♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we begin with the chinese-american summit in florida. chinese president xi jinping arrived today for a meeting with president trump. it is the first bilateral meeting between the two leaders and an important step in improving relations. trump is expected to press his chinese counterpart on trade deficit and north korea. president xi jinping is seeking assurances that washington will adhere to the one china policy. joining me now is tom donlon. he served as national security advisor in the obama

administration and has met the president of china a number of times. to have him back on this program. welcome. you made china a particular area of interest for yourself. what do you think the chinese are expecting and what do they hope to accomplish? tom: it is the most important diplomatic meeting that president trump has had so far in his presidency. on the chinese side, their approach would be to have a successful meeting. and indeed moving forward towards the fall when the chinese leadership change takes place. in october, november, you will have changes that set the next five years of president xi

jinping's tenure. so to be direct, charlie, i think he will want to have a successful meeting. they will want to operate effectively on the international stage. he will try to get this on the path so that he does not have conflict or crisis until the end of the year. charlie: he is looking ahead to october? congressery important october andlace november. tom: that is exactly right. he will select the leadership for the next five years. he will certainly want to avoid any sharp trade conflict between now and then, keeping the chinese economy on track to meet its growth and other goals. the one thing that could take china off track is conflict with united states and i think he will try to put into place a process that will avoid

any conflict, at least in the short and medium term. charlie: what do think the chinese think of president trump? tom: one thing that will happen is they are coming here to take his measure. as i said, the summit is taking place early in the trump administration. it is taking place before the trump administration has outlined in any public or definitive way their policy towards asia and china. it is one of the interesting things about the administration we can talk about. there is not a strategy or policy perspective laid out. number three, the trump administration is developing those approaches, particularly trade and north korea. charlie: the trump administration has not filled out crucial positions at the state department and other places. tom: you don't have in place, except for a couple of people

with experience on the team right now. you have an administration that is slow in filling out its personnel, so you are coming out with a precise set of goals. what do you do in that setting? they will look to establish a personal rapport. the two presidents will take the time to take the measure of each other and you lay out your agenda. it would be most useful, but i don't know we are ready, to lay out a strategic approach to asia and china. i think you are more likely to see them taking the measure of each other and then a process for how they will address the particular issues.

charlie: the president has talking about trade for a long time. secondly and more difficult every day is north korea. tom: no doubt. with respect to trade, coming out of the campaign, president trump will put a high priority on trade issues. and you know, it's interesting --coming into his administration, he was hard on a number of issues. he took into question the one china policy. secretary tillerson made comments about blocking the south sea islands. it has been a more accommodating stance at this point and backing off some of those harsher positions, but trade is still front and center. there are real issues on trade between the u.s. and china. there is a large trade deficit, but the focus should be on access for investment and the treatment of u.s. companies, but you made the point on the security side.

the most important security challenge in asia is north korea. that has to be front and center for president xi and president trump. we need an intensified and focused approach. secretary tillerson said that the approaches of the last couple of administrations have failed to achieve our goals. that is true, almost across every dimension. in terms of the north korean nuclear program, all the indicators are negative with respect to the development of weapons and the means to deliver them. that has to be a high priority. i don't know you will come out of this session with an agreement. you are exactly right. this has to be front and center.

this is a national security crisis coming at us like a freight train. charlie: president obama told president-elect trump that it is the most pressing and difficult challenge as he assumes the presidency. start with china, why have they been in the past unwilling to take the kinds of moves that the united states and other asian neighbors wanted them to do? tom: a number of things. number one is the historic relationship between china and north korea.

that relationship has been frayed of late. it is probably in the worst shape it has been in many decades. president xi has not received kim jong-un, and there have been a lot of tensions developing between the two countries. the relationship is not in good shape. number two is a deep chinese concern about stability. not undertaking a set of steps which might result in some sort of precipitous collapse or a destabilizing of the situation. third, they still regard north korea as a buffer. as an allied buffer. i think that the challenge is coming into focus, which is the united states will have to take a number of steps to address the north korea nuclear challenge. the challenge is becoming more complex for this reason. if in fact as evidenced by reports of nuclear tests, if you have a country moving towards a larger number of nuclear weapons, it presents a more complicated problem. number one, it is a threat to the region and the u.s. homeland. number two, it becomes a much more difficult set of targets the more weapons they have. number three, they become a proliferation threat.

as a matter of analysis, if a country gets past the number of weapons it needs to engage in deterrence, it becomes a real threat in terms of proliferation. and they have shown their willingness to proliferate in the past. charlie: do they understand the severity of the issue of north korea having nuclear weapons that they can deliver to south korea or the united states? do the chinese accept the severity of that and why it is so unacceptable to the united states?

tom: number one, they don't think they would be the target. number two, we have worked hard in dialogue with the chinese to, to a joint assessment as to what the threat is and what the north korean intentions might be. this is the dialogue. this is the conversation between the united states and china. some progress has made, but we are not there with respect to how severe and what kind of timeframe this is on. it is an urgent problem, and the chinese can't do it uni-dimensionally. just at be viewed as anymore. problem it has to be done multi-dimensionally. the united states cannot tolerate north korea moving towards having multiple weapons they can put on top of it

delivery systems that can reach the united states or other united states interests. and, given that come the united states will have to take a number of steps which will be strategically uncomfortable for china, but don't have anything to do with china. this is where the test in the relationship will be. charlie: do you think the chinese take seriously the statement that if the chinese do not help, the united states may have to go it alone? tom: it is a statement of fact. the president of the united states has an obligation to protect the united states from threats. over the course of the next period of time, if we don't get joint effort with china to address the north korean program, any president would make a similar statement. the united states will take whatever steps it has to take to protect itself.

the alternative is trying to develop an approach the chinese. there are a number of things we can do including dramatically increasing the economic pressure on north korea. we should move to an iran-style set of sanctions on north korea i oversaw the iranian sanction effort for a number of years -- to move sanctions to a level and pressure that are regime threatening. there are a number of steps we can take. we have to build out our defenses in the region in which is giving china discomfort, particularly with respect to south korea, and we should have a dialogue with china about the future of the peninsula. charlie: will human rights be at all discussed? tom: i don't think the chinese will raise it. i think it is up to the president of the united states to raise it. charlie: do expect the president of the united states will raise the issue of human rights, or is he so intent on finding some way out of north korea and trade and perhaps some other important issues that human rights does

not get to the table? tom: this has been an administration which has backed off human rights in any context. it is a mistake. i can't think of a context where the trump administration has put human rights in the mix in terms of strategic dialogue and the conversations we are having with nations around the world, so i don't have high hopes that he will raise human rights issues here. this is a vacuum. it is a leadership vacuum that is not one we should be creating, but i fear we are. our backing off on the tpp on

the first day of the trump administration, that was a gift to the chinese. the chinese are developing their own approach to trade with regional partners. our backing out of our strong support for the paris accord on climate is another area for the chinese to step into and exercise leadership and take themselves off the hook for some of the obligations they have made. we have taken a number of steps, and human rights is a good example, trade agreements are a good example, climate is a good example, where we open up a vacuum for others to step in. charlie: do you know what they want? tom: the north koreans want to get to a point where the world recognizes them as a nuclear power. i think that is where the north korean goal is. charlie: so therefore, what would it take to have them give up that goal? what combination of things, and one thing they want is

bipartisan negotiations with the united states, some kind of agreement that united states will not attack them. i assume they want some kind of economic support. is that remotely possible if the goal is to be a nuclear state? tom: the first point is to put pressure on them now prior to them getting to the goal of having the means of delivering nuclear weapons via an icbm to the united states, and that is why the engagement and pressure is now important. if you got into negotiations with the north koreans, i certainly don't think anybody in the united states would support the united states acknowledging them as a nuclear weapons state, but there is a whole range of things in the discussion about the various arrangements on the peninsula and the future of the peninsula, including taking into account north korea's security needs.

charlie: can we trust them, or is this a trust but verify circumstance? tom: no, you can't trust the north koreans. we entered into an agreed framework during the clinton administration that did freeze the nuclear weapons production facilities in north korea for a number of years. we discovered at the beginning of the bush administration that

they were cheating on the deal. it probably would have been a better approach than to keep in place the arrangements we had a freezing one part of the program, then addressing the areas where they were cheating, as opposed to walking away from the entire deal, which is what we did. and we entered into early on in the obama administration is set of understandings with the north koreans, which they welched on, which means the pressure campaign working with the chinese and others needs to be especially harsh. at the end of the day, we need to do a careful look at our other options. charlie: in meetings like this, powerfulhe two most do theyn the world, ever meet alone, or is it always necessary to have advisors and other people there? tom: in lots of relationships, the president and the leader will meet one-on-one. maybe one on one and a

translator or aide. that is unusual, in the u.s.-chinese context for a lot of reasons, including the system the chinese president represents. i negotiated the sunny land summit in 2013 between president xi and president obama. as part of that, we did put in place a time for a one-on-one conversation, and it did take place. it is unusual, but it did take place in the sunny land summit. my understanding is the trump administration is trying to have some one-on-one time. it is never truly one because there have to be translators. the principles plus the translators, i think they are trying to arrange that today in florida. they will try to have an informal meeting between the president's and spouses over dinner. it is not typical in the china-u.s. setting, but since sunny land, it has happened a couple of times and i think it will happen today. charlie: thank you for joining us.

tom donilon in washington. back in a moment. stay with us. ♪

♪ charlie: ian bremmer is here. he is the president of the eurasia group. he recently traveled to the middle east. he joins me now for a conversation about foreign policy developments of the day.

back atsed to have him this table. welcome. this particular day, where the president is reacting to syria before he goes to palm beach to talk to the other most powerful person in the world, a big day for foreign policy. ian: by far the most important day for global issues since trump has been elected president. charlie: start with china and move to syria. you just got back from the middle east. ian: china, what can you say? this is the single most important meeting that trump has had since being elected. the orientation trump has had towards china on the campaign and since he has been elected has been pretty strong and hawkish rhetoric. some of those things he has walked back.

taiwan, he walked back, although there is talk about selling arms to the taiwanese. currency he has walked back, but issues like north korea, south china sea, and trade, he has not walked back one bit, and the people around him are not hawks or doves. they are either pretty hawkish or quite hawkish. the idea that trump will have a good meeting with xi jinping, clearly he wants to project strength in terms of the united states and feels like the obama administration has been weak. charlie: he wants badly chinese

cooperation on north korea. it is a pressing, immediate problem. ian: true. he also said if he does not get it, the americans are prepared to go it alone. there has been cooperation between the united states and china. in fact, after the election, the chinese decided to support a u.s. led u.n. referendum to take away chinese purchasing of north korean coal. it ended up being over half $1 billion a year. that was a message sent to the united states and the incoming trump administration that we are prepared to play ball with you, but have to do it multilaterally within a framework. trump does not have a lot of interest in doing things with china multilaterally. he thinks the chinese need to cut these guys off. the idea that the chinese would do that themselves and say we will cut off the banks from giving these guys money, cut off the companies keeping this economy afloat, and the risk will be on us, not the united states, because the north koreans are in our backyard. i think it is hard to come to agreement with xi jinping that we will move together on this, so it is more likely that the american will talk about sanctions against those chinese companies.

charlie: what is the timeline? when will they have the capacity in terms of deliverability and size of nuclear weapons? ian: they apparently have missiles that can reach the united states now. most people involved in this that i have talked to come and this is not my area of specialization, is the north koreans if they continue at the present level of development, they would be able to do that. barring impeachment, trump will have to deal with this issue. this is his redline. charlie: what are his options? ian: number one, get the chinese to make it uncomfortable for them not to go along and get the chinese to compel the chinese in some way to take a harder line on the north korean economy. a second would be some form of

military buildup with american naval forces that would have higher levels of inspections, boarding of north korean ships trying to export out of the peninsula, and then you have direct military options to degrade and destroy north korean delivery and nuclear capabilities. combined with that are carrots. there is no reason why trump

should not also say, look, north korea, we are prepared to sit down with you, head of state to head of state, have cheeseburgers. trump said that on his campaign. he said he would split a cheeseburger with the guy. he is not willing to do that now, but that was his position. there is no reason the americans can't talk about providing significant economic support. you can imagine an environment that has the kind of inspections you have any wrong that trump would say this is a great deal. there is no reason why we have to only be talking about sticks. we have had bilateral negotiations. north koreans didn't go forward. every time we told them we are only going to talk to you as part of a broader negotiation to try to move towards inspections, instead they test nuclear weapons and continue to test ballistic missiles. one thing i want to say which is not being reported is that so far they have tested fewer weapons than they tested in the same time last year. and yet everyone is making it sound like the north koreans are on this escalation binge. that is more to do with the

weight media portrays trump and the belief there is more likelihood we could have confrontation because trump is because thee than north koreans are all of a sudden out of the box. charlie: speaking of trump, after what happened with the chemical weapons used in syria, trump clearly came out and said he changed his mind. there are reports he may be prepared to use a military strike. ian: that's right. charlie: what does that say? ian: i feel pretty confident that nobody who voted for trump voted for him with the idea that they were voting for military strikes against syria. he was the one who was saying -- and after he supported it, but specifically to obama went obama had talked about the red line and many had died from chemical strikes, he told obama strongly in multiple tweets, do not attack syria. this is not our fight. america first.

like, we want to cut back foreign aid under trump, take fewer refugees under trump, and we were not talk about human rights and all these countries, whether it is putin killing journalists or the chinese engaging in horrible practices internally and externally, no. suddenly he cares about syrian kids because he's our chemical weapons being used again? it's hard to believe that. charlie: you are saying it is hard to believe that he saw the atrocious pictures of children dying are having died from chemical weapons, that wouldn't change his mind? ian: again, we had those pictures before.

i do think that given the statements he has now made in the past 24 hours, the likelihood of some form of at least limited military strike against syria is quite high. charlie: for example, strike with the chemical weapons are located. is there some danger? ian: there is always danger of civilian casualties when you are talking about these sorts of strikes, and also dangers that americans will die in the fight as well. the biggest danger is the russian reaction. because, of course, when obama was considering the strikes when he was going to congress, the russians were not militarily engaged in syria. that is not the case today. charlie: here's my question. why should we care? ian: about? charlie: the russians. what are they going to do? ian: maybe they back down, maybe they don't. back down, we don't

going to do is my question. are they going to do anymore than what we did when they came into syria. ian: syrians have engaged in surgical strikes and they have not responded to them, so it is a fair point. i also know that trump coming into office, one of the key things trump wanted to accomplish was some form of rapprochement with russia. clearly that has gotten vastly harder given all of the smoke around some of trump's team and the relations with the russians. charlie: charges collusion. ian: if trump is concerned, let's not talk about american national interest. let's talk about trump. we've seen what he has been doing. if trump believes the russians

have real intel on him or any members of his team that matter, and he decides he's going to engage in strikes against syria after the russians have explicitly said that the syrians, the syrian government was not using chemical weapons, i would think trump would have some vulnerability there. charlie: the big it is, do they have that kind of -- ian: i have no idea. i have no idea. charlie: the so-called dossier. ian: so far, you have to think it is strange despite the fact you have people like ambassador nikki haley taking on putin and the kremlin every bit as harsh in her words as we saw from samantha power when she was ambassador -- but trump has done zero. charlie: she says she has the complete approval of the president to do that. ian: and look, she is still in her job. probablyeve that is the case. trump himself has made none of those statements and has taken every opportunity to say no. charlie: other people in the administration have been tougher on russia. ian: or then, verbally, steve bannon. there is clearly an enormous split within the trump administration on how to handle russia. charlie: madison has been tougher.

ian: tillerson has been less so. clearly, the u.s.-russian relationship in the last 24 hours has deteriorated more quickly i would argue than at any point under the obama administration. there were -- absolutely. charlie: in the past 24 hours? ian: sure. purely on the basis of the syrian issue. charlie: it is what the president has said he might do, president has said he might to and the way he has approached the syrian issue. ian: it is virtually a 180 degrees shift. you have the trump administration saying there is no way to get rid of assad. charlie: a lot of people are clapping. giving him a huge amount of applause because of this.

ian: lindsey graham, john mccain said i don't care what the russians do in reaction here it my view is that syria is more of a conundrum, more a quagmire that even iraq. but there are lots of ways to support the syrian people. if you want to support the syrian people. you can bring over more as refugees, provide humanitarian aid. you can establish a safe zone. it is not clear to me that going after the regime directly and militarily is the way to go. i do think that something tillerson said today is worth considering is taking steps to move towards a transition. i thought it was very interesting. charlie: to move towards a transition government in syria which sees bashar al-assad out. ian: i think that there was a kremlin spokesman who made a comment. charlie: i don't think this was passed off. ian: it is a lower level spokesman. it was just a few hours ago, saying russia's support for assad was not unconditional,

which i thought was interesting. that to me -- i have heard it before. charlie: i have heard it before from russia. ian: exactly. at the end of the day, russia is not the only player, perhaps the most important player, in terms of assad militarily. the iranians are doing more on the ground than the russians are. so first of all, putin does not call all the shots. ofrlie: because hezbollah? ian: some of those people have been killed in action, as you know. the question is, first of all, to what extent putin is thinking about using this as leverage against assad, but is there an opening for tillerson and trump to say this is not about the lee -- military strikes. this guy is beyond the pale. we now need a transition that does not have a solid as part of syrian governments, but actually had something else. and is there a way to work with the russians on that? especially if you're trying to coordinate with the russians on antiterrorism. it will be difficult to get that done.

but i would say, you at least have a glimmer of life from the -- of light from the kremlin statement in tillerson today. charlie: so this question. why did the assad government do this? ian: well, i will give you a question in return. how confident are we that the syrian president is the one that actually orders all strikes from his air force? do we think he has that level of control today given the did to -- the deterioration of governance within the country? roguee: so this was a general or something? ian: i have a fair amount of confidence given what the pentagon has said that chemical weapons were used by the regime against the people, that it was not as the russians claimed that

they hit a depot and it blew up, right? but thus far, i have no reason to believe anything about who actually ordered it. i just don't. that raises the question of what kind of governance is there. we are in the seventh year of war. charlie: just ended the sixth year. ian: you have had millions of refugees and over 500,000 dead, and the idea that assad has sort of complete strong putin-like top-down control over his military forces given the clear lack of morale there strikes me as an opening question. you could argue that the fact that trump said this is not a priority embolden him and now we can use our weapons, just destroy the morale of these people on the ground, but you could also just as easily argue that this was someone within the syrian air force the decided to take this step. and that assad aside had nothing to do with it. i don't have a basis to make that decision. charlie: where did you go in the middle east. ian: the emirates --

dubai.i and charlie: how do they feel about trump? ian: they cautiously like trump. they love the fact that trump is seen to be a much more stalwart enemy of iran, skeptical of the iran deal. secondly, to the extent that trump is willing to go hard against terrorism and even against radical islamic terror. if you are one of the gulf monarchs, you do not have a problem with that. the lack of focus on human rights -- obama talked a great game, but did not do much in the region. but he did, for example, limit

some weapons sales to bahrain. the trump administration is saying let's give you guys whatever you need. those things make them comfortable, but clearly they are unsettled by how much they don't know. in the emirates, they were concerned about the laptop ban, which they thought was about helping american air carriers that are getting crushed by assad like emirates airlines, then they thought it was really about security, so i think they are concerned about kids going to american universities suddenly get extreme vetting when they come into the country. as of this week, generally speaking in the middle east the the gulf states, the saudis, qatar, they feel more comfortable about trump than they did about obama. charlie: because they believe he is more anti-iran, and that he is more likely to come to their defense if necessary? ian: they think he is more focused on the traditional american allies in the region. they saw the way obama said he was going to work with morsi.

the bus.arak under they hated that. you saw what happened when you saw what happened when sisi came to the white house. ian: he was treated better. charlie: it is good to have you here. ian bremmer. back in a moment. stay with us. ♪

♪ charlie: he is a philosopher and author, filmmaker and friend. "the battle of mosul" is his new documentary. here is a look at the trailer. [begin video clip] ♪ >> [indiscernible] >> [gunfire] >> [indiscernible] >> [explosion] >> [indiscernible] >>[gunfire] language]foreign

[yelling] ♪ [gunfire, yelling] [gunfire] [foreign language, children's

voices] clip]ideo charlie: his earlier film was you are selected for the 2016 can film festival, and focused on the kurdish militia fight in syria. i'm pleased to have bernard-henri levy back at this table. welcome. so, what is it between you and the kurds? bernard-henri: a political love story. they are so brave, liberal, such an exception in this area, they are pro-west, they practice equality between women and men. you have women fighting in the same battle units as the men. they are tolerant towards the other religions. you saw the image of this christian church which has been

vandalized by isis. it is muslim girls who put the cross back. and they are very valiant. i had the chance and honor to go -- to escort them, to go with them on the front lines. i could be a testimony for the bravery, the atrocity of the war, and for the bravery with which they confront this war. charlie: in "the battle for mosul," they are fighting at the same time as iraqis are fighting. other iraqis, from the iraqi army. how did they get along together? bernard-henri: there is -- it is a coalition with also western forces. charlie: american air support. bernard-henri: air support, ground support. i met some american officers, american special forces. they are in the movie. they are on the ground. france also, it is a coalition of men and women of good will against barbarity. it is a coalition.

in this coalition, there is a share of tasks. the kurds open the gates of mosul. they liberated all the villages around, and the iraqi army is dealing with the battle inside mosul. i followed both of them. i was embedded, or i signed up, in a way, with my camera, with both the kurds and the golden division of the iraqi army. charlie: do you care more about making documentary films than writing books, those experiences like this? bernard-henri: it depends. this war, i had the chance to be first-hand witness. i had the chance to be taken really with my team on the front line. i felt a duty to show what i saw. to show what i saw. this it could not be shown in a

better way than with a documentary. you have to see these women wounded to death, this population of basel -- most old surging from the ruins with hunger. you have to see this women -- the snipers from the roofs. you have to see this ruined city, the kurds and the iraqis, they fight, and they liberate a ruined city. it is so heartbreaking. it is like berlin in 1944-1945. it repeats today. charlie: what do they fight for? bernard-henri: for themselves, for their families, for their country, but they are the kurds and the iraqi army, our boots on the ground. and they have -- all the kurds with whom i spent night and day

told me that we fight for civilization. we fight for the values of freedom. the famous question in 1943 why do we come back, why do we fight? the kurds asked the same question and say, we fight for freedom. we fight for america. we fight for france. we fight against jihadism. this is a great thing to see. muslim, because they are devoted muslims. they are true muslims. fighting against radical islam. this is a great experience and and it is a great proof that the battle is not between the west and the rest. charlie: it's within islam. bernard-henri: inside islam, within islam, and i am proud to have to have filmed and shared the experience with these liberal and democratic muslims.

charlie: how did the kurds in iraq differ from the kurds in syria? bernard-henri: in a way, they are the same. they are brothers. at the heart of every iraqi kurd beats at the same pace as the heart of a syrian kurd. but of course, as in all great peoples, there is some political differences. in iraq, the peshmerga are probably more pro-west. they are probably -- in syria, there is some remnants of marxist- leninism, so there are some political differences but they are kurds and they share this great patriotic home nation for the kurds. for the nationpe

of the kurds. charlie: how does the united states handle the issue that we support some kurds that drives the former prime minister of turkey crazy? bernard-henri: america is right to support the kurds. you are, you americans and we french, we are supporting our brothers in arms, and our brothers in spirit. charlie: they see them in some cases as terrorists who want to take part of turkey back. bernard-henri: the kurds i saw, the kurds i accompanied in the war i can tell you are not terrorists. they are, again -- charlie: you mean terrorists, a different definition than isis? bernard-henri: exactly. for the moment, there are those who fight isis, for our values for example, one example which for me is a little test. the relationship with the jews in the muslim world, this is a real test.

the relationship with the jews. in kurdistan, it is the only place in this part of the muslim world where relationship with jews and israel is pride and not shame. i remember one day i was taken by my little escort to a village. i did not understand why it was far from the front line. they knew i was interested in the front line and that i was there to film. they insisted to bring me to this village. when i arrived in this village, i understood. they wanted to show me a place of great pride for them, not sacred, but very honorable, which was the house where was born a former defense minister of israel. so you have a muslim country where the birthplace of the former minister of israel is not something which they have to

hide. charlie: do you remember which defense minister it was? bernard-henri: yes -- so i know a lot of muslim countries where these sorts of places would be hidden as a shame which has to be forbidden. there, it is something which has to be praised and shown to a visitor. it makes a big difference. maybe it does not please mr. erdogan, but for a french citizen, an american citizen, it makes a big difference. charlie: so you have the kurds and the iraqi army and the american army fighting. how long will it take to completely retake mosul? bernard-henri: i cannot say that. i made my point of honor in this film to show what i saw as i saw it and when i saw it, so what is happening now, i have no special

insight. my feeling is that it will take some more time because isis are fighting in a cowardly but desperate way. charlie: a cowardly but desperate way. bernard-henri: they are cowards, of course. they use the weapon of the koran, suicide, human shields, hostages, children on the front line. this is a shame, but they are -- there back against the wall and they will fight until the end. the battle which began now is very tiny and narrow streets where humvees -- you just saw my team in the trailer, no humvees, no tanks, no weapons. it has to be taken house by house, so it will take some time, but they will be defeated, and it will be important because mosul is important for two reasons. first of all, it is a biblical city, a biblical home of evil. from 3000 years ago.

charlie: a biblical home of -- bernard-henri: evil. and number two, it is the capital isis, of the terrorist attacks. they hate us. in the last month or years, had the brain in syria and mosul, so this battle is crucial. charlie: the next target after that is raqqa. bernard-henri: the next target is a city in iraq, where there is the big part of the leadership of isis from and after that raqqa. \afte that raqqa. >> [indiscernible]

>> we are going to enter -- >> [french] >> [gunfire] french]g [gunfire] and gunfire]

charlie: my great friend, it is great to have you here on the program. thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪

♪ carol: welcome to "bloomberg businessweek." i am carol massar. oliver: i am oliver renick. and we are coming to you from newde the magazine in york. carol: hackathon hustlers making a living from coding contests. what life is really like on the border between the united states and mexico. oliver: all that ahead on "bloomberg businessweek." ♪ carol: we are with "bloomberg businessweek" editor-in-chief megan murphy. so many stories, double-issue.