>> the u.s. and russia reach an agreement to remove chemical weapons from syria, but will the syrians comply? the marathon diplomatic talks between secretary of state john kerry and his russian counter-part came to the conclusion that the world had hoped for but not without considerable skepticism. >> there can be no games, no room for avoidance or anything less than full compliance by the assad regime. >> schieffer: and that's the million-dollar question-- will assad comply? we'll have details of the deal and get reaction from syria, plus we'll talk to key senators, michigan democrat carl levin and 10 see republican bob corker. and we'll hear from former secretary of state, madeleine albright. then we'll get analysis from peggy noonan of the "wall street

journal." susan page of "usa today." michael gerson of the "washington post," and harvard university's david gergen. it's all ahead because this is "face the nation." captioning sponsored by cbs from cbs news in washington, "face the nation" with bob schieffer. >> schieffer: and good morning again. well, the big news this weekend, the united states and the russians have agreed on a deal to get chemical weapons out of syrian hands. inspector this agreement, the syrians have one week to detail their entire chemical weapons stockpile, weapons inspectors will go to syria in november with the goal of destroying all the weapons by the middle of next year. the agreement will be backed up by a u.n. resolution that will leave the option of using force against syria if they fail to comply. our cbs news state department

correspondent margaret brennan is traveling with secretary of state kerry. she joins us now from tel aviv. margaret, he is there there to tell the israelis what this agreement means and so on. how is this going? >> reporter: well, bob, secretary kerry is trying to reassure israeli prime minister netanyahu that this is not just an agreement based on words. it will be one based on results. the israelis have sort of cautious optimism. that's how the press is covering it. the idea is that the message being sent to damascus is going to be received really in tehran. the idea that weapons and disarmament in syria is sort of being seen as a model for how the international community might challenge iran about its nuclear program is the focus in many ways of the debate here in israel. keep in mind, there is this diplomatic agreement but it was really hastily put together over two and a half days of around-the-clock negotiations in

geneva. so there are a lot of unanswered questions and technical details including who is going to provide security for the weapons inspectors who are going in to an active war zone to try to break apart one of the largest chemical weapons stockpiles in the world and to do it in record time? friday is going to be a real test for the syrians to see if they truly do come clean and detail what u.s. and russian intelligence agree they have in their chemical weapons arsenal. so there's a lot of pressure that secretary kerry and the u.s. are trying to keep on the russians to follow through and get their bashar al-assad to hand over these chemical weapons. that's why secretary kerry travels from israel on to paris to meet with the saudi, the british, the french, and the turkish foreign ministers to say, "i know a week ago i was asking for your help in a u.s.-led strike. now i'm asking to you help support us at the united nations." but the obama administration

says that threat of u.s.-led strikes still stands. it's still on the table. >> schieffer: all right, margaret. and all this will then shift in the coming weeks to the united nations once he gets back to this country. margaret brennan, thank you so much. we want to go now to damascus where cbs news correspondent elizabeth palmer has been reporting for almost three weeks now, the only american television reporter there. liz, what has been the reaction there to all these developments? >> reporter: the remarkable thing is that there's been no reaction, bob, no syrian official has commented. the syrian state-controlled news has covered the story as fact, giving all the credit for the diplomatic initiative to the russians but nobody has spoken up beyond that. the russians, of course, don't want anything coming out of here at this stage that would complicate the deal. will be on the opposition side, no comment equally from opposition politicians, although

the military command has spoang up, general idriss making it very clear he was very disappointed. he said this has dealt a blow to our hopes ofñj president assad. >> schieffer: i have to say the reaction here, there's a lot of real skepticism about assad, because of his record that he might just try to use this as some sort of a delaying take the, that he might be planning something else behind the scenes. what can you tell us about that? >> reporter: well even syrians say that. one opposition politician said to meet other day, "well, they've been lying to us for many years, and there's no reason to think this they're going to stop now." however, there's a lot riding on this, and don't forget, that the russians really have the whip hand here. if they have said they're going to do it, they may be forth a reluctant syrian government and bureaucracy to get on with it and there could be a quid pro

quo in the background. some of the syrian officials will say to us off the record there are really rumblings that the russians have promised assad a new anti-aircraft system as a compensation for the fact that he's going to be losing his chemical weapons stock. so we shouldn't be surprised if that emerges some time in the weeks to come. >> schieffer: all right, elizabeth palmer. thank you very much, liz, and be very careful. we go now to two key voices on syria in the united states senate, the chairman of the armed services committee, carl levin. he's in detroit this morning. the top republican on the foreign relations will committee, bob corker is in chattanooga. i just want to get the reaction from both of you first. senator, levin, you just heard liz palmer say it may be in order to force assad to give up these weapons the russians are maybe going to give him a whole bunch of conventional weapons-- fancy new anti-aircraft systems.

is this a good thing that's happening here? how do you assess this? >> well, this represents significant progress. it would not have been achieved-- again, assuming it's fully implemented which is the key-- but assuming that it is fully implemented, this progress would not have been achieved without the threat of the use of a military strike by president obama. it's no coincidence that after that threat was achieved and made, and after our foreign relations committee on a bipartisan basis voted to authorize the use of force, that russia finally decided that it would put some pressure on syria and get involved. so this would not have happened and without that threat, and it will not be fully implemented, i'm afraid, without a continuing threat, and that's why it is so important that, that continuing threat be very, very clearly available and the president did make that clear last night in his statement.

>> schieffer: well, the secretary of state john kerry in tel aviv this morning spent a good part of a news conference there saying that the use of force, the threat of force is still on the table. senator corker, what's your first reaction to all this? >> well, look, as carl just said, in our committee, we passed on a bipartisan basis, the authorization for the use of force, and it was done to get us to a diplomatic place. i think all of us have wanted a diplomatic solution, and know that's the only way to solve this. on the other hand, i think all of us have to approach this with a healthy and strong degree of skepticism. the fact is that's it's not only what is said in in these agreements but what is not said or what is said privately. i think we need to move through this with skepticism. there's no question russia has retained its ability to veto under chapter 7. so the threat of force from a

multilateral standpoint is still very much in russian hands. that's the most important element is the veto piece. so in many ways our credibility in the expreegz certainly relative to the chemical warfare issue is very much drifep by russia which has its hands on the steering wheel. i think kerry went over there with a weak hand. i talked with him at length yesterday. i do appreciate what he's been able to accomplish from the standpoint of a proposal. again, this is not a u.n. resolution yet. with a weak hand, but i think we should be skeptical until we see how this unfolds. >> schieffer: let me ask both of you, what do you think the first test here is going to be on whether or not assad is really serious about going along with this? senator levin, i would guess it might come-- he has a week now to come up with a detailed list of what weapons they have there. would you see that as the next

big thing to happen here? >> yeah, very much so. that is a an amaze will short te table but the pressure of russia is key here. russia can force assad to do what russia wants assad to do. it is the weapons provider for assad. it has been deeply involved in one of the very few countries that supported assad. putin made an outrageous statement the other day trying to cover up russia's support for assad weapons systems by saying all the evidence points to the use of qemicals, that they were used by opposition rather than by assad. as a matter of fact, that is a lie. all the evidence points to assad using it. russia has tried very hard-- it's their number one or number two goal to force us to give up the option of using force if assad does not comply. russia has failed in that goal. we retain the option of using

force if there's not full compliance. >> schieffer: senator corker, we have been trying to arm the rebels, the opponents of assad, or at least that's what we have said. we have seen very little evidence that any of that eight aide has gotin to syria at this point. what will be the back of these developments over the weekend on those efforts? do we now have to do more than we were doing on trying to reinforce and help the opponen opponents? >> look, i-- bob, i was just in the region a few weeks ago. and could not have been more dismayed at our lack of support for the opposition. i know carm was there maybe a week before i was. sensed the the same thing. one of the things i press yesterday with secretary kerry was this in any way going to affect our support of the opposition, and we certainly have not done what we need to do. it has hurt our credibility,

certainly on the ground. i think the opposition views this agreement as a setback. but the way to counter that, i think, is to much more strongly equip and train the opposition there on the ground. we have been remiss. we've announced that we're doing something, but what we've done certainly has not been at the pace it should be. >> schieffer: what about that, senator levin? >> i agree with that, but syria has tried very hard and will continue to try to make it a condition of its compliance with this agreement between russia and the united states that the united states not supportlet opposition. we are not going to agree to that. we have supported the opposition. i agree, not sufficiently. i have always called for increasing the military pressure on assad by supporting the opposition, and i think we should do that and we now i think have some indication from the administration recently that there will be ways found to provide greater military support, hopefully including

antitank weapones for the opposition. we recognize them as the legitimate representative of the syrian people. and i think we should provide greater military support or at least help others facilitate provision of additional military support. >> schieffer: well, how do we know, senator corker, which of these opposition forces we need to support? we know there's al qaeda there in very large numbers, if the latest estimates are correct. >> yeah, we've spent a lot of time-- i know general petraeus was spending time while he was there, trying to understand which of these groups we should support and which not. i think it's been overstated from the standpoint of how much of a role al qaeda is playing and some of the foreign fighters are playing there. there's a whole group of folks, bob, not unlike youor carl or ourselves where's their neighborhoods have been infull traited with rejeems wanting to protect their vildages, want to see a pluralistic government take place there.

those are the folks we need to be supporting. we're coalescing around idriss, who, obviously, is disappointed with the results of these talks, but we've coalesced around him. we've got to certainly support them in a much stronger way. that's the second war that so many of us have talked about, and that is after assad, who is going to control the country? so, look, i think we know more than we let on publicly about which groups to support and which not. we need to do much more to help them. our intelligence agencies, i think, have a very good handle on who to support and who not to support. and there are going to be mistakes. we understand some people are going to get arms that should not be getting arms. but we still should be doing everything we can to support the free syrian opposition. >> schieffer: senator levin, what kind of grade would you give the president on the way he's handled this? >> i give him a very good grade because he's taken a very difficult step because he has always been very reluctant to

use force. he believes force should be the last option, and i happen to agree with that. but he has decided, despite a lack of great public support here, that the-- we must, we must respond to the use of chemicals in this way by the sir yoon regime, or else we will ultimately be threatened and our troops will ultimately be threatened if the use of chemicals become just a routine weapon. and so he has taken a stand which i believe is the right stand. itis courageous stand because even though the rest of the world says there must be a response, when it comes to actually acting to act against assad for that response, then the rest of the world is kind of pulling up short. but the president was clear-- he has decided we are going to strike against that chemical system of syria and i give him credit for doing that. >> schieffer: all right, well we have to stop there. thanks to both of you. and we'll be back in one minute with former secretary of state madeleine albright.

stay with us. share.

>> schieffer: joining us now the former secretary of state madeleine albright who served during the clinton administration. madam secretary, let me just ask you flat out-- do you trust putin? >> no, but he is the leader of the russians who play-- have played and continue to play an important role. and i don't think we have to trust him. i think we have to to be able to work with him on issues of common interest, and i think that's where we are now. >> schieffer: do you think its russians are legitimately serious about getting the syrians to give up their weapons, their chemical weapons? >> i think that they do see the danger of chemical weapons generally. i mean, they have made that very

clear. they have had their own problems. they are also afraid of extremists and extremists getting control over weapons for their own reasons. i think they also have a reason for wanted stability in the middle east, and they also, i think, want to get reinvolved in the middle east and show their influence. >> schieffer: do you think the president should still pursue a vote in congress for permission to take military action if he thinks it's necessary? >> i think the president needs to keep the use of force on the table because it is my belief that the threat of the use of force is what got us to where we are. i have always been a great believer in the combination of force and diplomacy. so i think it needs to be out there. i think one has to see where congress is. congress has an awful lot of stuff on their table that they have to deal with. >> schieffer: a lot of people, republicans, democrats, hawks, doves,@and this thing seems to

go across a lot of lines-- believe or say that the president has been sending mixed messages about syria. how do you think he's handled this? >> i think that this has been an extremely difficult issue. there is no question about it. i think the president has, obviously, a history of his own in terms of how he has viewed american involvement, the war in iraq. but these are difficult issues in terms of saying why should we care if people in some other country are being murdered by each other? why should we care about that? what does it have to do with american national security? and then the issue about what our value system is, that we care about human life and we have a very different approach to that than many other people. and i think he has tried to explain it. i think the problem, bob, is that this is a very fast-changing situation. i think that the people have not

been as interested in learning about what this is all about because they are more and more interested in what's going on at home. >> schieffer: what is our long-range goal? what is the strategy here right now? obviously, we'd like to get the fighting stopped. beyond that, is it to get rid of assad? what exactly would we hope at the end of the day to accomplish? >> i believe that what we're trying to do is to, first of all, stop the killing. clearly get some control over the chemical weapons issue because they say whole other level of horror. and then i think the capability of trying to get some kind of a transitional government there. and from the perspective of the united states, it would be without assad, but not necessarily getting rid of everybody that had anything to do with the regime. >> schieffer: well, do you-- does it concern you that we could wind up with something

worse? >> it's very hard for me to believe that there could be something worse, frankly. i think that it's going to be a while, i think, before we find stability there. but to have to deal with a dictator who, first of all, lies. second, who finds it appropriate to use chemical weapons against his own people, and has some kind of delusional aspect of what is going on in that country, so i do-- i think things are pretty bad. so i do think that we're not exactly sure of the things that might come out. but my sense is if we do nothing, if we are not watchful, if we aren't trying to figure out this chemical issue, trying to work out some political solution, it can-- it will only get worse if we don't do anything. but that is my own view. and i think that-- it's not going to be perfect for a very long time. one of the problems, bob, is

americans always want a quick solution-- done it, check off the box. this is going to take a while. i think we're watching changes in that region that are historic, and, you know, very, very-- they're going to take a long time, and we need be helpful. it's not totally our story. it's their story. but i don't think things could be worse. >> schieffer: madam, is the thank you so much. >> great to be with you, bob. >> schieffer: we talked to madeleine albright friday on and i'll be back in a moment with some personal thoughts. today, that's easy. ge is revolutionizing power. supercharging turbines with advanced hardware and innovative software. using data predictively to help power entire cities. so the turbines of today... will power us all... into the future.

♪ i put in the hourswhere i am today by luck. into the future. and built a strong reputation in the industry. i set goals and worked hard to meet them. i've made my success happen. so when it comes to my investments, i'm supposed to just hand it over to a broker and back away? that's not gonna happen. avo: when you work with a schwab financial consultant, you'll get the guidance you need with the control you want. talk to us today. man: [ laughs ] those look like baby steps now. but they were some pretty good moves. and the best move of all? having the right partner at my side. it's so much better that way. [ male announcer ] have the right partner at your side. consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company.

go long. constipated? yeah. mm. some laxatives like dulcolax can cause cramps. but phillips' caplets don't. they have magnesium. for effective relief of occasional constipation. thanks. [ phillips' lady ] live the regular life. phillips'. >> schieffer: depending on who you ask, there are many roads to heaven, but what we've been seeing this weekend underlines there may be even more routes to getting rild of syria's chemical weapons than the path we're-- and the path we're on is more like a wilderness trail than a superhighway. think about it. the president draws a red line

and tells syria not to use chemical weapons or we'll unleash our military might. our most loyal ally, great britain, then pulls the rug out from under the president by saying, sorry, but you're on your own by this one, hoping to show the american people are at least behind him, he then asks congress to endorse his idea, but the smoke signals from capitol hill say, sorry, no way. even so, the secretary of state says the only thing syria can do to avoid an attack is to turn their chemical weapons over to the u.n. but that is hardly out of his mouth, when the state department says he really doesn't mean it. apparently, the russian foreign minister didn't hear that part, because he seized on kerry's words, suddenly russia's back in the game. assad agreed to kerry's words, and the russians say they were actual actually their idea in the first place but in any case they become the framework for syria to give up those weapons.

contribution may say better to be lucky than skilled, but as we say on the golf course, there is no pictures of how you did it on the scorecard. the only thing you put on the scorecard is the score. if this works-- and we have to hope it does-- that will be the only things that matters. back in a minute. after your company's go and the capital's been invested? or when your company's bought another? is it over after you've given back? you never stop achieving. that's why, at barclays, our ambition is to always realize yours. the economy needs manufacturing. machines, tools, people making stuff. companies have to invest in making things. infrastructure, construction, production. we need it now more than ever. chevron's putting more than $8 billion dollars

back in the u.s. economy this year. in pipes, cement, steel, jobs, energy. we need to get the wheels turning. i'm proud of that. making real things... for real. ...that make a real difference. ♪ yeah... try new alka seltzer fruit chews. they work fast on heartburn and taste awesome. these are good. told ya! i'm feeling better already. [ male announcer ] new alka seltzer fruits chews. enjoy the relief!

that's not much, you think. except it's 2% every year. go to e-trade and find out how much our advice and guidance costs. spoiler alert: it's low. it's guidance on your terms, not ours. e-trade. less for us. more for you. >> schieffer: some of our stations are leaving us now, but for most of you, we'll be right back with a lot "face the nation." stay with us.

the captioning on this program is provided as an independent service of captionmax, which is solely responsible for the accurate and complete transcription of program content. cbs, its parent and affiliated companies, and their respective agents and divisions, are not responsible for the accuracy, or completeness of any transcription, or for any errors in transcription. closed captioning provided by cbs sports division >> mike wallace,mi