♪ >> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we begin this evening with north korea, american intelligence agencies estimate -- that northa oh korea will able to launch a reliable missile that could reach the united states within one year. it had previously been thought that pyongyang was a roughly four years from developing long-range missiles. however, in a test earlier this month, north korea demonstrated capabilities of striking alaska. it forces officials to realize they miscalculated the country's aggressive technical

advances under kim jong-un. president trump vowed to confront north korea during his recent visit to poland. joining a me now is a david sanger, national security correspondent for the "the new york times." he wrote this story "experts say north korea could have a missile reach u.s. by next year." what changed? david: a couple of things have changed. the short-term thing is what you mentioned, which is, they conducted this test. it was done in a high parabola, 1700 miles and came down. it didn't go far in distance, but anybody that knows anything about missile technology knows that flattening it out isn't hard. politically they decided not to do that, because the reaction if you drop one of these things off the coast of l.a. or something is going to be a lot greater

than if you do this high parabola test. the test was actually more useful to them, because of what they need to figure out is, can they make a warhead reenter the atmosphere and not burn up? that issue took us a lot of time in the 1950's and took the soviets a lot of time in the 1950's. we don't know exactly how close they are, but everyone in the intelligence agency had been whispering for a long time that that four year outnumber could well be wrong. you are seeing the end of the over-caution that came from mistakes in iraq and intelligence agencies. charlie: "in the iraq case we hussein'sted saddam capabilities. in the north korean case,

one official noted the speed of this program have been consistently underestimated much as it was with the soviet union 70 years ago and china more than 50 years ago." underestimate. david: we are all captivated by the last mistake we made in life. there last big mistake was, saddam hussein said he had missiles. they reached that conclusion in part because they made great advances before the first persian gulf war. in part because every previous mistake that the u.s. intelligence agencies have made from world war ii forward have been to underestimate how close a country was to getting a nuclear capability. harry truman had a memo on his desk the weekend that the soviets conducted their first nuclear test in 1949 saying don't worry, we still have time on this. we underestimated the chinese in the 1960's, the indians in the 1970's and the pakistanis in the 1980's. for long time in the intelligence agencies, the

theory was, if you don't be more aggressive and say it could happen earlier, you can get fired. after iraq it was, if you overestimate and embarrass us, you can get fired. we are getting back to the norm now. charlie: but this july 4 test showed them a lot in terms of the possibilities. david: that is right. charlie: we assume that they can make a weapon small enough to fit on a missile that they are developing. david: if they can't now, they will be able to in a few years -- it is hard to do. remember, they are not doing this to american specs. when america builds, it is to highly precise specifications. these guys do not land to be in the nuclear exchange. this missile is for one thing, to guarantee that kim jong-un stays in office.

they are not thinking operationally how they might launch missiles on the united states, they know it is the end of their regime. charlie: it is the end of everything. david: the end of everything. this entire weapons program is all about survival for kim-jong un . he looks at the landscape and what does he see? someone like qaddafi, with a nascent nuclear program, and gave it up in 2003. we said, don't worry give it up, , we will integrate you with the west. come on in. the integration was pretty poor and when his people turned against him, the united states europe, and arab states bombed ,him until someone pulled him out of a ditch and shot him. kim jong-un looks at that and says not me. ,we are going full speed with the program. the big difference between him

and his father is he is really , going full speed. charlie: you have to give the devil his due, he has shown a sense of urgency that has paid off. david: urgency, determination. when somebody write the history of this, it will be a history of a dead, broke country with no silicon valley to fall back on that figured out how to steal, beg, hire, and bribe people to grade a nuclear arsenal. charlie: is part of the psychology about this that we have to get more urgent about our options and what we are doing? because clapper and others have argued we have to act as if they have a weapon -- everything we have to do have to be based on the premise that they have the possibility to do this? david: that is right.

i just saw general clapper last week. a year away, two years away, or three years away, doesn't make a big difference for american planning. the fact of the matter is it , take so long to improve defenses, figuring out your next cyber attack on north korea's missiles. you have to start now, as if they had it now. charlie: there is also this, somebody said to me, that knows something about america's tragedy -- strategy, we have to do one of two things. sanctions are not going to work. the chinese are not going to do what we hope they are going to do. so, it is either living with north korea having the weapons potential or else we have to attack them. and the president will have to make that very hard decision, knowing that if they attack,

there will be a counterattack against south korea, which will kill at least 200,000 people. is that wrong? david: it is probably right. there are some offerings from that. you have to have a little bit of sympathy for donald trump, because every american president over the past four or five has kicked this problem down the road. every time they saw an incremental north korean advance, they looked at the two options you described and they said look, we're not going to attack these guys. so, let's put up with it and try some more incremental things. it is 10 to 14 million people depending on how you define the city's limits, one of the great economic power houses of asia and the world. more importantly, it is our close american ally. that is really not an option

unless you have an attack plan that the south koreans agree to and that seems unlikely. every american president has decided we cannot go that route, but they also don't want to give in. they end up with it -- we are going to increase sanctions, isolate them more. it almost became a joke. we go to these briefings and they try to convince you that the sanctions they're going to do this week are more super duper wonderful and effective than the ones they tried three months before. as you said, there is only one sanction here that is going to work. if the chinese turn off the oil. or if we find a way to turn the oil off on the north korean side. charlie: or a cyber weapon. david: a cyber weapon, something awful happens to the pipelines, an accident happens, a maintenance issue happens. there are a few other things you could do to squeeze them down.

president bush had good success when he found a single bank in macau that kim jong-un's father kept his fortune in. that was the money used to pay off all of the generals around him and others for their loyalty. when they stopped that bank, it caused a lot of screaming. the north koreans learned a lot from that and spread their money more. you are right. we are in this bad spot. you have to wonder right now, whether, awful as that is, when president trump looks at this issue, you know, i -- a north korean crisis has certain advantages for him. it focuses attention on something other than the russian scandal. i don't mean for a moment to suggest that he wants us to get into a war, i don't think he does. but he has a real crisis in front of him at a moment -- charlie: obama said the toughest

thing i am leaving you is north korea. david: that is right. him int thing he left the one possible offramp is the combination of fiber and electronic warfare and other steps to sabotage the system. cyberattacks,th is that what works on thursday may not work next monday. they are quite temporary. they buy you some time. they bought us a year in iran, that was a critical year to get the iranians to the table. they bought a little time in north korea, but it looks like time is up. charlie: fascinating. thank you, david. coming up, we talk about cutter and its arabar neighbors. ♪

charlie: on june 5, several middle eastern states severed relationships with qatar accused of supporting terrorism and their enemy, iran. the dispute has thrown an already unstable region into deeper turmoil. joining me now for a conversation about the crisis therecent developments is united arab emirates ambassador to the united states since 2008.

mosts been called the influential ambassador in washington. and we have acting director of the cia we are deeply grateful. let me begin with you. what is the problem with the qataris? what are they doing that it so offends you? yousef: first, is this a diplomatic or philosophical disagreement? i think our differences with qatar are more philosophical. if you ask uae, saudi, jordan what kind , of middle east they want to see 10 years from now, it will be fundamentally opposed to what qatar wants to see now. what we want to see is more secular, stable, prosperous, empowered, strong government. what we have seen qatar do for the last 10 to 15 years, support groups like the muslim brotherhood hamas, islamist , militias

in syria and libya, the exact opposite direction we think our region needs to go. our disagreement is what the future of the middle east should look like. that is something we have not been able to square with the qataris for a long time. charlie: what do they want the middle east to look like? yousef: they want more groups like the muslim brotherhood, the hamas, the taliban, i do not think it is a coincidence. you have the taliban embassy, , groups goinghood on al jazeera to justify promoting and suicide bombing. why they do that, we don't have an answer, perhaps michael can help us. but we seem to be at odds with a very core belief of what we want the region to be. is there a central demands? because there was a long list of demands including ending al jazeera, you will want to isolate them.

it hasn't worked entirely, jordan is not isolated from qatar. what are the core demands, how could this be negotiated? this is a- yousef: great question. if you look at the core demands to put into context, in 2014, they pulled their ambassadors from doha over the exact same set of issues. support for terrorist, meddling in internal affairs, and inciting provocation. abdullah 2014 the late invited leaders and had an open conversation. an honest airing of grievances with the qatari leader. at the end of the meeting there was a document signed and it was called the riyadh agreement. i brought a copy with me. it has the signature of the emir

of qatar. it was over the exact same set of issues. qatar promised to stop supporting groups and individuals giving us a hard time. unfortunately, everything that has been signed into the agreement has been violated for the last three years. the collective frustration with the four countries are at any level. they are still in line with what they signed up to in 2014. we are ready to sit down with qatar tomorrow and negotiate the 13 demands. if the qataris are willing to negotiate. so far they haven't been able to say that. we want a solution, a diplomatic solution. but the willingness to find a solution lies not in riyadh, not in abu dhabi, -- and certainly not in washington. it lies in doa -- doha. charlie: three years ago?

so not because of the visit of president trump to react and the -- trump to riyadh and the arab summit? yousef: no. this is like a pot that has been sitting on the stove a very long time, twice it has boiled. once, three years ago it was resolved. these commitments were never lived up to. today it has gotten worse. we got to a point where we said we can't live like this anymore. you can't sit around the table with us and support the groups threatening to kill us and kill our children. you cannot be inside the tent while you are supporting the groups that undermine our security. if you want to continue that foreign policy and hamas and the muslim brotherhood and militias, you are more than welcome to. they have every right to come back tomorrow and say we reject these demands and we don't want to negotiate. charlie: what happens if they do that? yousef: we are within our rights to say, we don't want a relationship with you. very hard for you to come

in force upon any country, having a relationship where they do not think it is in their best interests. you have four countries who feel qatar is supporting groups that undermine -- it is not just one or two. it has been going on a long time. charlie: what is the u.s. attitude? you have the president saying he is all in then you have the , secretary of state saying he is trying to negotiate. michael: first, i will tell you what my attitude is. i think yousef is absolutely right. this has been going on a long time. i think what happened here is that qatar, small country, small population, significant wealth from natural gas wanted to play a bigger role in the region. they wanted to have a foreign

policy that was outsized for itself. and they looked around and said, ok, where can we make a difference? and one of the areas that was to these groups but the rest of us won't talk to or interact with. opportunity to play a role with that. as they became closer and closer to these groups over time they started supporting them. charlie: financially? michael: in many ways. groups that the united states of america considers to be international terrorist organizations that we have designated as such, hamas and taliban have offices, and they -- offices in doa -- doha. also supporting them with the money and arms, including al-nusra, another designated terrorism organization of the united states and syria.

so, you know, clear support to terrorist groups. a lot of people talk about the muslim brotherhood. we do not in the united states see it as an international terrorist organization. we have looked at it hard, we do not see it that way. but it is absolutely an organization that wants to, through political means -- we think it, they would probably tell you a slightly different story -- charlie: they used political means and elected a president right? , michael: in egypt. they want to impose a way of life on the populations throughout the middle east. and qatar supports those organizations. how should the american people think about this in my perspective? they should think about it as some of the qataris are trying to do what the muslim brotherhood in places like the emirates and saudi arabia what the russians tried to do in the united states in terms of interfering in our politics. it is exactly the same.

yousef: we have become really good at fighting terrorists once they are on the battlefield here we are good at defeating isis and al qaeda. once they're on the battlefield, we can take them out. our challenge has been how do we prevent them from getting to the battlefield in the first place. how do we get them before they become terrorists? charlie: is there evidence they supported al qaeda or isis? yousef: there is evidence that they supported al qaeda in syria, which is al-nusra, the same group. they have supported islamist militias in libya. qatar have supported groups in libya and somalia. michael: they allowed one of bin laden's sons to live in doha.

yousef: about a year and half ago, a senior official called a senior uae official. we will leave the names out, but the purpose was, we need your advice. how can we convince the qataris to stop supporting them? it tells me the u.s. government is aware and unable to prevent it. it is the world's worst kept secret. qatar supports groups throughout the region. charlie: who else supports al-nusra in syria? yousef: we do not know. charlie: you don't know? with all the intelligence you have? yousef: i know i have an issue with qatar, because they have supported groups throughout the origin. it is hard to know once they go into syria. but we have seen qatari funds going into syria and libya. charlie: al-nusra has been

considered different than al qaeda, and my right? michael: it is the al qaeda affiliate in syria. charlie: it has gone through name changes. michael: yes. think of them as the al qaeda group and syria. there is a third piece of this, we talked about the terrorist organizations, the muslim brotherhood, and then there is al jazeera. in the american media, what you often see on this issue is, freedom of the press. al jazeera do its job as a journalistic organization. the american people need to think of it this way, what if a canadian broadcasting company was trying to incite individuals to conduct attacks in the united states? the united states would get upset about that and have a conversation with the canadian government about that. that is what is happening here. yousef: they are not mutually

exclusive. you can support freedom of the press and be against incitement at the same time. this is not a private channel. they have clerics on a weekly show that promote condone, and , justify suicide bombing. you had a problem with that when you had soldiers in iraq. but it still continues. charlie: there is a big american base in qatar, which is used as a launching pad for our activities in syria and elsewhere, yes? qatarismple of how the say they are friends with everybody. that is what they say. that is what the prime minister said when he was here, we are not engaged in terrorist activities. they're are suggesting that hamas is supported by other people other than , them, right? michael: but here is the point. this is the point i tried to get to at the beginning. the cost of them trying to be thatds of everybody is

everybody come of the bad guys they are friends with, want something, from that friendship. and that is support. charlie: financial support for terrorist activities. what about the base? you are connected to the base, your emails were hacked. do you want to get the american base out of qatar? yousef: i think the base has not been touched or harmed. i was in abu dhabi a few days ago. we had a meeting with an official at the u.s. defense department. he thanked us that it has not been touched. charlie: do want the base out of qatar, and do you want to see a moved to a variety of other locations? yousef: i want qatari behavior and policy to change. i think to an extent, the base gives them a certain amount of cover. and i think that is what we are concerned about.

charlie: that is hard for the united states, because the base has been so valuable? michael: now we get to washington's view on this, my perception of washington's view. in the state department they look at this as not a healthy thing for the gcc, not a healthy thing for our sunni arab allies. charlie: this conflict between -- michael: at a time when we are all trying to stand up to iran. they look at the base and they want this to go away right? , that led to the secretary of state getting on a plane and go into the region to try to resolve this. we can come back to that. i think the president's view is exactly what we have been talking about here. this is behavior that is unacceptable, this is behavior that is feeding the problem we all have and it has to stop. there was a little bit of a difference of opinion, not a little bit.

between the president and secretary of state. yousef: charlie, this is not about the base or president trump's visit. this is about our issues with qatari policy and base or no base, we would still have concerns that they support hamas, the brotherhood, etc. charlie: this is not a new issue, when you brought it up with them all along -- that should not have been unexpected, what is their response? yousef: the response, you have heard the emir say this, they don't believe the groups they support our terrorists. in an interview he said we do not believe the people in libya and syria are terrorists. not only are they not denying supporting them, they have a fundamentally different definition. charlie: we don't believe that the muslim brotherhood are terrorists, according to michael. yousef: they are supporting far worse than the muslim brotherhood. let's put the muslim brotherhood aside. can we agree on libya, somalia, the taliban, hamas? michael: there is no other way

to think about it. it is not one or two, it is a consistent pattern of behavior. it has continued to undermine countries like egypt, saudi arabia, the uae. recently in a conference where a mutual friend told you about them supporting the muslim brotherhood in their parliamentary elections. charlie: he worries about the muslim brotherhood. michael: we all do, they undermine our stability. ♪ charlie: let's talk about iran.

they came out of the riyadh conference as united opposition to iran. the president has spoken to it since then. what is the basic split and basic fear of iran? is it that they are supporting terrorism, and supporting groups that are in opposition to the views of the united arab emirates, saudi arabia, and other sunni arab states? is that essentially the conflict that iran is exporting their revolution to other places? and you want to stop them, because you want to make sure they do not dominate the region? yousef: not only does iran export the revolution it is in , their constitution. it is only country in the world, where enshrined in their constitution, is the idea of

promoting and exporting their revolution. they have done it with great success in places like iraq, syria, lebanon, and now yemen. they have even reached afghanistan. our concern is the expansionist policy of iran, the hegemonic policy of iran. i am telling you this as a diplomat that represents a country that has three of its islands operated by iran until today this is not theoretical. , 1971. we see iranian footprints everywhere in the region. if you were to map out 15 years ago where iran's influence was and you would do the same map today, that area would be much larger. they have a much stronger influence in iraq, syria, and lebanon. part of the reason we're in yemen is to prevent that in yemen. we do not want to see iran replicate hezbollah. charlie: what are we planning to do as far as you know about

iran's behavior? michael: what i understand, he knows more than i do, is we plan to challenge in specific places in the middle east on iranian this behavior. mostly behind the scenes, but we are going to take it on. this is a significant change for the united states. time,very long period of we ignored iranian misbehavior in the region, even when it was focused directly at us. the beirut embassy bombing trails back to tehran. the united states did not respond. the marine barracks bombing in lebanon goes back to tehran. the united states did not respond. the co-bar towers bombing goes back to tehran.

the united states did nothing. shia militia getting advanced ied's from iranians killing hundreds of u.s. soldiers in iraq and afghanistan, too good ministrations, the bush and obama administration did nothing. really interesting as to why the history is what it is, but i think it is changing. and i think it is a good thing that the united states along with partners are going to push back against this hegemonic behavior, conducting terrorism on their own, supporting terrorists in the region, internationally designated terrorists like hezbollah, providing support to insurgents. iranian state policy to export the revolution, policy for israel to be wiped off the face of the planet -- it is in my view, time we push back against that and increase the cost of them doing that. it won't stop until we do that. charlie: is that your

understanding of what the trump administration's policy is? yousef: yes. charlie: you believe his policies toward iran are in favor of the sunni arab states? gulff: most of the countries are relieved to there is a strategy to push back on iranian behavior. one of the biggest challenges i see throughout the region that is undermine the stability is sectarianism. in countries like iraq, lebanon, sectarianism has increased. the mainly guilty party is iran. this is one of the interesting points must people do not understand. most people see shia sunni and think it is -- it has always been there, that it is always been there. the iranians made it much worse. yemen, sunnisin

and shiites went to temple together. charlie: it became much worse in iraq. michael: absolutely. that is a trick here, needle that is hard to thread. i think president obama was on one side of the tough line to manage and president trump might be on the other. here is the trick. there is a really struggle going on inside iran between the hardliners -- i don't call them moderates, but centrists. between the supreme leader and mani andey -- sole others. charlie: the president is a centrist?

michael: absolutely. charlie: the guard and supreme leader? michael: you could see it in the debates between the candidates, you could see the tension and frustration one side with the other about the future of iran. and so, the question is, how do you push back on this maligned behavior in the region that has been going on for a long time that is making the region more unstable, but do it in a way that doesn't empower the hardliners in this internal debate, because we all want the debate to evolve over time. it will not happen tomorrow, but we want the debate to go in one direction and we want to help it. that is the top line here to walk in it will be tough to get right. charlie: are the iranians challenging us on the seas?

we had an iranian vessel coming close today and a warning shot had to be fired. the question is how is this going to accelerate and where is it accelerating towards? yousef: i think the iranians are good at testing people and they are trying to test how far the trump administration is willing to go. you have seen the naval skirmishes. it is not the first time it has happened. it has happened several times. we can collectively signal that this is not acceptable. we will push back and interdict your shipments. we are looking at joint designations. with us and other countries. charlie: where is europe on this? yousef: somewhere in the middle, i think. charlie: where is the middle? michael: somewhere between confronting and appeasing. i think, charlie, that the europeans are really important here. it is important that we bring them along. i think u.s. leadership is required to bring them along. if we can have the europeans with us, it is harder for the

hardliners to say it is all about the united states. it is important for the president to bring along the europeans. charlie: let's bring in turkey, where is turkey in this? turkey is involved in syria. turkey has had its own authoritarian regime. turkey is playing a much more influential role in the region. but i think that role has helped empower radical groups. what does turkey want in syria, i'm not sure i'm qualified to answer that. supporting islamist groups in the region -- charlie: in theory they want to overthrow assad immediately. yousef: there are a lot of people that want that. charlie: includes the saudis and israelis --

yousef: at the end of the day we want a syrian government that can deliver for its people and is not dominated by islamists and iran. it has been a struggle the past six years. charlie: finding a cease-fire agreement that would work with the russians has failed, because russians are a major player. yousef: before the russians stepped in each country went for , their own interest separately and we were not cooperating. each country do its own thing. we were not operating as a team in syria on the same objective. charlie: who's failing was that? michael: i think it is just the way things laid out. syria is a complicated issue and it is very difficult to get everybody on the same page. charlie: at the conference we attended, some people speaking out about that. where do you think syria -- you and i have talked about this --

yousef: the coalition has taken mosul. the fight is on in raqqa. charlie: we are going to win that fight. michael: there are areas where isis has control, those will be taken. the caliphate will come to an end and the coalition will have been successful, but a couple of important points. one is, that does not mean the defeat of isis. isis will return to its original roots, which is al qaeda in iraq. it will return to an insurgency. charlie: anywhere? an online base? michael: it will be in the shadows just like before in iraq. yousef: they will go underground. michael: but remember when the united states left iraq, al

qaeda and iraq still had several thousand fighters hidden in the shadows. that is where isis will go. there were still be a security issue that has to be managed and the united states will have to make a decision about whether we are there and in what numbers we are, to deal with that problem. then there is a huge political problem in iraq and syria. the military fight was a necessary condition to defeat isis. a political solution is a sufficient condition, right? the military success is going to unravel unless we get the politics right. getting the politics right is exactly what yousef said, having a government in both baghdad and damascus that represents all of its people,

and not just part of the country. charlie: then you come to the question, how do you get that government and can assad be a part of that? michael: my personal view is assad cannot be a part of it. i am disappointed that the administration seems to have backed away from the idea that assad has to go. charlie: the secretary of state has publicly said that our enemy in syria is isis, and that is what we have to do michael: if first. we don't get rid of assad, isis will come back. because? sunnis will never accept bashar al-assad as their leader and they will turn back to extremism if he is long-term, the leader of that country. yousef: in iraq, i think it is a little easier. i think in the post-isis world of mosul there will be two , concerns.

one is, isis will probably go underground. they will not disappear or even every. it will go underground into iran or europe. that is a major security concern. but the bigger political concern is, who is going to govern mosul afterwards? where is the leadership that comes from mosul? where is the governance? forwill be responsible governing, rebuilding, coming up with organic local leadership to prevent isis from coming back? charlie: i mentioned to both of you that they are talking in moscow with putin as we speak. what happened after the iraqi war is that who was governing there did not respect the sunnis or give them an opportunity to persist up a -- participate. >> one example was the awakenings movement. when locals stood up and took responsibility for their towns.

charlie: it was a decision in their interest to knock out al qaeda at that time, because al qaeda had practices that were contrary to the wishes of people. michael: the reason they were successful is he was able to convince them that they would have a role in the future of their country. at the end of the day, they didn't get that. it will be really hard to sell that idea to them again. charlie: is the prime minister of iraq prepared to do that? he says he is. michael: i think with a sufficient amount of u.s. leadership, it is possible to get there. but without u.s. leadership, it is not. u.s. leadership is critical. charlie: you come to the issue of u.s. leadership. you have talked about how happy you are that the president is prepared to push back. thatou here in the region

u.s. leadership is not there beyond , what happened at riyadh, beyond the effort against extremism against , isis. yousef: i think in the trump administration we see a level of engagement we have not seen in a while. charlie: the president says he wants to do some of the things that she doesn't want to do things other people say is necessary in syria. there has been one airstrike because of the use of sarin gas. foref: there is a role regional countries to step up. charlie: that is what everyone wants. yousef: some have stepped up. to sorte things we have out in yemen, libya, syria. charlie: take of the united arab emirates, what participation has your country had in the syrian civil war? yousef: we were there in the beginning. led by a air sortee female fighter pilot. charlie: you were involved, right? yousef: in the beginning.

we have more assets in yemen and we are trying to reach a political deal in yemen. charlie: what does that represent? yousef: very important. it represents a reconciliation between the various factions in yemen. that needs to be between them. charlie: both saudi arabia and the emirates always seem to speak together and the iranians are on a separate side. my question is, is that what we are going to see throughout the middle east, a desperate fight on the part of iran and whoever its allies are, and saudi arabia the , emirates, and other arab states, for influence? >> i think we are already seeing it. charlie: could it get hotter? could it lead to a hotter war,

which is a fear the middle east will go up in flames, because of this. unless somebody, president obama, correct me if i am wrong -- president obama was with -- in disagreement the emirates and saudis. he wanted to see the saudis and sunni states be to the iranians. he did not want to do what president trump did, just take one side. it has not happened. i'm not sure you are in favor. yousef: in a perfect world we would like to see the heat turned down on both sides. charlie: how would you do that? yousef: the challenge has been, had you do that for one side when the other side is turning up the heat everywhere else? how do you do that when iran sends more people in the syria, libya, lebanon? had we sit down at a table when they are on the attack? it has been very difficult to

sit down and try to reach some kind of conclusion or consensus while one team is directly attacking us throughout the region. we don't see moderation in syria. we don't see moderation in bahrain, yemen. the moderate side the negotiated the nuclear deal with of the u.s., we do not see them having influence over the regional styles. charlie: they have a deal with the nuclear deal the behavior , aspect is carried out by forces who report directly to the supreme leader rather than the parliament? michael: absolutely. the other thing that is going to happen, charlie, when the caliphate is taken away is there are going to be huge issues to address. yousef mentioned one, which is mosul. who was going to govern most: how will that happen? another is, the syrian fighters who we have been -- the united

states of america and our partners have been arming, training, and supporting side-by-side -- what will happen to them? will assad go after them, will the iranians go after them, will hezbollah go after them? are we going to let them fight it out without our support after what they just did for us with isis? same story with the kurdish fighters in syria who have been fighting with us against isis. what will happen to them when the fight is over? and turkey -- assad are able to combat them. the biggest is, what happens to the iranian desire to have this bridge from iran to the mediterranean, through iraq, syria? that is what they are working on, that is where they are. how will that play out?

charlie: giving them access to lebanon and hezbollah. michael: directly over land and sea. how does that play out? they have their proxies there. we are there. the people we are supporting our there. how does that play out when the fight with isis and caliphate is over? michael: what we want to avoid in the post-isis world and most of, we do not want to see iran exploiting the vacuum and taking it over and having more influence over local governments ofmore influence, instead local leaders stepping up and taking control of mosul. michael: here is my greatest concern and maybe yousef can make me feel better. i think our military strategy in the region is brilliant. i think jim mattis is doing a remarkable job. charlie: dein -- define it. michael: what we are doing militarily has

been enhanced, accelerated. i think that is first rate. what i don't see is anybody in the administration talking about a political strategy for all of the issues that, after. i do not see the secretary of state talking about it. i do not know if it is there or not and that is why i am worried. the politics are so important. charlie: do you agree? yousef: i agree. i think we have been talking a lot about this. charlie: what about this, there will be no possibility for a grand bargain unless there is regime change in iran, unless there are the moderates who are voting moderate. ishael: regime change

dangerous, it empowers the hardliners gives , them what they want. when they choose the political candidates who can run? michael: i think the key moment will come with the replacement to the supreme leader. it could be next year or 10 years from now. that will be the major inflection point. are the hardliners successful in choosing another hard-line supreme leader, or will a more moderate individual emerge? that will be absolutely critical to the future of iran the future , of its relationship in the region. charlie: and the future of the region? michael: ultimately, our sunni allies and partners are absolutely right for iran to stop its maligned behavior in the region.

charlie: is it possible what you want is regime change in qatar? >> absolutely not. i know that is floating around and i know people say there is a military component to this, i am here to assure you, there is no element of regime change or military peace of this. we want a policy change, a behavior change and we would welcome the opportunity to discuss it. charlie: does it have to include al jazeera? yousef: i don't want to litigate the list in public. the list was handed over to kuwait, because the mayor was going to play a leading role and we handed it to the united states as a courtesy. within two hours, could charlie hours, qatar licked it to the press and it is being litigated and negotiated in public. i thought that was disrespectful to the emir of kuwait. it undermined him. this is not supposed to be

negotiated in public. --ay, we're sitting to willing to sit down directly, if they want. charlie: thank you for coming. pleasure to have you. michael: always good to be here, charlie. yousef: thank you. charlie: thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪ ♪

alisa: i'm alisa parenti in washington, and you are watching "bloomberg technology." let's start with a check of your "first word news." vice president mike pence says the senate should, quote, "step up to do the right thing and repeal and replace obamacare." he spoke today in washington. republicans are said to be pushing the so-called "skinny repeal" that would undo a few affordable care act provisions. the border adjustment tax has been cut from ongoing negotiations to overhaul the u.s. tax code. a group of lawmakers said today there are too many unknowns associated with the policy. the tax would have imposed a 20% levy on domestic sales of imported goods. the nation's top milita