♪ mark: on the show tonight, convention plots and speaking slots, 19 days ago until republicans convene in cleveland. first, the world still reacting to the attack in turkey yesterday. the total number of people who have been killed is now 41 according to authorities. more than 200 injured, by three suicide bombers, who turkish officials say have ties to islamic state. a hillary clinton and donald trump have each weighed in in the past day. let's review what they have said. will need like just before 3:00

eastern time. trump reacted a little bit later, he tweeted, "yet another terrorist attack. this time in turkey. will the world ever realize what is going on? so sad." then later, he said we must do everything in our power to keep this terrible terrorism outside the united states. then nearly three hours after the attack, clinton responded, driving a slightly different message saying, "all americans stand united with the people of turkey against this campaign of hatred and violence." then, trump campaign sent an e-mail to the media that read in part, the terrorist threat has never been greater. half an hour later, trump himself spoke at a rally in saint clairsville, ohio, driving home the message talking tough on terror. trump: we cannot do waterboarding, but they can do chopping off heads. they can do whatever they want. you have to fight fire with

fire. mark: late this afternoon, on twitter, trump added to what he was saying, "isis exploded on hillary clinton's watch. she has done nothing about it and never will. not capable." so john a bit of a case study , for us to look at how these two potential presidents have reacted to an international crisis. who seems to be handling it better, clinton or trump? john: the only thing we can say at this point is that trump is handling it more aggressively and energetically. he has been much louder on the topic than hillary clinton has been. i am not sure, he clearly feels confident this is a winning issue for him. it's not 100% clear to me saying we have to become like the terrorists in order to beat them is necessarily either true, or a winning argument politically in the long run. mark: george w. bush was very aggressive rhetorically as the commander-in-chief as an incumbent, and basically helped himself in the election against

john kerry by talking tough. the question to me is, can a non-incumbent with no governmental experience or military experience get away with talking tough, or can hillary clinton top that with a message of stability? i do think trump is appeali to people who don't like the way things are going in the war on terror. while president obama has been aggressive in some ways, there's no doubt his approval on dealing with the topic has abs and flowed. if we go into a situation in the fall where there are more attacks, trump's aggressiveness may, with the kind of voters he needs to build a coalition, may carry the day. john: it is possible, there is no doubt there's a clear contrast between the two of them. trump, on a lot of issues, is playing the fear card. you all should be afraid, things are spiraling down the drain, we must take draconian action.

clinton is more about uniting, and about not the status quo, but toughness based on resolute nests -- resoluteness. mark: here's what is good for voters. getting a chance to see how these people behave. this is how they would behave in the white house. it is actually a good real-time test for people to see the style of leadership. which do they want? john: right. this afternoon at the north american leaders summit in ottawa, canada, president obama held a three-way conference with the prime minister of canada and the president of mexico, speaking about immigration, trade and fighting terrorism. president obama: our prayers are with the people of turkey and istanbul, and all those affected by this terrible crime. we have offered all assistance that we have available to our ally and we stand prepared to assist them during this difficult time. we are still learning all the facts.

but we know this is part of our broader shared fight against terrorist networks, and we will continue to work closely with turkey to root them out. john: the past few days have not been great for president obama on the political front. most people barely noticed or commented on the failure of his efforts to influence the brexit outcome in the united kingdom. he was obviously in favor of remain. and he went to england to say so and then, the attack in turkey, , shining another light on his struggle to rally a global coalition against the islamic state. mark what are the events of , these past days suggesting about the relative lame-duck-ness of president obama's lame-duck status? mark: i was surprised in the wake of the brexit, that people did not see it as a bigger loss to the president, a lot of capital down. i think it's a cautionary tale.

the president has been counted out before and come back. he is still the president. but i thought this was a real sign on both of these issues, of certainly waning influence. his approval rating in the most recent data on handling terror, 42%. handling isis, 38%. it is clear that the world is not necessarily looking to him for leadership the way they once did, and it is a caution for him, hillary clinton and the white house staff. like i said, he has been counted and come back, particularly on the international stage. john: foreign policy is the weak spot for president obama, but if you compare him as a lame-duck to the following former presidents, george w. bush at the end of his second term, bill clinton at the end of his second term, president obama is a titan compared to those guys in terms of both his approval rating, and in terms of his ability to have a role in the presidential campaign. domestically, the president is

strong. but on the world stage, no doubt he's not playing a strong hand. that has been the case in his administration for a while. mark: we may see a flip, the president may turn to politics and domestic issues at the end of his role. when we come back, what do ted cruz and john kasich have up their sleeves? ahead of the cleveland convention we read the tea , leaves, after these words from our sponsors. ♪ ♪

mark: yesterday, we showed you part of donald trump's protectionist trade speech in western pennsylvania. turns out, the chamber of

commerce, traditionally one of the most reliable of public allies, had a problem with some of the things he was proposing. a put out a statement defending american trade policies, responding directly to trump on twitter, and looting at that -- including a quote that said, under trumps plans, we would see higher prices, fewer jobs, and a weaker economy. this morning, trump fired back. "why would the u.s. chamber be upset by the fact that i want to negotiate better and stronger trade deals, or that i want penalties for cheaters?" in another tweet, "the u.s. chamber must fight harder for the american worker. china and many others are taking advantage of the u.s. with our terrible trade pacts." later at a rally, he showed some knowledge about a complex policy issue. donald trump: by the way, i know every form of trade.

fair trade good trade, bad , trade, free-trade. the u.s. commerce is controlled by special interest groups. they are upset by my statement on trade. i said, let me ask you a question. why? why would you be upset? i am all for free trade. the problem for free trade is that you need smart people making deals. we don't have good deals. free-trade is killing us. john: so mark, we are a little more than a month away from the baseball trade deadline, but before we get there, how big a political price do you think trump may pay for abandoning a key element of republican orthodoxy, and in the process annoying a large part of the business establishment? mark: there will be some a lead that stand up to hillary clinton, and my hats off to chamber for standing on principle for what they believe in. but bill clinton ran against his party's trade position in 1992, and was able to expand the

democratic electorate enough to win. i think republicans who don't agree with trump on trade are going to have to get used to it. it's a big part of his campaign. if there is a path to not only winning the electoral votes but expanding the republican electorate, it seems it is through working-class voters who are as skeptical as trump is a is on current trade practices. while it will cause friction, i don't think it will depend on how hillary clinton handles this. john: the truth is, in terms of globalization, which is what trump is railing against, and as much as he is railing against any specific trade deals he's , trying to turn back the clock -- an in a desirable course. it's not clear to me that trump is going to win from this politically, but the question is whether hillary clinton can capitalize on it. mark: the chamber is focused on down rates, but if trump looks like he can win this thing at the end, i think you will see some groups that are skeptical. maybe not the chamber, but

business groups like that, business groups get on board with trump if they think he can win at the end. a little more than two weeks out from the republican convention in cleveland. naturally, a lot of attention has turned to who will be attending and who will be speaking from the stage. apparently, still the case of the home state governor john kasich, isn't sure about either of his options. his a spokesman told cnn today he may not set foot in the convention at all. the chief strategist of his presidential campaign sent out a very unusual e-mail today about a new series of swing state polls from something called ballot pedia. it showed john kasich doing better in a hypothetical matchup against hillary clinton then trump does. we are told by a source close to said he will be in cleveland doing plenty of events , to help candidates, but at this point does not have any plans to step inside the hall. that could change.

meanwhile, senator ted cruz another vanquished opponent of , trump, it is even harder to pin down what he plans. he told the new york times, there's no expectation he will get a speaking slot, although under the republican rules he did qualify to get his name put in nomination. he may play a significant role on key committees and platforms a week before the convention begins. we are told by sources close to ted cruz that he is planning to be in cleveland not for the entire convention, not clear which day he will go. he wants to do a lot, hang out with and thank and meet with his own supporters. many of whom are delegates of the convention, leaving the option open for perhaps an extended stay. given all that, what do you think ted cruz and john kasich are currently thinking about in cleveland? john: i think john kasich is trying to avoid getting any donald trump all over his suit. i think ted cruz is trying to

keep his options open, in case the dump trump thing does catch on, he is obviously that likely next nominee, with the second most delegates and the greatest standing to knock trump off. if that movement emerges among the delegates, that seems to be the game of those two are playing. mark: neither of them want to hug donald trump at this point. most of their team feels the same way pretty strongly. they also both at this point see themselves as potential 2020 if trump for loses. there's not talk in the air of disrupting the convention or overturning the voters, a lot of what goes on his positioning for four years down. 15 people who ran against trump, the two who spent the most time and thinking about what 2020 might look like against hillary clinton are ted cruz and john kasich. john: for sure. those numbers are very strong for kasich, and the indications

are that kasich intends to do a lot of campaigning for down ballot republicans for what he considers a mainstream conservative perspective. if kasich goes out without any of what he sees as the taint of trump on him, and campaigns successfully for those down ballot candidates, it will give him in his mind, a boost in terms of 2020 for sure. mark: it is a big sweepstakes that has not gotten attention. who are the stars? is it george bush, raising money for him? who is out on the trail as a big surrogate? kasich and ted cruz are looking to do that. coming up, we'll talk more about the presidential race, and also the aftermath of the horrible terrorist attack in turkey. we will come right back. ♪ ♪

>> trump clearly needs to change, in my opinion, to win the general election. i have said to him publicly and privately, you are a great entertainer. you are good for a crowd. you have a lot of twitter followers. that worked fine for you in the primaries. now that you are in the general, people are looking for a level of seriousness that is typically conveyed by having a prepared text, and teleprompter, and staying on message. my hope is he is beginning to and become what i would call him more serious and credible candidate for the highest office in the land. mark: that was republican senator mitch mcconnell, speaking to new york one about the gop leader of the senate his , party's presumptive nominee. joining us to talk about the state of the race, former bush

communications director, and also the msnbc political analyst. she wrote an op-ed about donald trump. it reads in part, party leaders have watched the last eight weeks the way you watch a chase scene in a dream mitch mcconnell seems to be like exhibit a, not listening to the wallace doctrine, encouraging the guy to change. nicolle: it's intractable. everyone is waiting for something that is not going to happen. donald trump is waiting for respect he feels he is entitled what is undeniably a massive political accomplishment. after losing in wisconsin, he went on to win every primary after that by massive margins. he thinks he can transform the

republican party. leaders are not impressed. they find cause to rebuke him about every seven days. i wrote the piece before i saw that today john mccain rebuked him for his position on waterboarding. he made it exactly seven days. mark: let me push back on your thesis. it seems paul ryan, for instance, when he has been a critic, trump has changed his ways. not every time, but some of the critiques and private advice actually, does at least on the margins, makes him more measure on what they want. nicolle: i think when he stumbles, like after wisconsin, after the last month which has been criticized as a wasted period of time, where he could have been beefing up his campaign. he had a racism scandal, called a judge a mexican, even though he was american. he got himself tangled up in all

kinds of trouble from his unscripted moments, mostly on morning talk shows. i don't think they are mutually exclusive. growing a little bit as a candidate is normal when you go from a reality tv star to the nominee of a party. but this idea everyone is waiting for him to be normal is a fantasy. john: i want to ask you about what we saw from donald trump in the last 24 hours. sense of the istanbul attack. he says we have to basically fight the way the terrorists fight, we have to be super violent and not be so constrained by the laws we have on the books. is that helping him or hurting him? nicolle: helping him clear a different threshold, as you know. i saw your comments as an obvious problem in his point of view, that we are not them, and that is the very point. we cannot engage in their tactics. but his numbers come on the

question of terrorism, are about the only ones that held up during what the most abysmal month for any candidate for the presidency that i can remember. the only place where he still had an advantage over hillary clinton was on this question of who do you trust to protect us from terrorists, or who do you trust on the question of terrorism. he is on solid political ground, but the question when it is asked about who is most qualified to be the commander in chief, who is the leader, she has the advantage. in some ways, he has the public behind him when he talks tough on terrorism. people view a terrorist who would kill innocent people in an airport, children and families going on vacation, they view them as animals. most people, even while the debate is in congress, john mccain came out firmly against

enhanced interrogation methods, but many members of the public remained supportive of doing whatever we need to do to defeat them. donald trump is on solid political ground, but not the ground you stand on if you are trying to pass as a credible commander-in-chief test. that is why you are seeing some national security leaders coming out to endorse hillary clinton. john: you laid out the conundrum pretty well, there is some political advantage in terms of how he's addressing the issues, but also the more fundamental test. if you were advising trump, if he called you and said, how should i talk about this, how much should i moderate? what would your advice be in terms of balancing the objectives? nicolle: in this great piece, he said the next president that wants to waterboard will have to bring his own pocket. i would advise donald trump to get on the phone with him.

and find out what experts think. and that is a very point of the piece today why isn't he on the , phone with policy experts? if terrorism is an opportunity for donald trump to fix his political problem, that he needs to close the gender gap, get more married women to trust him on national security more than they trust hillary clinton, why isn't he spending the same amount of time he spends on twitter and on tv talking to really smart policy people like mike hayden? mark: what do you think of ted cruz' posture towards trump at this point? in terms of whether it is smart for him, or any downside? nicolle: the largest growing group of voters is republicans in the senate. their group is undecided. mike lee said yesterday, he's not sure he will endorse. ted cruz has not endorsed. kasich hasn't endorsed. i think the question -- when jeb bush said he wasn't going to vote in the presidential contest, he got a lot of flack.

but it is now a position. mark: did ted cruz pay any price? nicolle: i don't think anyone assumes he will vote for hillary clinton. but if you can't pull the lever for donald trump, that is a powerful statement. whether or not he will pay a price with a huge swath of republican voters, i think trump has 80% approval among republicans. republican voters want to see republican leaders get behind trump. it is very possible that he pays a price for not doing that. mark: for a while, there was a never trump movement, now there is significantly less. nicolle: it never had any viability. mark: is there now going to come more pressure on republicans to get in line? nicolle: i think they will have to stake out a position. there are two doors. you can vote for hillary clinton, or donald trump. the idea that they will sit it out -- i am an undecided voter.

i laid out my quagmire in my therapy process. i'm waiting for him to get better. i find it inexplicable that he can't read the looming tower and have anything more intelligent to say about the nature of the enemy we face. and how to fight them. sending looming tower to trump tower. nicole is going to stay with us. we will come back and talk about the terrorist attacks in turkey, with the former director of the cia after this. ♪ ♪

mark: welcome back. the world is still wrestling with yesterday's suicide attacks in turkey, killing dozens of

travelers at istanbul's main airport. we are joined by the former director of the central intelligence agency. mr. woolsey, what could the u.s. government be doing that would be more aggressive than what president obama is doing to fight isis and other terrorists? mr. woolsey: as of now, we are playing a game, as if we were the hockey goalie. any shot on net in the whole season gets through our catching it, we lose everything. we have to do a better job of getting inside the heads of our enemies. one thing is to call them for what they are, jihadi, islamist terrorists, and not to mince words the way the president does , all the time. you can't work effectively on something you can't even talk about. the other is, i think to take notice of the fact that we are going to have to make serious compromises. we all want our privacy.

we also all want security. in a normal, average pleasant day in the united states and other parts of the world security and privacy don't , really clash that much. but when you get attacked, particularly by an institution as ruthless as isis, they do begin to clash. what we have to do is essentially develop a public-private partnership, said -- so that the people in the government and nsa especially, those that are real experts on data and what one can do with datand people from the industry that are very good at pulling together information on people from publicly available, non-owned data, and helping figure out from that data, where an individual group will be going the next day, whether they

have bought some new kind of material or weapons. one has to be able to untangle what they are doing. some people say that might affect my privacy. it conceivably could but we have to make choices. i think we are going to have to compromise a bit on both privacy and security. nicolle: you have been in contact with the trump campaign, to offer any of these insights or knowledge to him? mr. woolsey: no, i am an old joe lieberman democrat, and at this point, no campaign has gotten in touch with me. nicolle: do you think there's anything disqualifying about the kinds of things donald trump has said about the nature of the enemy, or the things we should do to protect ourselves? has he staked out any ground on counterterrorism that disqualifies him from the presidency?

mr. woolsey: there are things that i agree with and disagree with that he says, but i don't think anything is disqualifying. one can say all sorts of things, it's a free country. i think that trying to keep muslims out as muslims was a bad decision. nicolle: he walked it back, and fairness. now he describes it as a ban against people from certain terror regions. mr. woolsey: that could be quite legal, to ban people from syria, say, for a time. but i think you run into the first amendment if you want to ban muslims. but i think his ideas on trade are much too restrictive. there can be some compromises, but generally we ought to be free traders in the interest of prosperity. i disagree with him on that. but i'm not going to say any of these things disqualify him from running for president, i just disagree.

mark: if the turkish government came to you and said we will do whatever you say to fight terrorism, what would you ask them to do? mr. woolsey: work out motives between the fighting forces in the middle east, each of whom has been working with us at one time or another, the kurds and the turks, could cooperate. we would have to be overseeing it all, and anger and hatred there is long-standing. but these are both extraordinarily able groups of fighting men and women. if we could do something to pull them together with us, have separate flanks so they don't have to talk to another. but i think the key to victory over isis in syria and iraq, and

over the long run to any use of force that isis may contemplate probably lies in getting all of the sunnis, as many as possible together, and the kurds and shia. i am sorry, the kurds and turks. nicolle: is there a case to be made by conservatives that when the president refused to enforce the red line he drew in syria based on assad using chemical weapons on his own people, is there a fair argument that when that was put into motion, there was a weakening of american credibility and emboldening of the enemy and russia and others? is there a thoughtful conservative policy case to be made that some of the problems are rooted in that action? mr. woolsey: i think there is a conservative case, medium case, and liberal case. i think it was one of the two

worst decisions of a foreign policy of the obama administration. it made us look weak, it enhanced the stature of the russians in the middle east. it made america's word look like it wasn't worth anything. it was a very bad decision, whatever your politics. mark: what was the other bad decision? mr. woolsey: the other was supporting and endorsing the so-called nuclear deal with iran, which is completely unenforceable and very easy to vert by goingub around. we are sending millions of dollars to one of the world terrorists states. that is about as stupid as foreign policy decisions get. mark: mr. ambassador, thank you for joining us. coming up, more about donald trump's speech in maine today, right after this. ♪ ♪

donald trump: just remember this. they signed a pledge saying they will abide, saying they will back the candidate of the party. and now they sit back, and the press doesn't go after them on that. they broke their word. in my opinion, they should never be allowed to run for public office again, because what they did is disgraceful. john: that was donald trump at his rally in maine, moments ago talking about some of his former republican rivals who have not yet endorsed him. our next guest also has not yet endorsed donald trump.

we have a republican strategist from philadelphia, and an advisor from the anti-trump pac, and former communications advisor for jeb bush. i'm going to ask you both about dump trump. we are headed to cleveland pretty soon what are the odds he , will be dumped? >> i think the odds are pretty low, to be honest. it is a realistic chance and a real opportunity to do so. the reality is that the delegates are unbound, legally. i think there will be a legitimate objection to him at the convention, and there should be, because donald trump is an exceptional candidate. he is an extreme candidate outside of the mainstream of the , republican party.

there is a huge minority segment in the party that is not in alignment on the issue. he cannot beat hillary clinton in november. we are going to have some fireworks in cleveland. john: i want to ask you, if that is the case, why have you failed to convince people to dump this guy? >> we had a very fragmented field. trump had 46%, 47% of the vote. he never got the majority of the party. trump was successful in playing with, or taking advantage of some of the fractures within the republican party base. i think we have seen that, but that does not mean there should be an objection to a candidate who is exceptionally bad on a number of issues. john: kim, you say he will not be dumped. why? >> if you look at the rnc at this point, they are already 100% on board. i think there is not as salacious an alternative.

if this election taught us anything, it is that you have to be pretty entertaining and pretty out there to wake people up from the doldrums they have had of the typical political rhetoric for so long. i loved john kasich, he was my guy. i don't see how he takes the stage and steals it. he's not that kind of person. mark: if trump asked for your best piece of advice, what would it be? >> i would say, do what you are doing, but make sure you are walking back the stuff that is really out there. i think he has been pretty brilliant in this scattershot approach where he blows the doors off with something that makes everyone jolt, and then weeks later, since he does so many one after another, the jolt is forgotten, and he can walk it back. kind of like the muslim bands.

-- bans. he has this electrical way of going after voters and getting them to pay attention, and it is not dumb. i think he's doing a great job of it. i don't love the guy, i don't necessarily know what i'm going to do, but i give him kudos for understanding how to talk to people this year. mark: if trump comes out of cleveland as the nominee, tell me the best case you see for the party for the fall in terms of down ballot races? >> i think the reality is he will get worse, not better. there is wishful thinking in washington. a lot of people in the establishment think he is going to start behaving better. the reality is, he will get crushed by hillary clinton. donald trump is a toddler. when toddlers don't get what they want, they act out. they don't behave better. we will see when hillary clinton is beating him by nine points around labor day, he will start acting out. i think you will see a lot of our senate and house candidates have to separate themselves from him, and hopefully with money and resources from anti-trump conservatives, we can save the

house, and at least keep it closed in the senate. a lot of senators are running good campaigns, but they will get drug down by the atrocity at the top of the ticket. john: how bad do you think the atrocity could get for donald trump? >> i think he certainly will be worse than mccain in 2008. he will lose arizona. i think georgia will go into play. i think in a national ballot, which will be the real problem in states like texas where there will be congressional districts that come into play, he will probably still win a lot of the red states, but his percentages will be lower than what we have seen from romney and mccain. john: do you think donald trump can actually win, and what do you think -- do you think it is a slim possibility or he is basically a coin flip with hillary clinton? >> each of them are dramatically flawed. let's not underestimate their

flaws. but i would say that, politics is head and heart. right now, we are gut. that is a better way to describe it. scared,w, people are people are worried, people have been ignited and their fears have been stoked. even though there's a lot of smart people that i know that nod their head when donald trump says we have to fight back. they are smart, but they are answering viscerally, because they are scared. terror attacks, jobs being lost. these are real people in our everyday lives. i think trump has tapped into that, and they may be willing to suspend reality just to see what happens. because they know exactly what they will get with hillary clinton. mark: your old friend, john weaver, close to john kasich, said at the polls about how kasich and ryan are doing better

against clinton than trump. what do you think they are up to? >> weaver is a noted troublemaker, so i would guess he's making a little bit of trouble. i think that there is going to be some pushback in cleveland. there's good reason for there to be. the worse the polls look, the worse trump's behavior gets, the more delegates realize their options, and they do have the options to get rid of donald trump, i think you could see a potential challenge from someone else to donald trump on the floor. it is john kasich home state, he has existing delegates as ted cruz and john -- marco rubio. i think there's an outside chance, given how bad the polls are, and trump's behavior, and his campaign disorganization of late, and the increasing organization of anti-trump delegates, that's probably what

john weaver was looking at when he sent that e-mail. mark: if donald trump is choosing between chris christie, newt gingrich, and senator corker, governor mary fallin, which of them would be the smartest pick? >> doesn't matter. it truly doesn't matter. according to the polls, it does not help him in fundraisers. beyond that, he is the ticket. unless there's somebody we haven't thought of, picking another political known quantity does not do anything for him. people realize no matter who he picks, even if it is a moderately even-tempered political old hand, it will not affect the way donald trump acts. if he picks someone completely exciting that we never thought of, i would have to see who it was, but still, he would be the late and loud head of the ticket

to be outshined by anyone. john: thank you for coming on. we will get an update on turkey, how the world is responding to the terrible terrorist attack. if you are watching us here in washington dc, you can listen to us on the radio. we will be right back. ♪ ♪

mark: i'm here in the studio with an nbc news correspondent. lots of terrorist attacks are always horrible. what is different in terms of the symbolism or the effect of this?

>> it really targets the commercial and kind of symbolic epicenter of turkey. most of the attacks we have seen in the past, certainly there have been in other parts of turkey, but this is towards the establishment. in istanbul, the commercial center of turkey, and also that specific airport is the third largest in the world. it is a hub for the entire region. it connects the world. they are targeting it, sending a message not just a turkey, but to the outer world. mark: turkey has dealt with a lot of domestic terrorism. is this going to change turkey's attitude towards fighting back? >> if they determine that it is isis, yes. turkey is already involved in the fight in, perhaps they can do more alone. there is a reluctance to do this without direct u.s. military involvement. if they go to war in syria,

meaning they have to go up against assad, they want to know that the u.s. has their back. i'm not sure any other countries are ready to do it in the event the u.s. will not back those countries 100%. if this turns out to be kurdish separatists, it would add a very dangerous dynamic. mark: given the lame-duck president, the distraction of the brexit, and all the other problems is it conceivable there will be a change in having the war on terror without the u.s.? >> we have heard countries like egypt and saudi arabia saying they want rapid deployment. i don't think a lot of people are putting a lot of weight into that. perhaps maybe something in yemen, maybe the borders of libya, but nothing serious.

i don't see any seismic shift in the security structure of the region right now. nobody is willing to make that change. very unlikely to happen unless the u.s. says we are going to do , this, let's get everyone on board. mark: if there is an actor in the region who would lead that, is there anyone who would say, we can't wait for a new american president? >> if there is a country that will try to lead, perhaps the only country that could do that is turkey, because of the fact that it is a member of nato and on the european doorstep. it can literally bring the europeans dragging to this field of operation. saudi arabia and egypt, not likely. egypt is strained at home with the problems in the sinai peninsula and the rise of isis there. a lot of economic problems at home. it will not be able to protect its power. saudi arabia maybe has resources, but it is dragged down in a brutal war in yemen that shows no end in sight. that military campaign has not

gone very well for the saudi regime. i'm not sure they would be capable of opening a second front beyond their borders. mark: what about other countries? are there any of them so unhappy with the status quo that they have tried to lobby for more? >> we have seen in countries like france, there's an immediate robust military campaign, but with time, it dies down. or at least the pace of intensity slows down. i'm not sure any european country has the capability to do it. the united kingdom perhaps, but given the brexit, their hands are full of everything domestically. they will be preoccupied with that for months. i'm not sure they will be willing, given the economic uncertainty, that they will try to take on a military campaign to reshape the conflict in syria without a strong international presence. any effort they try to do will be met with some kind of diplomatic push back from iran and hezbollah. as well as russia.

mark: thank you so much. thank you for being here. we will be right back. ♪

john: right now, go to bloombergpolitics.com, to find a piece about the state department e-mail use. coming up, emily chang speaks to -- about the brexit. until tomorrow, we say to you sayonara. ♪

♪ rishaad: it is thursday the 30th of june. this is "trending business". i am rishaad salamat. ♪ rishaad: going to take you to tokyo, sydney, and beijing. blow to the revival, the yen heading for its best month since 1998. a tumultuous first half after a crazy january. we are back to where we started. brexit is