>> charlie: welcome to the program. we begin this evening with the story of the missing malaysian airlines flight 370 and we talk to andy pasztor of the wall street journal. >> the suspicion is either a pilot or a passenger on board the aircraft intentionally turned off the transponder to be invisible to radar and they had some nefarious reason to take the aircraft somewhere. i don't think that there's a more specific or firm theory than that, but that's a pretty frightening theory and it remains one that's actively being pursued. not the only theory, perhaps not even the main theory, but clearly a strand in the investigation that u.s. national security folks and aviation experts think is worthwhile to delve into. >> charlie: we continue with prince turki al faisal, a member of the saudi royal family and

former intelligence chief. >> we've had our ups and downs. i don't need to remind you of them. >> charlie: yes. but we look upon the united states as not just a strategic ally but a very important country. you know, we have more than -- i think now the number is 80,000 saudi students spread all over the united states in your universities. >> charlie: right. and that's an indication of where the people of saudi want to maintain this close contact with the united states. >> charlie: we conclude this singh with jon medved, an israeli venture capitalist. >> we allow credit investors to go online and look at the best startups coming out of israel and can decide which one they would like to invest starting from $10,000. so it's not, you know, the 20 bucks you spend on kick starter. someone called us kick starter for millionaires, but it's quite

democratic relative to the existing venture capital ecosystem where it's a couple of guys in close room. andy pasztor, turki al faisal and jon medved when we continue.

captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> charlie: six days have passed since malaysian airlines flight 370 vanished on march 8. the boeing 777 was carrying 239 passengers and crew on board the flight from kuala lumpur to beijing. the mysterious disappearance prompted a massive international aiair and sea search. there have been no results so far as investigations are broadening. several countries are assisting plainings authorities in their efforts including the united states, china and india. tensions have grown as china and vietnam were critical of malaysian authorities coordinating the efforts. thursday, u.s. investigators were looking at data that

suggested the plain miff flown for hours after the last known contact. plainings authorities disagreed and said all passages were still open. we have andy pasztor joining us from los angeles, california. >> absolutely, good to be here. >> charlie: tell me where we are at this moment. you filed that story overnight, then you had the acting transport minister suggest it wasn't true, as far as he knew. what's happened since then because u.s. investigators seem to be suggesting there was a period in which the plane seemed to have flown, because of sensors and other things, after last contact, i think which was at 10:3 a.m. or 10:7 a.m. >> if we take a step back, this is turning into a bad tom clancy novel. you have the malaysian investigators who are challenged and critics would say they're

not overly comp at the present . you have an aircraft that's supposed to have crashed in water and no debris after extensive research, and now after the story we ran, it seems investigators are looking seriously at the possibility that this aircraft continued to fly for up to four hours after the last transponder reading and after it disappeared off radar screens. so this is really an unprecedented kind of mix of issues and problems and challenges, and i don't think it's close to being resolved. >> charlie: why do they believe the plane flew for four hours after the last contact they had from the cockpit, as i said, at 1:07:00 a.m.? >> there were some transmissions off the aircraft which indicate to investigators that it was moving, meaning flying, and its engines were working for a big chinchunk of the four hours, pes the entire four hours. you have the fog of war.

there is also the fog of aviation crash investigations. initially, the suspicion was the data came from engine monitoring systems for the aircraft that rolls royce, the engine manufacturer put on. now it appears its even more complicated. a system is on board the aircraft which communicates with satellites to download maintenance data, systems monitoring data, very routine. in this case, that data was not being transmitted but the system that was supposed to send it up into space was reaching out to the satellites periodically, every 30 minutes, sometimes every hour, essentially saying to thecitis the satellites, i'mm ready to send and operating, and this means the aircraft was intact, moving and completely shatters the notion that people have been talking about ever since day one, that the plane went down when the transponder stopped transmitting and something dramatic happened at that point. we're talking about hours that

it remained in the air and on top of all of that, investigators are trying to see and suspect that it may even have landed. they're not sure and there's no firm data, but they do suspect that it's possible that it landed somewhere in an undisclosed location that they really don't know. >> charlie: what would have been the purpose of the land? because they had a defective plane, a problem on board, or they were trying to do something else that we can't imagine? >> well, we should remind your viewers, this is really not fiction, this is actually going on in asia right now. >> charlie: yeah. the suspicion is that either a pilot or a passenger on board the aircraft intentionally turned off the transponder to be invisible to radar, and they had some nefarious reason to take the aircraft somewhere. i don't think that there's a more specific or firm theory than that, but that's a pretty frightening theory, and it remains one that's actively being pursued. not the only theory, perhaps not

even the main theory, but clearly a strand in the investigation that u.s. national security folks and aviation experts think is worthwhile to delve into. >> charlie: what are the other theories that are operative? >> well, i think you have a classic aircraft crash where there's a potential structural failure, perhaps some incredibly egregious pilot errors which put the plane into a maneuver that they can't recover from. certainly fire is always a danger or aircraft and it can happen very quickly and can overwhelm a cockpit and a cockpit

interest other scenarios. if it lands in the water, something has to float. cushions, piece of the galleys, a life raft, something. and despite all of the searches so far, there has not been one piece of wreckage that is verified as coming from the aircraft and aviation experts say that is as perplexing as anything they've seen. >> charlie: and what direction do they think the plane miff headed during the four hours after the last message? >> to make it more complicated for everyone, the transmissions that i talked about provide some cloaklocations but not precise locations. now they're trying to analyze the data to see if they can determine between the transmissions, between 30 minutes or an hour which direction the plane moved in and perhaps get some idea of its trajectory. but i have to tell you, from

working on this with my colleagues ever since the night, the early morning it crashed, i don't believe that there is a strong consensus in the investigative community about where the plane is, what happened to it, did it go into the ocean, is it possibly on land somewhere, did it crash into land somewhere else. this is the most amazing situation after almost a week of searches. >> charlie: take the air france flight. they found some debris soon after the plane went down or at least days, did they not? >> that is correct. they didn't find the black box or recorders for very much longer because they were very deep in the ocean and difficult to find. but they did find debris and, from that aircraft, the same system that we have been talking about that transmits system monitoring data and maintenance data, the investigators, pretty early on, the data was

transmitted and they early on got a good overall sense of what was happening on the aircraft. not a full picture or a real detailed examination of the issues, but they got a sense of what was happening on that plane. we have absolutely no sense, at this point, of what was happening on this plane. totally normal transmissions to air traffic control, then the transponder stops, and then you have this bizarre situation where it was flying around in some undetermined location. >> charlie: planes vanish. this is not the first time a plane has vanished. however, they say to me now, this is the most remarkable vanishing plane we have ever seen. what makes this different? >> the year, when it vanishes, the modern jet aircraft, wide-body jet transport with all of the communications and monitoring systems on board in a very peaceful, good weather night, with no indication from the pilots that there were any problems, and as far as we can tell at this point, no

mechanical issues on this type of aircraft, no nagging safety issues that should have an impact. so i think it's dramatically different from other disappearances because the plane is relatively new, there's no weather, there are no storms, no indications of any mechanical issues before the flight, and, so, you're left, really, just shrugging your shoulders because there are so many strands that just don't seem to fit together. >> i talked to sully sulle sullenburger about it on cbs this morning and i said to him, if you could make a couple of phone calls now to get more of an understanding of this, who would you call? he said, i'd call boeing and rolls royce. now, some people are calling boeing and rolls royce. were they to be the recipients of the sensors that were sending information back about how well the engines and the plane were performing? >> ultimately, they would get the information. they certainly are looking at it now as part of the probe, but

the information initially goes to the airline and a central repository of some of this information operated by a subcontractor. so they would be helping, and they are there on scene, but this information wasn't intended to go to them directly. >> charlie: wasn't intended to koto whom? >> to -- >> charlie: wasn't intended to go to whom? >> in boeing, but in rolls royce's case it was, but not boeing. >> charlie: did they receive the information, though? >> what we have been reporting is this sketchy but nevertheless important satellite transmissions from the aircraft were there and they indicate the aircraft was flying around, and both boeing and rolls royce are aware of it as well as the malaysian investigators, and they're trying to decipher and make sense of it and, at this point, it's still sort of an effort in progress. >> charlie: with the advantage of more reporting, would you change anything about the story you wrote? >> well, as i indicated, in the

fog of the investigation, i would have gone a little bit differently about what kind of data was coming off this aircraft. >> charlie: right. but the significant point really is, unlike the scenario which has been the one that everybody has followed for ever since the accident, ever since the disappearance, which is the plane went down at a certain point and let's look for the wreckage, it's pretty clear to me and i think to a lot of other people that that is not a scenario that will work in this case. something else happened and this plane kept moving around, and that is just unprecedented in these kind of cases. >> charlie: there's one last scenario people talk about. it's the payne stewart scenario, is that a viable option that somehow, some way everybody with you put to sleep on the plane? >> difficult to square with the transponder going out and also

difficult to square with the flight of this aircraft. i'm told, and we're still trying to determine this and really get it confirmed, but i'm told that there are some indications, some suspicions, certainly, that there were manual adjustments and changes to the flight management computer when the aircraft changed direction. so when it disappeared from the radar screens and changed directions, investigators suspect that there were some manual inputs to affect that change in direction and to program the computer. and if that's the case, then the payne stewart, you know, scenario was completely out the window. it just doesn't make any sense. >> charlie: a lot of questions and few answers. >> but fascinating topic, yes. >> charlie: andy, thank you. you're welcome. >> charlie: andy pasztor of the wall street journal, from

los angeles. 69 years after saudi arabia and the united states form an alliance, the two countries find themselves at odds. tensions have escalated over u.s. policy in the region, especially over syria and iran. in an effort to repair this core alliance, president obama will be visiting the kingdom later this month. joining me is prince turki al faisal, served as former saudi ambassador to the u.s. and u.k.. welcome. >> thank you. nice to be back. >> charlie: a pleasure to have you back. >> thank you. >> charlie: let me remind you of some things you have been saying around the world. >> okay. >> charlie: what's happening with america is a fascinating spectacle. it is a lesson in what not to do. tell me what the lesson is. >> well, the lesson is that, if you are going to engage in world affairs, you must stick to what you say and act on what you

promise. and from the perspective of the kingdom, as you rightly said, we've had a long-standing relationship with the united states. we've had our ups and downs. i don't need to remind you of them. >> charlie: yes. but we look upon the united states as not just a strategic ally, but a very important country. you know, we have more than, i think now the number is 80,000 saudi students spread all over the united states in your universities. >> charlie: right. and that's an indication of where the people of saudi arabia want to maintain this close contact with the united states. so when the u.s. tells us that it's going to do something, we expect them to do it. >> charlie: now, you're talking about the fact that the united states, after suggesting that the syrian government in the use of chemical weapons, had crossed a red line, did not do

anything. the president would be quick to say a, yes, we did do something. >> that is true. getting rid of chemical weapons anywhere in the world is a good step. but you've got a military conflict now in syria where more than -- i think by the latest united nations numbers, more than 150,000 people have been killed. i think that not just the united states -- >> charlie: and millions of refugees. >> not just the united states, but the world community should be doing something to stop the killing, and that is not happening. we've had geneva 1 and 2 and both have gone by the way without any stopping of the killing. so where does our responsibility stop? does it stop with simply stopping the use of chemical weapons, but there are tanks and airplanes and these fire barrels as they call them that the regime has devised to throw and

lob on civilians in syria and kill as many as get killed, that hasn't stopped. so this is where my take on this is that not just the united states but the world community has been lacking in the will to do something about that. >> charlie: let's take the united states first. i mean, the president said he did, in fact, when urged by advisers to support the rebels with weapons and ar armaments, e did not do that. there's never been a question of putting boots on the ground on the part of the united states. >> right. >> charlie: he chose not to do that. he now has looked at it again and they're trying to do some things but here's very wary of that because to have the composition of the -- because of the composition of the rebels. the question is what is your government doing? what is the qatar government doing and are you supporting jihadists who very much would be

the enemy of your government, the qatar government, and every other government in the middle east except perhaps the most radical? >> and this is where i think something that has to be done can be done because the kingdom definitely does not support people who would inflict harm on the kingdom. >> charlie: and you do know, though, that there are people who are fighting in the rebel forces who would do that. >> and we're not supporting them. >> charlie: how do you make sure it gets to one and not the other, which has been the dilemma for the united states? >> well, you know, use people like yourself -- well, you know, news people like yourself have been to the front lines in syria. >> charlie: yes. they've met with these jihadists and with the legitimate moderate opposition to the assad regime, and they know pretty much who they are.

my assumption is that the intelligence services, whether the cia, m.i.6, the french intelligence, saudi intelligence, et cetera, they would have extensive files on who these people are. so delivering these weapons -- defensive, not offensive weapons -- to the right people is something that, to me, is logical and is available. so you don't have to simply throw these weapons at whoever will take them, but you can choose who your recipients are and make sure that they use them in the right fashion of defending themselves against the aircraft and the tanks and the missiles that the assad regime lobs at them. >> charlie: what is your assessment of the situation on the ground today? >> as i understand it, and my information is mostly from open

sources, news media -- >> charlie: you have friends. well, i do have friends, but i really, sincerely tell you that i depend mostly on open sources. there is a stalemate on the ground with both sides going forwards and backwards, and something tha has to break thero make the negotiations that were envisioned in geneva 1 and 2 successful because if the assad regime still believes that it can win, then it's not going to concede on any political compromise. so you have to supply these weapons -- defensive weapons -- anti-aircraft, anti-tank, anti-artillery, et cetera -- to level the playing ground so that the opposition can have a say in the future of what is happening in syria. >> charlie: because everybody

worries that, if, in fact, assad goes, what follows him? >> i think what follows him, if we're smart, and i think we should be smart, by supporting the more legitimate resistance in syria, you can have a moderate and legitimate representation of the syrian people. >> charlie: and even the most -- even the most extreme jihadists are fighting among themselves. >> not just the extreme jihadists, but you have the moderates now are fighting on several fronts. they're fighting assad, they're fighting extreme groups coming from iraq into syria and jihadist elements on the ground. >> charlie: did the united states government try to restrain what saudi arabia did in syria? >> not that i know of. i have not heard that the u.s.

tried to restrain anything. >> charlie: because it worried what it was doing was helping the jihadists. >> no, because they know exactly who we're supporting, and there's extensive cooperation between the united states and saudi arabia on the ground on who exactly it is that receives support in syria. >> charlie: does your government trust the united states government? >> we do. you know, we've had a long and historic relationship with the united states. during the '40s, '50s, '60s and '70s when the cold war was at its height, saudi arabia and the united states worked closely together on many issues. the middle east, you had terrible things happening in the middle east with soviet encroachment in south yemen, and some parties in the middle east and the kingdom and the united

states worked closely. the ultimate cooperation happened when saddam hussein invaded kuwait. we had half a million soldiers on saudi soil. >> charlie: to the consternation of people like osama bin laden. >> well, and nonetheless -- >> charlie: you were central to that because, as i remember, you went to try to meet with muammar or somebody. >> to try to get the lad and hand him over to the kingdom. >> charl: and he said we don't give up our friends. >> but the united states stood by us when we needed a friend, and we stood by the united states when the united states need add friend to stand by them. >> charlie: you mean in the first gulf war. >> the first gulf war and previous and subsequent to that. >> charlie: do you believe that the president and his leadership as weakened america? >> your president has had a tough time.

his first term was spent trying to get over the problems that the u.s. faced after the previous president left office, whether the economy, whether iraq, whether afghanistan, you name it and he had to deal with that. >> charlie: so you have some respect for the fact that he had a lot to deal with? >> not only that, but the u.s. is coming out of all these problems, and that is an indication of where the president has gone. in his september speech to the united nations general assembly, he addressed the issue of palestine and the issue of iran nuclear weapons. on palestine, he's had secretary kerry now visiting i don't know how many times and devoting a lot of time, and the president has met with mr. netanyahu and i think he is meeting next week with mr. abbas. so that is an indication of where the president is going in the middle east which is the

palestinian issue. if we can solve that issue, we can go on to solve other issues. >> charlie: i'll up the on that and come back to iran. do you believe john kerry is making progress? >> i hope so because, in my view, if he doesn't make progress on this issue now, we're going to have a lot of problems coming in the next few years from palestine and from everything connected to it. >> charlie: and you're fully supportive of the kerry mission? >> very much so. >> charlie: and make that clear to your palestinian friends? >> not just me as a person, but the arab league has been supportive of the kerry mission. you know, there is a follow-up committee in the arab league that deals with palestine and peace and they have been telling mr. kerry and publicly supporting his efforts. >> charlie: but you believe he has a chance? it obviously depends on the israelis and the palestinians. >> i believe the chances now are

better than they have been in the last five years. >> charlie: because? because of this effort. >> charlie: ah. so because of kerry -- >> not just kerry, but the president. >> charlie: the president supporting kerry. >> the president supporting kerry. >> charlie: it's the president's foreign policy. >> i have been telling people we need the big bear pushing us behind our backs. >> charlie: so the big bear is pushing? >> the big bear is pushing. >> charlie: the u.s. government is what you mean? >> the u.s. government, president obama, mr. kerry, they're pushing, and it gives people like netanyahu and abbas the opportunity to turn to their constituency and tell them, there is this big bear pusher g us and if we don't come through the bear will get angry with us. >> charlie: then there is iran where the united states, other european governments, they're engaged in conversations because they believe there maybe an opening with a new regime in iran. it is said that you and the

government that you used to serve ago intelligence chief and ambassador thinks that's a terrible mistake and you worry about it more than anything and that you and your government and israel are on the same page. >> the kingdom and the other gcc countries, gulf corporation council, have issued statements about the p5 plus one talks with iran when they reached the interim agreement saying that they're very hopeful that these negotiations will lead to a permanent agreement on the status of nuclear enrichment and proliferation with iran. and being hopeful means that you're supportive of the p-5-plus one engagement with

iran. we engage with iran. we have an embassy in tehran and tehran has an embassy in saudi arabia. hopefully with the election of the president who made favorable comments not just about saudi arabia but improving his relationship with his neighbors, that this spirit he brings will move the other -- >> charlie: how will it be in iran? >> -- interdicting forces in iran to come around with engagement rather than combativeness with their neighbors. >> charlie: do you believe he is a genuine reformer? >> personally, i believe he is because he has come with that message, during and after the election campaign. he won 53, 54%, a mandate to

improve relations not just with the west but with the neighboring countries including scrape. >including saudsaudi arabia. >> charlie: because saudi arabia and iran are in giant competition in the gulf. if it's good for iran, bad for saudi arabia, good for saudi arabia bad for iran. >> what's good for us is the following, that the area remains without nuclear weapons, that the area engages in negotiation and not conflict, that we don't interfere in each other's affairs. one of the problems we have had with iran is that they interfere. in syria, they have revolutionary guards on the ground, they have asked hesbollah to interferey lebanon and syria. >> charlie: and they have. they've asked others from iraq to interfere in syria and

they interfered in iraq. >> charlie: they would say saudi arabia and turkey and qatar is interfering. >> they have to show that's true. we can show the iranians are doing that. but there are no saudi troops in syria. >> charlie: there are saudis. well, there are saudis here. >> charlie: there are saudis radical jihadists fighting the rebels. >> you have your citizens and you have your -- >> charlie: and so the worry is what happens when those jihadists gain all that experience in syria, go back to wherever they're from? >> and this is what i have been declearing in my talks everywhere, that syria is a festering wound and the festering wound collects the worst bacteria, and these bacteria are now fighting in syria, and once that fighting stops, these bacteria are going to go back where they came from.

so the likelihood is that they will infect wherever they came from. so stopping the fighting in syria today is more important than simply letting it go on indefinitely. >> charlie: what's your assessment of iraq today? >> iraq is still a work in progress. you have a government that is, as you can see, in anbar and even in iraq. among the kurds, they are very much in opposition to what the present government is goin doind coming up for elections in the next month or so, so there is an opportunity for the people of iraq to say the word and hopefully change the complexion of the government from being a

pugulistic government, if you like, into a more accommodating and national government than they have been. >> charlie: do you think i have to a mistake for american troops not to have stayed behind if they had gotten the request by the iraqi government? >> america invaded iraq in 2003 and, when america said we're going to withdraw, tashed they d withdraw. >> charlie: that's what the president said. >> i think i agree with the president. >> charlie: and in afghanistan? >> same way. two stages in the afghan issue. one is when your troops were chasing bin laden in tora bora, remember, in 2002. >> charlie: i do. and then you stopped because you withdrew your troops to deploy them in -- that was a mistake. >> charlie: they withdrew because they thought the afghans could take care of it at that

point. >> that's what i say was a mistake. the other was killing bin laden. >> charlie: what was the mistake? >> in having killed bin laden, they should have declared victory and withdrawn from afghanistan. >> charlie: what we set out to do -- >> mission accomplished. but unfortunately, they're still negotiating with the present government on the status of forces agreement post-2014, and i think the united states should get out of afghanistan and leave it to the afghans. >> charlie: but suppose it becomes another rogue state, that's a breeding ground for al quaida affiliates. >> al quaida is pretty much -- >> charlie: is al quaida, al quaida and affiliates. >> the afghan people are not very much in support of the taliban. you know, the taliban did the worst thing in afghanistan. they antagonized the afghan

people, and that's why the afghan people supported the u.s. and international intervention in afghanistan, and i think, if you deal with pakistan, with india, with iran as you have dealt in the past and hopefully with a new outlook to develop economic and social development in afghanistan, that you can get over this issue. >> charlie: what's going to happen in pakistan? >> what does pakistan need? it need stability, economic development and it needs a freedom from baggage that is inherited from previous governments. so, on stability, the government has to establish its writ. i think they're calle called --n

areas where there isn't much government there. >> charlie: you have been talking about the biggest problem the u.s. had in afghanistan is there was a safe refuge. >> and the pakistanis would say there was a safe refuge for pakistani elements in afghanistan and you have to fix that issue by fixing the border between afghanistan and pakistan. this is from british colonial days. by doing that, by fixing this line and having it permanent, then you can leave a huge pressure from the shoulders of the afghany, of the pakistani leaders who worry about ambitions of some groups in afghanistan, particularly the

pashtools. i've read the history -- you've read the history. >> charlie: it's said the if the iranians get a bomb, the saudis will get a bomb in -- >> i don't think the pakistanis will be free to do what is called with what is called their bomb. they will face a lot of sanctions. the kingdom will face a lot of sanctions if it acquires nuclear weapons. so we would prefer to have a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the area extending from iran all the way across including turkey, israel and the arab countries. >> charlie: israel will never agree. >> why not? >> charlie: ask them. you know why not. because they believe --

>> the leader gave an interview when he was still alive in which he said if there is peace with the arab world, we might consider having some kind of weapons of mass destructions zone in the middle east. the statement was repeated by the prime minister. and in the last few months when there were discussions on the zone free of weapons of mass destruction through the ia-ea meetings in vienna, israel participated in the discussions for having zone-free weapons of mass destruction in the middle east. my vision is we can have the five permanent members of the security council provide two guarantees to the zone -- one is a nuclear security umbrella for all members of the zone, and

second that the five permanent members will equally guarantee that they will militarily sanction any infringer on that zone, then we can have good discussions with all the members of the zone to remove what is now a remaining obstacle, the israeli-arab dispute and the iranian issue, et cetera. >> charlie: let's talk about your country. how is abdulas. >> he is 92. >> charlie: the saudi government has lots of challenges. is the succession set? >> we have a crowned prince, a second deputy prime minister. wminister.

he had two operations on his back. he does his work with ministers, meeting with heads of state, will be meeting with president obama as he goes there and he does the work. the crowned prince now will be on a visit to china. he's been to india and japan, so the kingdom is operating. >> charlie: and what happened to prince bandar? >> still the head of intelligence. >> charlie: the report coming out is he's on the way out. >> you know, i tell everybody about reports about saudi arabia. if you don't see it coming out of the royal d 1 in a statement saying what it is, don't believe it. >> charlie: so maybe it wasn't going to happen and he fall back and so it's not going to happen? what's the scenario? >> the scenario is if there is anything going to happen it will come out of the royal d1. >> charlie: was he in trouble

for any reason? >> i have no idea. >> charlie: the former intelligence chief and member of the royal family has no idea? >> absolutely because prince bandar and other members of the government, they're the concern of the government, not my concern. >> charlie: but people believe you speak for the government because you don't have an official position so, therefor, when you go around condemning the united states and raising questions about our ability to stand firm, that you're simply reflecting your government's position. >> you know, we have a saying in arabic, your friend is he who tells you the truth, not he who tells you what you want to hear. i as a friend of the united states and many saudis as friends of the united states have been telling our friends in the united states what we believe is the truth. i don't think i've ever condemned the united states. >> charlie: you use language

everybody would assume is condemning. >> well, we can have an argument about semantics on that issue. but what i'm saying is that if i see my friend doing something wrong, i have to tell him that he's doing something wrong. >> charlie: and something wrong he was doing was not being as tough with syria as he should have been when the so-called red line that he announced was passed. that's the biggest issue. not iran. >> indeed. >> charlie: the final thing, the qatar government is always raising concerns because it seems to be aggressive, ambitious, wanting to play a huge role in the region, the kind of role saudi arabia and egypt have played. this is jeff goldberg who you know. >> not personally. >> charlie: but you know who he is. he gets these interviews with the president all the time, and you read those.

al-fani, th the amir of qatar mt with five neighboring countries including saudi arabia, bahrain, the united arab emirates, according to two people with direct knowledge of this meeting the five foreign ministers, including your brother, i assume, had a simple message for the amir, cut it out, we know what you're doing. >> well, you know, saudi arabia, bahrain and the united arab emirates withdrew their ambassadors from qatar a couple of weeks ago because there was an agreement signed by all the gcc countries -- and not in secret, by the way, it was a public agreement on security affairs -- that there will be no interference in each other's affairs, that there will be coordination between the gcc countries when it comes to

issues of security and national interest, et cetera, et cetera, and, in the view of saudi arabia and bahrain and the uae, qatar has not lived up to that agreement and, hence, the public expression of disagreement with qatar on this agreement was by withdrawing the ambassadors from qatar. i can tell you that there was no secret meeting between tamim and the other gcc members in kuwait because all the meetings that have taken place have been in public. >> charlie: but they did meet. of course. >> charlie: and they told him to cut it out, you're meddling too much and we don't like it. >> they told him that the articles of this agreement that we agreed to, qatar has not respected them, and that's why we're withdrawing our ambassadors and hopefully the

qatars will come to their senses and come around. >> charlie: do you believe the iranian government will be successful and be prepared to dismantle the nuclear -- >> the hope is there. >> charlie: yeah. but, you know, your late president reagan used to say trust but verify. you need verification. >> charlie: and in syria, you're hopeful that the president of the united states will come back from saudi arabia, with saudi arabia and the united states on the same page as to what to do about the war in syria that killed so many thousands of syrians and made millions homeless. >> we hope. >> charlie: thank you for coming. pleasure to see you. >> always a pleasure to see you. >> charlie: jon medved is here, one of israel's leading venture capitalist. ourcrowd is a funding platform to back israeli startups.

silicon valley may have a rival. third largest source of listings on nasdaq after north america and china. pleased to have johnion on the program for the first time. welcome. >> great to be here. >> charlie: you grew up in california. >> i did, born in san diego, grew up in l.a., school at berkeley. >> charlie: how old were you when you moved to israel? >> 24. i grew up in a political family, obviously, i went to berkeley. i made a summer visit to israel and it blew my mind, it was a complete game changer. i got interested in my jewish heritage. kept going back to israel, taught myself he brew, moving there, thinking i would be a fulfilled but poor person. didn't work out that way. >> charlie: no, it didn't. how did you get rich? >> first of all, my father shows up for a trip -- my late faster was a physicist who was a startup guy in the '50s and '60s before it was fashionable. he was going fiber optics in our garage at home. he showed up in israel and said, look, i want to go visit tech

people so i can write the trip off. so i went with him, sat in a meeting with these guys and they were talking fiber optics, which nobody knew what the heck it was in those days. i sat quietly on the side. at the end, the guys said, what are you doing in the country? i said, i'm doing tour guiding, studying history. one guy said what a total waste. i felt slapped. i thought he was supposed to dance and say welcome home brother. they said, what your dad is doing is fiber optics. this is what israel needs. on the way back from the meeting, i said, dad, what do you do, again? by the end of the trip, i decided i would work for him and help him raise money and got started in technology. >> charlie: and now you are one of -- i think i saw a poll in "the new york times" called you one of the ten most influential americans who have impacted israel. israel has a very, very good high-tech sector. >> it's remarkable right now. i mean, there's so much activity. you basically go outside, throw

a rock and hit a young startup person. there are hundreds and hundreds of new companies starting each year. it's about what happens to them. these guys get bought by the american giants. a lot of technology coming out of google, microsoft, intel and ciscsysco started in israel. >> charlie: is the government upset? >> no, they buy one, the other and create huge presences in israel. they employ half our ecosystem. for guys like me in the venture capital game and the crowd funding game in ourcrowd, we have a guilt-in exit mechanism because you have to get the money out after you put it in and one of the best ways to it other than ipo is to find a multi-nationalist to buy it. >> charlie: you would have thought israel would have produced at least one create cat company. >> by great you're defining it

as google or facebook or apple computer, microsoft. there are very few other countries in the world who have them. >> charlie: clearly. what's interesting about the web sap acquisition is the value is greater than sony and toshiba. >> charlie: what happened to your dad's company? >> sold it to amoco, which today is british petroleum, which was my exit. i figured if i could learn fiber optics with a history degree, i could build software, so i built a software company and got that public, then started a venture capital fund in my garage, started at a couple million and grew to 60 million. at 60, i started a mobile software company, got that public and traded on nasdaq today. it's growing. other people are managing it. right now what i'm doing is building something in the crowd funding space because i want to change the way investments are made and democratize it and

bring in millions of people who haven't had a chance. >> charlie: like kickstarter? kickstarter for real investors. kickstarter basically allows you to give money to projects. you like a cool singer or an indy moviemaker and you can send them money. but today on kickstarter you can't invest money in companies. so we allow the credited investors, you actually have to have a million dollars of net worth or income. so they can go online and look at best startups coming out of israel and see which one they would like to invest in with $20 million. so it's not 20 bucks. somebody called us kick starters for millionaires. it's still quite democratic compared to the existing venture capital ecosystem with a couple of guys in a closed room. >> charlie: an a quote from ariel harkman, said israel in the next 20 years represent critical junction on economic

road to prosperity. the choices for israel will be content selling innovation to the highest foreign bidder, must remain an outsource laboratory for more prosperous economies or if it will be willing to develop a comprehensive manufacturing base of its own and take innovation from launch to mass production. do you buy that? >> partially. the problem is, today, if you actually occupy the space that israel occupies, which is the world's incubator for the new -- the new idea for something which is conceptually important, and you do sell it, this is not a bad place to be. last year, there was $2.2 billion invested in startups. $6.7 billion in exits. so a 3-to-1 ratio. there were six different exits in the last 14 months at a billion dollars or more. a billion dollars isn't a $100 billion company but not too shabby when you're an investor or entrepreneur with $2 million

getting in as an investor or from scratch. there are companies built in israel, like checkpoint, $13 billion, and the big pharmaceutical giant who is sends o of -- tens of billions f dollars. so we don't have facebook or even a web site yet but i think we will. i think what you're seeing now in the country is a generation of what we call serial entrepreneurs, people who have been there, done that, want to do it again but the second time they want more, and they're more patient and want to grow the business more. what's also happening is private equity is now coming into the country to supplant venture capital. so you have the early stage investors and now guys are writing $50 million checks for later stage companies to grow them farther and faster and that's exciting. >> charlie: you're a traveling chamber of commerce. >> traveling a lot lately. >> charlie: you understand you are a vice for israel's -- a voice for israel's economic development. >> i am and i'm passionate about

it. i mean, israel is not just a country, you know, for me it was a place i chose to live. i didn't flee from anywhere. i love america dealer. i'm grateful to america for providing a refuge to my family. my mom fled the holocaust, my father fled the ukraine. but i'm building the jewish faith. i'm part of perhaps the greatest romance of the last 100 years which is an indigenous people expelled from its homeland now has come home, and not just come home and achieved independence, but is creating some of the createst science, technology, movies and tv, fashion and food, arguing, democratic society and i just find it incredible that the romance of israel was a big deal, you know, 50 or 60 years ago with the movie exodus and whatnot. but i think the ethos of startup nation is equally exciting and the notion that israel is changing the world that we now live in, whether it's through instant messaging or pills or

little video cameras that image your body or companies that allow the infirm to walk, the blind to see, cure cancer or preventing hiv in africa, solar energy, water -- yesterday our prime minister was in california signing a water pack with california which is suffering an extreme drought. israel recycles 80 or 90% of its water. we're eight months before the nearest competitor. >> charlie: we need the jordan. >> we need to release water from the sea of galilee to the jordan. >> charlie: glad to have you. great to be here. captioning sponsored by rose communications

captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org explore new worlds and new ideas

through programs like this. made available for everyone through contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you.