the region and with the iranian leaders manage to find a deal. i therefore would like us to commit to that effect in the weeks and months to come. this is the only way to bring about stability. france is not naive when it comes to iran. we have also a lot of respect for the rein in people, which through their history, its history has always shown its trends. we do not want to repeat the mistakes of the past. each time we tried to unilaterally replace sovereignty fo for the people, we brought some more terror. for our allies, we want stability. i believe the discussions we've had make it possible to open the way, to pave the way on a new

agreement, an agreement on which we will work and beyond our european partners, we would like to involve the regional areas, of course, russia and turkey. it is within this framework fighting it together, we can find a solution to the syria situation. in syria, we are together, engaged within the national coalition against the terrorists. we will continue to the end in this framework until victory. that being said, in the long run, we need to win peace and make sure syria does not fall into any germany in the region. to that effect, the approach, which is agreed, means we can work on all of the situation, the hostility in the region.

these efforts to contain iran in the region. we will continue to work to that effect within the u.n. security council to make sure that humanitarian law, the prohibition of chemical weapons, are fully complied with and we'll continue to shoulder our responsibilities to that effect. but we are to work with our partners to build a stable and political solution, an inclusive one that will include germany and once again will prevent feeding terrorism in the future. we also talked about the climate, and here also, we know where we stand. we need to work on major peace, including the global impact for the environment, but i think i can say our economy, our businesses, our researchers can continue to work in the field, and we are both attached to

that. now on trade, you mentioned it, and i hear what you said when you called upon fair and critical trade. when we look at national trade, today we have some common challenges. there are some civic capacities in some sectors that are well known, and we shall work together to make sure this doesn't destabilize our market and bring more competition. but we can say we are both attached to make sure that between allies, there is compliance with international trade law. at least france is attached to that. we have preferences. there are situations we can probably improve. but i believe that both you and i are also attached -- want to make sure that our businesses, our companies, can operate in a

long and stable framework. mr. president, i meant to mention these viewpoints when you commented as well, and allow me to say once again that the discussions we've had today, the bonds we will have tomorrow, are fed not only by the strength of our historical bonds but also by sincere friendship, which i believe we share. so thank you once again, mr. president, madam, for this extremely warm welcome for the three days spent with you, and thank you as well for being here to meet the challenges which are important for the united states of america, for france and for europe and important for our peoples. thank you. >> thank you. thank you. >> i like him a lot. first of all, i want to thank

our vice president and karen for being here. thank you very much. appreciate it. i know we had a wonderful conference today, and i think especially the one on one in the oval office, we covered a lot of territory having to do with trade, having to do with iran and various other subjects. so i think a lot of good things are going to come out of our meeting, and i appreciate you being here. and we'll take a couple of questions. how about jeff mason from reuters. >> thank you, mr. president. hi there. after your discussions today with president macron, what is your thinking about a timeline for bringing u.s. troops out of syria? and on one other topic, you mentioned today that you thought the leader of north korea has behaved openly and honorably. this is someone who many people have accused of starving his people, killing family members. what did you mean when you call him that? >> well, we will start with your second part of the question, and

i hope that we will be able to deal in a very open and honorable fashion with north korea. i started a process, and when i did, everybody thought i was doing it absolutely wrong, but in the meantime, for 25 years people have been dealing and nothing happened, and a lot is happening right now, i can tell you that, jeff, a lot is happening. and i think it's going to be very positive. and i hope it's going to be very positive for north korea and for south korea and japan and the rest of the world. but i am starting at a level that, frankly, i shouldn't have had to start. this should have been worked out a long time ago. this should have been worked out many years ago. we were discussing that. we shouldn't be having this situation happen to the united states and the world. this should have been resolved by other presidents and by other leaders of other countries a long time ago. with that being said, i think we're doing very well. meetings are being set up, and i want to see denuclearization of north korea. a lot of concessions have

already been made. we have made no concessions despite some of the media saying that i've made concessions. i haven't even discussed the concession. other than the fact that meeting is a great thing, and i'm sure that a lot of other people would have liked to have had the position we're having. i will say this. we put the strongest sanctions on a country than we ever have put on any country by far. china, president xi, has been very strong in helping us to solve this problem, in his case, at the border. he's allowing very little to get through. i think he's doing that for a number of reasons. we have a very good relationship, and also it's very important in terms of trade. i do play the trade card. if you look at what's happening with trade in china, it hasn't been fair for many, many years to the united states, and we're going to solve that problem. in fact, we're having secretary mnuchin and a couple other folks heading over to bob lighthouaus,

heading over to china next week and we're having very substantive conversations on trade. i think it all plays to the border and the fact they've been extremely strong on the border and very little has gone through, much to the surprise of a lot of people. i believe the trade will work out, but i also think china has never treated us with more respect than they have over the last short period of time that i'm president. i have a very excellent, as you know, relationship with president xi, and i think that relationship is very important as to what's happening with north korea. so the end result is we'll see. maybe good things will happen and maybe we're all waste ing a lot of time. hopefully it will be good for everybody concerned. as far as syria is concerned, i would love to get out. i would love to bring our incredible warriors back home. they've done a great job.

we've essentially just absolutely obliterated isis and iraq and syria. we've done a big favor to neighboring countries, frankly, but we've also done a favor for our country. with that being said, emmanuel and myself have discussed the fact that we don't want to give iran open season to the mediterranean, especially since we really control it to a large exte extent. we have controlled it and we set control on it. we'll see what happens. we're going to be coming home relatively soon. we finished at least almost our work with respect to isis in syria, isis in iraq, and we have done a job that nobody has been able to do. but with that being said, i do want to come home, but i want to come home also with having accomplished what we have to accomplish. so we are discussing syria as part of an overall deal. when they made the iran deal,

what they should have done is included syria -- when i say "should have," before giving iran $1.8 billion in cash, $1.8 million in cash. if you think about this, before giving this kind of tremendous money, okay, 150 billion and $1.8 billion in cash, in barrels, i hear, it was taken out, and in boxes it was taken out, cash. they should have made a deal that covered yemen, that covered syria, that covered other parts of the middle east where iran is involved. they didn't do that. so we want to come home. we'll be coming home, but we want to have a very, very strong -- we want to leave a strong and lasting footprint, and that was a very big part of our discussion.

okay? thank you. >> a follow-up, if i may, sir. on north korea you said you believe in complete denuclearization. what does that mean exactly? >> it means they get rid of their nukes. very simple. they get rid of their nukes and nobody else would say it. it would be very easy for me to make a simple deal and claim victory. i don't want to do that. i want them to get rid of their nukes. >> for president macron, the president referred earlier in your meetings in the cabinet room to a potential deal between the two of you on iran. can you give us a sense of what that might be? and are you confident that you'll have assurances from president trump that the european union will be excluded from terrorists on steel and aluminum? >> look, as for the second question, i just weant the trad issue to be very clear. when you look at the situation between the two countries, it is on balance. there is no unbalanced

relationship. second, we are following and respecting to your rules, because we are the ones that contributed, and it makes sense to respect the rule you decided to create. in general, in life, that's a good method. and third, because i do believe that we have a very first issue on trade, which is on steel and aluminum. it doesn't come from europe, only from france. it's good to work well, especially when you work so closely on iran and syria. i am confident with this relationship. i think it's part of a broader picture where our interests are aligned. as for the iran situation, i thi

think, there is a new approach we want to adopt. we have nuclear, we have ballistic activity, we have regional presence of iran. we want to fix the situation. syria is part of the force one. and what we have to work on, obviously, is the different regions, and it is good to find a fair deal where we can fix the situation. this is the only way to preserve sovereignty in the region and bring peace on iran. otherwise we will have to come back in the region for new terrorist groups for sure. i'm very happy about the discussion we had together,

because we raised very new issues and situations together. especially the fact that the syrian crisis and the syria situation should be part of this broader picture. and the fact that we are here and we are today in syria together as international coalition against isis, but tomorrow we will have to find a way to fix the situation from the political point of view, not from a military point of view, which means to set up syria with agreements in order to be sure that syria will be a sovereign country with inclusiveness and free people in its nation to decide their future. that is very important, and that's all. >> i think we will have a great shot at doing a much bigger, maybe, deal. we're going to find out. we'll know fairly soon.

mr. president? >>. >> translator: the question is on behalf of the french press. mr. president, you were saying there is no plan b, that the iran deal was to be preserved. now you're talking about a new deal with iran? why do you change your mind? did you join the stronger approach suggested by president trump? is it because you could not convince him? and in addition, do you think when you signed the agreement, it will follow you? when you said there is no plan b, it usually means there is no b plan and it's about to plummet

in iran. you can go back to what i said at the u.n. general assembly in september. i always said there was the jpca, but post 2025, the ballistic and regional influence. i do not know what president trump will decide regarding the jcpoa, and it is his responsibility. the jcpoa is a new deal we described, and it is one aspect of the problem. i've never been as critical of the jcpoa as president trump has, because i believe we can add to it. but not knowing the decision president trump will take, i would like us to work on a deal well what he has already accomplished on the jcpoa, which

is beyond the current activities, the ballistic activities and the regional influence. so this is constant. but over the past few weeks, and in particular today, we've been able to go and talk very much in detail about this topic concerning the situation in the region. i believe that. we convert to a common reading on what is happening in syria, iran and in iraq particularly, and on the fact that the nuclear issue is not the only one. that, indeed, there is a problem with a ballistical position in iran, and that our willingness was indeed to set the conditions for the stability of the region. once we build these convergence of views, the idea of moving on to a new deal that would include the solution for syria, i believe, is a strong step forward thanks to the

discussions we've had today. so i very much would like us to work together with all of our partners, and the ministers already governed a small group and they will be doing it again sometime soon. the process and the allied parties and also the regional parties to work together with this small group. we shall have some permanent discussions with russia and turkey on a region of topics including syria. so as for now, we will work using that method in favor -- work towards a deal. i believe we can both combine on our common views and the differences because we are not

tearing apart the jcpoa and have nothing else. i don't think that would be a good solution. but once we are placing ourselves the purpose of making a broad agreement, it's very difficult. because we can take on board the concerns and the criticism of president trump regarding this deal which, like i said, once again this deal was supported by a former american adm administration, previous american administration, but we can work, and it is also about respecting the sovereignty of the states of the region. it's not about intervening no matter what. it is rather about building a stable framework that will contribute to stability and to peacebuilding. i think this is what we've been

agreeing upon today. it's not about tearing apart an agreement and having nothing, but it's about building something new that will cover all of our concerns. >> i might add that as i alluded to, in countries that are in the area, some of which are immensely wealthy, would not be there except for the united states, and to a lesser extent, france, but they wouldn't be there except for the united states. they wouldn't last a week. we are protecting them. they have to now step up and pay for what's happening. because i don't think france or the united states should be liable for the tremendous cost. the united states is embarrassingly into the milgd east as of a few months ago, as you've heard me say before. i don't take responsibility, but i would be very embarrassed if i had to. $7 trillion.

when we want to build, mr. president, our infrastructure, everybody says, oh, we want to be careful with our money. when we want to fix a highway and build schools and other thin things, tunnels, bridges, they say, let's be careful with our money. we have spent $7 trillion in the middle east and we've gotten nothing for it, less than nothing, as far as i'm concerned. that's over an 18-year period. the countries that are there that you all know very well are immensely wealthy. they're going to have to pay for this and i think the president and i agree very much on that. and they will pay for it. they will pay for it. we've spoken to them. they will pay for it. the united states will not continue to pay. and they will also put soldiers on the ground, which they're not doing. and we will, in fact, bring lots of people home.

we will have a strong blockage to the mediterranean, which to me is very important. because if we don't, you have iran going right to the mediterranean. not going to have that. but there is a chance, and nobody knows what i'm going to do on the 12th, although mr. president, ufr a pretty good idea. but we'll see. but we'll see also if i do what some people expect whether or not it will be possible to do a new deal with solid foundations. because this is a deal with decayed foundations. it's a bad deal, it's a bad structure, it's falling down. it should have never, ever been made. i blame congress, i blame a lot of people for it. but it should have never been made. and we're going to see what happens on the 12th. but i will say if iran threatens

us in any way, they will pay a price like few countries have ever paid. okay? yes. john, please. john roberts of fox. >> thank you, mr. president. i have a question for mr. macron as well, but if i could to you, sir, first. your nominee to run the veterans affairs administration, dr. ronny jackson, has run into some serious political headwinds on capitol hill with some serious allegations being leveled at him. i'm wondering what you know of those allegations, and do you intend to stand behind him? >> well, i haven't heard of the particular allegations, but i will tell you he's one of the finest people that i have met. and i think speaking for melania also, he's been the doctor for president obama, i believe for president bush, for me. i've gotten to know him pretty

well. he's a great doctor. and it was a suggestion. now, i know there is an experience problem because of lack of experience, but there is an experience problem. the veterans administration is very important to me. we've done a great job with it, as you know, with the accountability act, it's going to happen. we need to take care of our veterans and we've done a great job. but i told admiral jackson just a little while ago, i said, what do you need this for? this is a vicious group of people that malign, and they do, and i live through it, we all live through it. you people are getting record ratings because of it, so congratulations. i said, what do we need him for? he's an admiral, a great leader, and they question him about every little thing. with the success of what will hopefully soon be secretary of

state mike pompeo, i heard yesterday that he will not be confirmed. except i spoke to rand paul, and rand paul has really never let me down. rand paul is a good man. and i knew things that nobody else knew, and rand said, i'm going to change my vote, and he voted is everybody was surprised. he actually got an 11-9 vote. as you know, johnny isaacson's vote counts if it's not an exact vote. there was one vote -- what would you call that, john? >> a present vote. >> oh, it's called present, okay. so it was 11-9. that was a terrific thing. but they failed to stop him. so now they say, who is next? who is next?

and this person, admiral jackson, dr. jackson, a wonderful man, i say to him, what do you need for? as far as experience is concerned, the veterans administration, which is approximately 13 million people, you could run the biggest hospital system in the world and it's small time compared to the veterans association. what he is is a leader and a good man. i tell him, you know what, doc? you're too fine a person. his son is a top student at annapolis. he is a high-quality person. he'll be making a decision. but they failed with mike pompeo, and that was a big, big hit because they thought they could stop him and embarrass. the democrats have become obstructionists, that's all they're good at. they're not good at anything

else. they have bad ideas, they have bad politics. the one thing they do is obstruct. that's why i'm waiting for -- you would never believe this -- i'm. we have angela merkel coming to the united states on friday. we still don't have our ambassador approved. a this rate, and many of the papers check it out yesterday. it actually said i was right. it will be nine years for these people to be approved, and the democrats are taking 30 hours per person. they're taking the maximum time. they are obstructionists. it's very bad for our country. >> i said to dr. jackson, what will you need it for. i don't want to put a man through a process like this.

it's too important. >> you will always stand behind him? >> he's a fine man. i will always stand behind him. but here's a man who has just been an extraordinary person. his family, extraordinary success, great doctor, great everything, and he has to listen to the abuse? if i were him, actually, in many ways i would love to be him, but the fact is i wouldn't do it. i wouldn't do it. what does he need it for? to be abused by a bunch of politicians that aren't thinking nicely about our country. i really don't think personally he should do it, but it's totally his decision. >> president macron, if i could direct the president to you as well. you said you and mr. trump came on some agreement on the way forward in syria. u.s. troops are really at the heart of any solution. how long, president macron, do

you believe u.s. troops need to stay in syria? do we want to stay until the period until the term of the governor is up? >> i'm signed with the united states troops in order to fight against isis. we decided to increase our contribution and we are totally involved in this work against isis. for sure the very first goal of this intervention and the coalition underground is to finish this work with them, with isis, and definitely to finish with our enemies. now, enemies are isis and the other -- >> despite this military crisis,

we will bring unity to the ground. to make sure certain people have the ability to live in peace, all the different ethnics, all the different religious -- all the different groups. and to be sure there is. if you'll allow me, i would separate these two issues. we are involved on the ground against isis. and it's not to open a newark. at the same time we have to open a new work together. that's what we decided to do. we have to work together, especially in syria. we will access in the weeks and months what we have to do.

because when you are at the end of a war, uyou have to adapt to the enemy on the ground. so we are not here today to say we will leave the floor. that's impossible because it will depend on the reality of the ground. but for sure, what we want to do now is finish this without troops, and we want to fix on the long runs of the situation, but it's not just with our troops, it's with our diplomats. >> all of your lives in the region and anyone involved. >> i've been working very closely together with france and with the president. thank you very much.

>> translator: mr. president, you've enjoyed a very friendly reels ship with president trump. it's quite unusual with other presidents. at the same time we can see you do not agree on a number of topics. there are more and more of them. we saw that openly in the oval office earlier on iran. it seems like the initial deal with iran will not be able to be saved, so what about this relationship? can it have great impact on france? can it be beneficial to france and to europe? you talked about reciprocal interest. is that really the case today? >> yes. definitely. i believe the reason we enjoy this relationship is because of the relationship between our two countries. indeed we have a different background, but it could be because we're both not typical

politicians. and we know that one can easily change one's mind. if you listen to this press conference and watched us, you have the answer to your question. regarding iran, we have a disagreement regarding the jcpoa, but i believe we are overcoming it by deciding to work towards a deal that really enables us to deal with the nuclear issue but also treated together with another three issues which are not being dealt with so far. so should the decision -- we've spent more than just the two of us, and having the conclusions being that the united states of america would walk away from the jcpoa and trump would not move, then our friendship would be wasted. it is about making sure that we're each taking into account the position and the interests

of a reciprocal country. it is unprecedented. we've never before taken a joint position, joint stance on syria the way we did, and on iran in favor of a deal that would enable us to cover the full gamut. there is a lot of work for our teams, otherwise, we would not in a position to do as much. in the past sometimes france argued that it was time to take action against chemical weapons and france was not with its allies, it is not what happened at this time. we decided together what was possible and what was not. in the international framework, there are two members of the

security council and we have an unprecedented level of cooperation. please allow me to pay tribute to our armies and the united kingdom, because we have led a unique proportional one. so in syria, the international community against the use of chemical weapons, you've seen it, you have the evidence that showed the relationship between our two countries and our friendship enable us to achieve some concrete results. and this is an improvement compared to where we stood a couple weeks ago. >> i think we have very much in common, i must say. many things, certainly most things, we agreed with, we can change and we can be flexible. you know, in life you have to be flexible, and as leaders of countries, you have to show flexibility, and i think we

actually get along on many of the subjects we discussed today, and i will say france is a great country and i believe france will be taken to new heights under this president. he's going to be an outstanding president, one of your great presidents, and it's an honor to call you my friend. thank you. >> thank you. [ applause ] >> they're walking out of the east room, the president of the united states and president of france. clearly they have a strong personal relationship, although they clearly also have some significant differences when it comes to syria, when it comes to it r the iran nuclear deal, when it comes to trade issues. i want to welcome you around the world. i'm in washington, wolf blitzer.

dr. ronny jackson, personal physician of the president in the white house. he's been the physician there through the obama ma administration, now the trump administration. i said, if i were him, i wouldn't do it. he basically said it's your decision but maybe you want to drop out of this nomination process. >> it's clear he has the affection for him, but he gave him the out. without saying goodbye, i told him i wouldn't do it and why do you want this? you have a great family, you have a great life, you're a great doctor. why do you want to deal with these democrats? he said it's his choice, but if i were him, i wouldn't be abused by a bunch of politicians. clearly they've had a conversation and the president said to him, your decision, but if i were you, don't do it, which, you know, reading between the lines means the president understands there are real problems there. >> yeah. the president saying he never heard of any of these

allegations against dr. ronny jackson. >> he would be vetted, okay? >> you're over there in the newsroom watching these conversations. what do you think? >> reporter: it's clear that the president opened the door for dr. ronny jackson to make a decision and potentially step down from his nomination at the veterans affairs department. these are the strongest words we have heard from the white house and the president. just a few hours ago, the white house released a statement giving his full credentials saying they were not going to withdraw his nomination. but the president, certainly while saying it was his decision, essentially offered him a permission slip, if you will, to step away. as gloria was just saying, what is the need to go through this ugly process? so the president was giving him a soft landing. i would be surprised, wolf, if

it would be the end of the day, perhaps even the end of the afternoon if dr. jackson would still be in the running for the va secretary. importa important, senator isaacson, republican of georgia, the senate chair committee also asking for more information. the hearing was scheduled to be tomorrow. so that, of course, is the domestic headline out of this, wolf, but also important to point out a new potential iran nuclear deal. not to replace the existing one, perhaps, but perhaps a supplemental one that could also give the u.s. some wiggle room here for the president when he has to make a decision by may 12 to essentially withdraw or not. clearly it seemed to me there was a much softer language. the president earlier today called it insane. we did not hear that language from him here in the east room, wolf. so clearly trying to broker a deal that could perhaps be a win-win that would allow the

president to declare victory by getting a stronger deal. in his words, a more solid deal. keep in mind, this was negotiated under the obama administration. president obama and his secretary of state john kerry negotiated this. the president has not liked it from the very beginning, so clearly a new deal could be more of a trump deal. we'll see if that happens. also, wolf, one final thought. syria. the president also saying, i want to come home, wants to bring the troops home. did not say exactly a time frame on that, as well as talking about north korea still going forward with the idea of a summit in june. but again, the president making the point he made last week in mar-a-lago with shinzo abe that he would walk away from a summit, walk away from a deal if they could not broker something. the more explicit terms were asked about his definition of what denuclearization is, he

says it means they get rid of the nukes. so quite blunt there. it means they get rid of the nukes. we'll see if that happens after the meeting. quite a bit of news in this meeting, this press conference here, wolf, in the east room. now the president is going on to meet with his defense secretary, and of course that big state dinner tonight here at the white house. wolf? >> and tomorrow president macron will address a joint meeting from the united states congress. jim sciutto, the deal that president macron put forward is to keep the iran nuclear deal in place, and prevent iran, at least until 2025, but then expand it to read -- and end their involvement in syria and lebanon. that's the proposal that president macron put forward. why would the iranians accept a new deal? >> that's a fair question because this may be more about managing the president's

expectations and addressing the president's concerns, and robert made this point as well, creating a new agreement. his key criticisms and other criticisms of this deal have been it's got a sunset clause. it ends after a certain amount of time. it does not address their missile ballistics program and it does not stabilize the region. now, the question is, china, russia e russia, iran, if they're not actually at the table, and this is an agreement between the u.s. and its partners there, what is the credibility about the deal, and is it more about giving the president, whew, a deal i have always opposed to. this morning the president sat next to the french president,

calling it steele that in life you need to show flexibility. leaders of countries need to show flex iblgt. for macron to have climbed that mountain, if he has indeed brought the president back in the fold on this deal, it would be a pretty remarkable diplomatic mover. >> you recently met with the foreign minister of iran as well. the president says, no one knows what i will do on may 12 -- that's the date he has to decide whether to keep the iran deal. he says they will pay a price like few countries have ever paid. suggesting, quite bluntly, that the u.s. would attack. >> he's also in the middle of a week of intense diplomacy by the europeans. you had president macron today,

you have angela merkel on friday, and the british prime minister will also be having a telephone conversation of this new deal, an interpretation of three world powers, and. they deal with iran's presence in the region with ballistics missiles. and there's no enforcement mechanism. it's basically a document saying what their goals are, what their strong agreement is in iran deal. when i talked to the foreign minister, he said, the united

states is not as good in this position. the new york weapons agency have complied completely with the deal. so they said we're not going to sign onto any new deal that requires for em them and doesn't get the united states to actually do what it's supposed to do. this is a very diplomatic approach to the iran deal. the question is, is it going to work and will the irans buy it coming in. >> is it a tough proposal? >> i think it's a real tough sell. the iranians will say, why should we do anything when you're not complying with the basics? >> they got $150. as the president keeps saying, almost 2 billion in cash. >> remember, this was all from a deal that had to do with military equipment that the iranian government bought during the shah's era. we actually owed them money, this was not a gift.

>> do you think the iranians are going to buy this? do you think president trump will support what president macron is putting forward to delay a collapse with the iran deal? >> this is a ploy, essentially. it's semantics we're going to layer onto an amendment that's nonbinding to make him feel bad about september 12. it's always a roller coaster ride. tpp was a rape of our country and two weeks ago he was considering getting back in it. so macron can't be guaranteed that this is something trump would even stick to in the last round of conference calls. i can't see the regime. that money that was given to him in the original deal is money

that belonged to the regime. it's a master stroke if they bring the regime to the table, and all of a sudden they get p 55 >> it sound like an intervention they had planned, a literal intervention with donald trump that they are -- have organized and planned so that macron starts -- because he's got the best relationship. merkel not so much. not a great relationship, but she continues. she lays the groundwork. then you have the phone calls. it's just very clear to me that thif tri they have tried to figure out a way to circle the wagons around donald trump, to get him back to a certain degree so they can go

to iran and say, this is the best we can get because of donald trump. but i think they're trying to make him feel good about leading the process when, in fact, they're leading him to the process. >> and in doing so, echoing some of his words. when he described the four pillars, he said things the president addressed and even addressed them in the same language to give him the impression he thought them up. >> and when he suggested the previous administration, the obama administration, didn't do what they were supposed to do when there were syrian chemical weapons used and the u.s. did not cross that so-called red line. that's something that president trump clearly was happy to hear. look, i want to get to north korea in a moment, but on syria, the president a few weeks ago said the u.s. has got to get out very soon. we have to get the troops out of syria.

he always makes the point that the $7 trillion that the u.s. has spent in iraq, afghanistan, in syria these past years since 9/11 is awful. the u.s. need to us to use thaty for infrastructure, bridges, schools. he said in the region -- i think he's referring to saudi arabia, bahrain, cutter, they have to come up with the cash to deal with others in what he describes as iranian aggression. >> i forget his exact phraseology, but he said something like, they would be nothing without us. because we backed them, perhaps there's some truth in that. is that language you address your allies with, and not dissimilar from the way the president went after european allies regarding nato funding. he claims credit now for having

gotten nato countries to pony up, so he might be looking at the middle east saying, listen, it worked there. they'll have to pony up and put boots on the ground. the president on this is on pretty solid ground here. for years there have been a lot of countries in the region that have preferred to have u.s. boots on the ground rather than their own in some of these dangerous situations. now, the question is, is he going to get>> the problem is h get out of syria. at the same time he doesn't want to give iranians access. if the united states withdraws -- >> he says these immensely wealthy countries, they must pay for it and they must put their soldiers on the ground. robin, you know the region well. are the saudis, the emirates,

the qatarees going to seasonnd troops to syria? >> no. i mean, it would involve a very complex mix. the problem is the arab world has not been very good in the past about policing itself when they've had arab peacekeeping forces in lebanon and elsewhere, the situation has crumbled, often rather quickly. and the danger is what is it that you actually are trying to achieve in syria? with the president, that's not clear. as it now appears, he looks like he's willing to let president assad stay in power until the next presidential election in syria, which is 2021. the idea can you get some kind of compromise worked out with the arabs leading it i think is -- the arabs were supporting different factions, different rebel groups. to get them to speak with one voice on syria is very difficult. >> in is a major shift, though,

i think from mission accomplished to i want to have the troops home having accomplished what we should have accomplished. i think you even see -- you see a softening there. this is a president who is changeable. maybe he was doing it because he was standing next to macron, we don't know, but it's a very different tone than what we've been hearing. >> and macron seemed to be echoing what he was hearing. >> clear think's a significant difference as far as syria between president macron and president trump. >> right, but i think that president trump has retreated upon the advice of his advisers in the days following his comments about withdrawl on tal

this issue and how the russians and iranians are propping up the assad regime and he even names the russians in the tweet. so he's within tabeen talked in staying in syria. he doesn't want to talk about syria. he's sending mixed messages and i think he's retreated. he wants to make it all about the iran deal, keep the focus on that because i think people have talked him out of retreat in syria. >> the u.s. has 2,200 troops in syria right now. north korea, jim, the president said we're doing very well, he's looking forward to his meeting with kim jong un. the goal has to be the denuclearization of north korea. we have made, he said, his words we have made no concessions so far. >> it appears he's heard some of the criticism following his public comments in the last week, one of which was does the u.s. mean the same when it says

denuclearize that kim does? the president saying when i say it, means getting weapons off the peninsula. also on the concessions, there's been public comment that the president -- even a president meeting with the north korean leader gives him stature, which is a win for the north korean leader. the president saying i haven't said anything, repeating that threat to walk out if he doesn't get anywhere but also raising hopes and expectations saying a lot is happening, i hope it going to be prosperous for us, holding out that there could be a positive result. >> i want to quickly get to a statement that dr. ronny jackson, the president's nominee to become the secretary of veterans affairs, he's been up on capitol hill, we heard what the president said earlier, if it were me, i would drop out, why do you need these

allegations, amidst all these allegations against dr. jackson. listen to what dr. jackson just said. >> i'm looking forward to rescheduling the hearing and getting the process moving. thanks, guys. >> any response to the allegations? >> what makes you qualified for this job? >> he said he's looking forward to getting the hearing, the confirmation hearing, started in the senate and moving. i don't know if he said that before or after the president of the united states said if it were me, wouldi would drop out, do you need this sing ing aggr. what do you think? >> i think this was a masterful

effort by president macron to bring the president over on the agreement. there's a huge krchasm on what president trump has outlined on the iran agreement and what the europeans want to see happen. maybe there can be some changes. i think it's going to be very difficult to convince the iranians to do much more unless you're going to do something for them. and let's not forget this is an agreement about no nuclear weapons by iran. and we've got verification in a big time way from some of the best scientists, it's a big thing to have iran not pursuing pepo nuclear weapons. there's still an eight-year period here and there's room for negotiations. >> we'll see what the president decides. he keeps saying nobody knows what i'm going to do on may 12th, although he said president macron of what i am planning i

am doing. dr. ronny jackson is planning to be a nominee for director of veterans affairs, what do you think? >> the allegations, which i've heard are very serious, and if they're true, i don't think he has a chance of getting through a nomination process. >> is your find closed right now? you've already decided he's not the best person? >> my mind isn't closed. i think we should do the vetting. the really unfortunate thing here is the trump administration never does the vetting, then it's up to the congress. we should do the vetting. the things that i've heard, whether it's the being drunk or misprescribing drugs or all those kind of things, they're allegations now. but if there is truth to them, i think he's got serious problems in terms of taking over this

agency. the president should have kept shulkin in there. he was a good bipartisan choice, he was doing good work. the reason he quit is because they're trying to privatize the veterans administration, which the veterans are not going to stand for. the other real problem is that now that agency is leaderless and the ved raterans are going hurt because of this. >> cnn has reported that dr. jackson alerted the white house about the possible allegations. you heard the president say he didn't know anything about these allegations. do you think the president was in the dark? >> it sounds like he's completely in the dark but i don't know how that could be. from what independent hearing a very large number of people working in and around him have these kinds of reports and it's very disturbing. if it pans out and they all come forward and think about, it i

don't know how we can put him in charge of the veterans administration. i'm just very worried. we've got to have a leader over there. let's great leader over there, mr. president, do your vetting a lot better. >>one final question. do you think it's a good idea for the president to meet with kim jong un. >> yes, i do. i think we always should be meeting but it should be prepared in a very disciplined way. it's good that they had the initial meeting with pompeo, but this -- they need to get the very best diplomats to participate in this, to prepare the president. my biggest fear is that he'll get over, there he doesn't get what he wants, he has a temper tam tantrum and it makes the situation even worse. >> that's going to be a sensitive, sensitive moment. >> senator, thank you for joining us. >> my pleasure. take care. >> the president and the

president of france will continue their meetings. they have a state dinner later tonight and tomorrow president macron addresses a joint meeting of theins congre of the united states congress. that's it for me, i'm wolf blitzer in congress. our breaking news coverage continues right now. >> announcer: this is cnn breaking news. >> we will continue on with the breaking news right now. i'm brooke baldwin. you're watching cnn. moments ago the world witnessed the strength of the president's french connection, emmanuel macron just -- >> the french president, he supports changes