy shifts and changes, because that is really what this is all about. but i think, for the most part we have just failed to engage the broader stakeholder community, the people who really need to speak for themselves and we have been doing that. this rule did not come from people in a room thinking big thoughts. we have spent two years of engagement on this. our response to comment is going to be 15,000 pages. so we have heard it all, charlie, but we are doing this in the community.

you know, when people realize this, this is about their own kids, whether they can breathe this is about asthma, and this is what will get us over the finish line. charlie: some believe you are not going far enough. there was an argument that the previous models for climate change are too conservative, and the sealevel rise might swallow up our coast in this century. is that alarmist? or is that saying we had better get real? ms. mccarthy: it frustrates me just as much when they say you have not solved the problem when you put something out. the president did not say he was going to solve it. what he said was he was going to get moving and do something to clean and do it in a way that is achievable so people see that

action does not hurt. that first step is most important. we will say it has been successful, but only if we have already achieved a global solution, because i think we cannot wait until 2030. charlie: what about in paris? ms. mccarthy: i think it bodes well, the conversations we have already had, and i think the global community will begin to embrace this? i have no idea. i will leave it up to my international folks and secretary kerry, my good friend, but i do think this will change the dynamic, but you can only do what you can do, and i think this is it. charlie: thank you. my pleasure. gina mccarthy is the administrator of the epa, the environmental protection agency. back in a moment, and we will hear more voices on this very important issue. ♪

charlie: we continue our look at climate change with coral davenport from "the new york times" and steven mufson from "the washington post." it clearly is a circumstance in which a lot of people are gearing for a battle, or not. we see organizations coming together and have probably already in together, but tell me

what you see the president doing. is he cementing what he has done? or is it more than that? mr. mufson: he wants a deal. it helps us as the united states meet the target of cutting emissions by 26%, 28%. that is a goal that we are trying to get other countries to commit to in various different ways, and that is one reason why when they moved from the initial rules last year to this year they did not want to weaken the targets. charlie: coral, do you think these are attainable? ms. davenport: they say these targets are reachable, and the overall target is a cut in emissions from existing power plants, 32% from 2005 levels by 2030, and electric utilities

have said pretty consistently they probably can meet these regulations, and they do anticipate there could be a struggle on the path to get there. there may be some struggles with reliability and keeping the lights on along the way, but ultimately, that goal is reachable, is within the realm of capability for electric utilities. charlie: and both of you have written, i think, and mentioning what is happening in paris, part of this is an effort with developing nations on leadership and creating a plan to reach goals. ms. davenport: every nation. the objective of the paris accord, which was forged in december, is that every single country in the world will put forth a plan to cut its own carbon emission. until now, the united states did

not have any kind of policy in place, and with the announcement of this final regulation, the announcement that the united states is proposing, not just putting out a draft or an idea but actually moving forward with pretty aggressive regulations, the hope of the president is to set an example and try to get, again, all major economies to do something similar. charlie: steven, is there enough here to persuade them to do something similar? mr. mufson: in a pretty methodical way, he was in china last year and got china for the first time to commit by doing something by 2030. these of course were some things that china was thinking about doing anyway, he moved on to india, getting a huge commitment on renewable power, and a

percentage cut, and they actually follow through with commitments to build these vast new amounts, they will be in the ballpark. most recently in brazil, where they committed to increasing protections for rain forests that absorb carbon dioxide, so he is slowly working his way or not so slowly working his way through some of the leaders, some of the countries that have been the most difficult to bring to the table, and he is going to keep doing this for the next six months, i think. charlie co.charlie co.: in both of

your judgments, one more effort in how he sees the last two years to make sure he finishes work on things that he considers to be a legacy? he seems to be aware of what most people would look to. ms. davenport: in the room yesterday in the east room, he used the word legacy, and there was very sweeping rhetoric. he came into the second term trying to set this up as a legacy issue. it was a major part of his second inaugural address. he sees this as something that he is following through on the initial campaign commitment, and he does see this as a cornerstone of the legacy that will play out over the coming decades. and the big question is will he

it stand up to legal challenges? charlie: both democrat and republican? mr. mufson: mitch mcconnell is encouraging this rebellion, and there are several ironies about this. senator mcconnell talked about president obama trying to suck the life blood, the lifeblood is the word he used, out of the kentucky economy, and less than 1% work in the mining and logging industries in kentucky. in addition, the way this plan works is that the epa had certain targets, and he gives states flexibilities to try to reach those targets to see most suitable, and if they refuse to come up with their own plan, that will result in the federal government coming in with its own plan. in a strange way, by resisting the federal government on the whole whole question of authority, these states may lose the opportunity to fashion a

plan. charlie: jeb bush, for example who opposes this, they say it will throw countless people out of work, and it increases everyone's energy prices. there is the argument. mr. mufson: well, that is the argument, but one of the interesting things about all of this, charlie, technology may make this a lot easier. to some extent, solar, the cost of solar energy, plummeting fast because the storage is going down, and one of the things that epa has done is they have delayed it by two years to allow people to get on a better technology path, so it might not

be quite as hard as it looks because a lot of the big utilities, because on the one hand, there are some republican efforts to stop the plan, they are busy trying to figure out how to meet these targets, and some say it is doable. i have even seen a couple of them say the plan is actually more modest than what they are already planning to do. that is an important dynamic i think, going forward. charlie: there have been editorials, i think in your paper, that say it should have gone further, but this will clearly be a battleground in the 2016 presidential contest, will it not, coral? ms. davenport: similar as when we saw the health care law become a major issue in the 2010 midterms, and as soon as that law was passed, it sort of set

up a concrete policy platform that candidates had to acknowledge. they had to say, if elected, i would support the health care law, and if elected i would work to undo it. that is the same thing those climate change regulations set up, and i talked to political strategist that say this is the first serious climate change policy in history that is now actually in place, and the candidates will have to immediately project it into the 2016 campaign in a way that we probably have never seen climate change in a campaign before, because it is not a fight over whether it is real or broad proposals about what to do about it. these regulations and see them through, or are you going to work to undo them, one or the other, and that makes it more of a policy issue rather than a broad, sweeping ideological issue.

mr. mufson: charlie, another thing. what are some of the keys? think about last time. we had wildfires in colorado before the election. we had a huge storm in new jersey, and florida is always being busted by different climate issues. not only is this important in a national sense, it is also very important in a lot of the swing states. charlie: thank you very much steven, coral. ♪ we continue with robert jordan with the epa under george w. bush. you know about policy decisions. how do you rank of this as a president? mr. jordan: it is the most important environmental decision he will make during his years,

and one of the top three climate change decisions on the whole planet. charlie: that is saying a lot. let's leave the legacy thing aside. in terms of its impact itself, what makes it what you just characterized? mr. martella: it is the message he is trying to have. and this is a symbolic one. he wants to show leadership to the world. without international action anything we do in the united states will not have a meaningful impact on climate change. the action here is one of a symbolic one.

charlie: will it have an impact in terms of what they decide to do in anticipation of going to paris? mr. martella: they will be looking at some precedent. the challenge is going to come from the developing world. the driver of the increase of greenhouse gas emissions is coming from the developing world -- china, indonesia, brazil, and they are going to say this is not fair to us. you had a chance to grow your own economy without having to worry about greenhouse gas emissions, and you want to put a pause on us. i think that is where that will come in. charlie: you mentioned legal challenges. what will they be, and what will determine the legal success? mr. martella: there is the substantive issue of climate change, and the other is the

legal precedent, and i want to begin at the outset in recognizing the courts have given us some direction from 2008 from the supreme court. and the court has been pretty consistent with saying climate change is very important. they are there to serve as a check on the assertion of authority, and that is where i think the president's plan goes too far. it goes beyond anything epa has done in the past 45 years under the clean air act, with the epa relying on a very specific provision that has only been used a few times, and what we have talked about already is the most important energy policy

and so from the presidential perspective, ultimately, i think the courts, despite wanting to support the president on climate change, i think we will find that the precedent goes too far. charlie: but they have used it five times? mr. martella: it is like with landfills. i would like to share an example. i brought a couple of props. if this is our coal-fired power plant, for the past 45 years -- the clean air act has been around its 1970 -- everyone has agreed, and the epa has agreed when you set a limit, you have to look at the technology applied to this power plant, and that has been noncontroversial and the challenge gina mccarthy has, with this coal-fired power plant, they say they can only get a 2% to 4% change, and we

are going to force them to reduce the reduction and instead build new wind facilities and other facilities to compensate for that. now, you can debate whether that is good policy or not, but that is totally inconsistent with many court decisions. and that will be the core legal issue that the courts are going to face, and it is a precedent of unfettered regulation in the future of how epa can apply this approach to other industrial sectors. charlie: so assume that the court acts as you say, what can be done?

mr. martella: it has already been to the supreme court two times, and it is more modest. the clean power plan that was announced is a fundamental reregulation of the energy sector. it is effectively like the health care law of the energy sector. if we really want to have comprehensive climate change control, there is a policy that the president wants to promote about these controls, and it will be congress. congress has not developed any tools specifically to address greenhouse gases. that is where the burden is. charlie: knowing all of the arguments, in essence, what divides those opposed and those in favor? mr. martella: i think those in favor recognized it is a concern

about addressing greenhouse gases for future generations and that action needs to be taken now to address greenhouse gases at the moment. in terms of those opposed, we hear a lot about those opposed to greenhouse gas and trolls -- controls, but i think that is an oversimplification. most of the companies i know and work with, they take what they call their greenhouse gas footprint very seriously, and they are using a lot of technologies to be conscious of, and they are constantly making improvements. this goes to the notion of not addressing climate change, not addressing greenhouse gases, but doing so in a way that is unfettered from the law, and also puts the united states at an economic disadvantage compared to issues like china that will have no controls where at the end of the day, we will not have any meaningful improvement of greenhouse gases, any meaningful improvement of this until we have action across

the world. charlie: but do you believe that those that oppose the president believe that the threat of global warming is real and that something has to be done whether their methods and means are similar to the president or not. because i have talked to a lot of people who do share that with me. they understand the consequences of global warming, and they realize it is a real issue. they may debate man-made or not, in terms of the extent of man-made and emissions and all of that, but they do think that they recognize the argument as being legitimate, that we have to do something. mr. martella: and i think if you were to look at it, and i do not know the statistics, but if you were to look at the fortune 500 companies or the large industrial companies, and you look at their policies and survey them, i think what we will find is the majority of companies, perhaps the high majority, all take accountability for greenhouse gas emissions.

they monitor it. they put in place programs and policies all around the world to address and improve the scope of greenhouse gases, and that is to me, what i look at, the telltale sign of how corporations are looking at it. most of the companies i work with all due support taking accountability for it to the extent we currently can with the available technology and the available regimes and so forth. charlie: roger martella, thank you for being with us. mr. martella: thank you. charlie: stay with us. ♪

charlie: robert jordan is here, serving under george w. bush from 2001 until 2003, and a time during difficult u.s.-saudi relations, and i am pleased to have him back. he has a new book, "desert diplomat." let me go back to the relationship with the saudi's at that time, and take us back to 9/11, those involved in those hijackings and 9/11 and the terrible tragedy that day. and there is a commission report.

23 pages we have never seen, right? mr. jordan: after the 9/11 attacks, many of the hijackers were saudis, and we had to determine whether the saudis were friend or foe, and we did not know how deep the resentments against the u.s. went, how big al qaeda was within the kingdom, and it became my job to find that out. when i arrived, a number of the senior saudi royals were in denial that these 15 hijackers were saudis, and there was an initial courtesy call, and then a governor, a prince, now king he said this could not have been saudis who did this. it had to be israelis. saudis would never do this. and then we went to another prince, and he had another story, and so they were in denial. and i think they had never been

impressed on the world stage to explain themselves, and this was the only narrative they could come up with that the time. and i've been spent a good deal of time with the foreign minister, and he totally understood. they had a serious extremism problem in their midst, and they had to do something about it and they had an education system that was broken and very dangerous, so that led to a lot of efforts. turning to the 9/11 commission report, and the 22 pages that were redacted, essentially, the 22 pages concerned the saudi support of 9/11, and when i learned of this report, i said i need to see these 22 pages and i was told by the cia that i did not have the need to know, and i could not see them. i said i am happy to go home.

a guy sat me down at a table and then laid out the 22 pages for me to read, and he took them back, and off he went. when i was writing the book, i had a description in their of my judgments about the 22 pages which still have not declassified, and i made some points, of the book, which the cia also redacted, and i said they should be declassified. i has had some discussions with former senator bob graham about this. he and i -- let's say we have different interpretations of what is in those 22 pages, but he and i both agreed that they should be declassified. he was the chairman of the senate intelligence committee at the time. charlie: and he believes what

now? mr. jordan: that the saudis were responsible for funding 9/11 and i completely disagree with that. he talks about some efforts in the u.s. to provide funding to certain operatives in the saudi embassy within the u.s., and his version of it is that this proves something about the attacks of 9/11, and it is certainly well-established that the saudis for many years were funding osama bin laden. and then fighting the soviets in afghanistan. exactly. and he was contracted for some of that. charlie: having read the 22 pages, did it change your mind about anything? mr. jordan: no.

i was already convinced through my other sources and the investigations we had done in the preceding 18 months that there was no saudi government official and no senior saudi royal who was involved in planning 9/11 or al qaeda that we knew of. we knew there were charities that were financing al qaeda meetings. and we knew there were all sorts of issues. charlie: foundations giving things to al qaeda. mr. jordan: the inspector general dealing with american negligence or culpability in allowing the attacks to occur on 9/11, and that report says incidentally, that they found no evidence of senior saudi royal support for the attacks of 9/11.

charlie: at the same times, they also talk about jihadism. mr. jordan: that continues to be a problem around the world, the religious extremism that they sponsor. it is still a very serious concern, and frankly a matter of national security for the united state. charlie: are you surprised that the saudis have said they are in favor of the nuclear deal? mr. jordan: they have said they are in favor of a deal. you have to parse your words very carefully. they are in favor of an agreement that affects iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon. they have not said they are in favor of a 24-day delay in allowing inspectors in or a failure of a mechanism system or a breakout capacity. charlie: at the end of the day you have to say you are in favor of the deal that is on the table. mr. jordan: i think they have the same reservations that most of us do.

my suspicion is that have also come to the conclusion that there is no better deal out there. they are resigned to do it. they want to be able to say i told you so. at the same time, they have an enormous concern, i think, about the economic threat iran is going to present. they have developed a non-oil economy. they will be able to do complete circles around many of the monarchies in the middle east once their economy is freed of these sanctions, so i think this is something they are concerned about. charlie: the shiite and the iranian government and influence in the region. we also know about the influence the government has with hezbollah in lebanon, hamas in the gaza strip, and in yemen, as well, and in syria, as well.

we know they have influence. it is a fight for influence. mr. jordan: a big part of it. no question about it. political influence religious influence, religious prestige but i think there is also an economic part we have to add into the equation. i think it presents enormous economic challenges for the saudis. they are lined up to come into iran, not saudi arabia, and the european investors, companies are chomping at the bit to come in, and i think there are probably a lot of american companies looking at it he same way. charlie: to interrupt you, one of the reasons the president has said if we cannot put these sanctions back together, because those people that have joined the sanctions, they had some sacrifice for themselves because they believe some pressure was

necessary to bring them to the table. mr. jordan: and i think he was right about that. i do not think our coalition the p5 plus one, was going to hold together much longer in endorsing these sanctions, and i do not think we can do theseons back. charlie: so where do you come down at the end of the day? mr. jordan: i hate the deal, but it is the best that we have, and we have to move on. we have to keep people's feet to the fire, iran's feet to the fire, keep an eye on the iaea, and if there is a serious violation, some sort of sanction that can be reimposed, but i am not optimistic. charlie: if the iranians do after 10 or 12 years have the research that has been

uninhibited, they will be able to move towards a nuclear weapon. the president has resolved the objections as to why he does not necessarily think that is true the conventional wisdom is that they will move to their own nuclear weapon, and they will be financed. mr. jordan: and i think there are some problems with that particular point of view. i know a prince, who is a good friend, who says the saudis want whatever deal the iranians get but i think that was more rhetoric than reality. the saudis have begun plans for 16 nuclear reactors for a civilian nuclear program, and they have consulted with the south koreans. they have consulted with the french and russians, and i think this is something that will move forward, and i think if they will weaponize is another issue. they do not have the ability to do that. they do not have the engineers or the background. charlie: what role should we

play in the middle east? mr. jordan: i think we need to have a lighter footprint. they need to take more responsibility for their own neighborhood, and i think to some degree, they are doing that in fits and starts, and at the same time, we have to realize we have a national interest of what goes on in the middle east, even if we become energy independent. if oil goes to 200 dollars a barrel, and europeans have to pay that, they cannot buy our apple products and procter & gamble products. their economies will be crippled, even if in america we have all of the oil we need. charlie: defending in syria. the argument in this piece goes on to say, it may very well mean moving not only against isis but also against assad. mr. jordan: i think there is a chance of that.

it is very dangerous, and the enthusiasm for going after assad has abated a bit, and it is a much more dangerous adversary -- charlie: it seems to some that in the beginning, it was all talk about assad. he has to go, he has to go, he has to go, and neighbors were saying it, turkey and everyone else, but then as isis rose, there began to be less said about it. mr. jordan: there is turkey's role in all of this, and their recent animation has been welcomed, but it may also be subterfuge for them to go after the kurds on their borders. charlie: motivation. mr. jordan: they clearly would be like to be rid of assad, and part of this three-dimensional chess game will involve what we can do to motivate turkey to play a constructive role, even if our ultimate aims are

somewhat divergent. likewise, i think it has to deal with how we treat russia. can we marginalize russia's influence. is there a way we can try to work together? if they truly are tired of assad, maybe there is a way. charlie: what about this? we just found out that mullah omar has been dead for two years. most people believe that now. they were skeptical at the beginning. we now know that the head of another group who is living in north waziristan has been dead for a year. what does this say about american intelligence? mr. jordan: i think it is pretty disturbing, actually. we have had a number of intelligence failures. we do not have many assets on the ground. we have had a very difficult time in really all of these middle east countries, understanding what is going on. i can go back to the time we

were getting ready to invade iraq, and we needed to bring in our infantry division through turkey into northern iraq. turkey's parliament had a vote and by about three votes turned us down. we did not see that coming. for years, we have had intelligence failures, and in many ways, i think it masks successes we have, but it may be a reflection of how imperfect a science it is and how difficult it is to have the resources you have to have. charlie: if you look at saudi arabia today, back to saudi arabia, if we look at the king -- what is he, 87 or something like that? mr. jordan: he is somewhere between 80 and 87. charlie: and he has health issues, as well. he appointed a new crown prince who is his son, and so is the defense minister. is this good because we will see

new leadership there at some point soon? mr. jordan: i think it is good that they are driving down to a younger generation of future leaders. one i know very well. i think he absolutely deserves to be crown prince and i think will be a successful king some day. i do not know the sunon that was probably 19 when i was ambassador. he is reputed to be very decisive, very strong on organization, and maybe he can bring some of these skills, but i think there is some consternation that you have got to keep an eye on the potential nepotism that can go on and royal family. my guess is this was not a unanimous selection of this crown prince, and if the war in yemen does not go well, he may be blamed for it, so i think we have to stay tuned on how he performs. charlie: the book is called "desert diplomat." thank you. mr. jordan: thank you. charlie: thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪

♪ rishaad: it is thursday, the sixth of august and this is "trending business." ♪ rishaad: we're watching the yield on the u.s. two-year approaching a four year high increasingly convinced that the fed will move next month. it is part of the missing plane, the wing that was found in france. and a golden jubilee celebrating 50 years of

independence in singapore. let us know what you think about the top stories with @rishaadtv and #trendingbusiness. we get into the session in hong kong over in shanghai. i think we have a volume of light. david: that has really been the case. think we're 60% down, you really can't blame investors not understand the dynamics of the market. market. that being said, one correctly predicted that he could back in april. is down to 3100 in two months. that -- just in time for the national holiday. regional benchmark not moving a