>> rose: welcome to the program. tonight we talk about iran and the ongoing nuclear negotiations taking place in switzerland. joining me is krejci -- karim sadjadpour and steve coll. >> they think let's normalize. our alliance with the shaw was a lynchpin of our strategy in the middle east, the iranian civilization and population are potential players in a more stable world after the revolutionary fervor dies. let's move towards it's and take a risk even though it will upset our sunni allies. there are people who think small. there's a sectarian war going on

that's getting deeper and darker by the day. shi'a iran is a party to that conflict. >> we conclude this evening with bernard-henri levy, the french writer talking about the middle east and what's happening on the ground in iraq. >> we have a unique country in europe where there's such a support for big parting but she's on the decline already. a lot of people again predicted she did not get that. because the french borders begin to understand not only that she's a woman but also that this party which pretends to be the clean party is full of dirty people. >> rose: the iran negotiations come down to the wire, and a conversation with bernard-henri levy when we continue.

>> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by: >> rose: additional funding provided by: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: we begin this evening with the talks in switzerland about the future of iran's nuclear program. officials from the u.s. iran and five other nations are trying to reach a frame work agreement ahead of a self imposed deadline that may extend to tomorrow. the main sticking points is

research and time line for lifting sanctions. it's unknown whether iran's premium leader will agree to concessions needed for the deal. abc news poll say a majority of the americans are in favor with a deal of iran. joining me now to discuss these talks from washington d.c., karim sadjadpour of the carnegie endowment here in new york. steve coll is the dean of the columbia school of journalism and a staff writer at the new yorker magazine. i'm pleased to have both of them as of this moment as we take this program at about 5:15, there is no agreement. but there is a question of where we are, karim. where do you think they are at this moment? >> charlie, at the moment it's a game of brinksmanship. iran feels pretty confident that the united states wants to steal more than they do. they also feel confident if there isn't an agreement. if there's an impasse, they won't be blamed for it, the u.s. congress and netanyahu will be

blamed for it. that said, i do feel pretty confident they will announce some type of a framework agreement a memorandum of understanding. it won't be as concrete as the united states would like. it won't be as concrete as the united states congress would like, but i think both sides, both the u.s. and iran want tob see us forward momentum. and then we'll kick the can down the road until july. >> rose: what do you say to that, steve. >> that's a good summary. they have both in tehran and washington making it hard to agree on something that really isn't that important in the long run which is the framework for additional negotiations. in the end what's going to matter is what kinds of terms are struck in june or july if we get that far about how iran's nuclear program will actually be managed. >> rose: where is the debate about specific provisions of the purported agreement that we know

about? i mean for example, we clearly know the obvious, which is they wanted to see the iranians, elimination of all sanctions as soon as possible if not immediately. we know that. we also know the united states wants to see some, some stopping ofprogram and want to see an agreement that extends at least 10 and perhaps 15 years and in the europeans had their way about 20 years. what is it, what's the hang up on that and how do we get a sense of where they are. >> i think there are three big buckets of issues and karim can jump in and correct any mischaracterizations. the yow has hung its hat on

these negotiations that if iran were to break the agreement and break out and build a bomb that the world would have an adequate amount of time to respond to that break out. >> rose: at least a year. >> at least a year. what kind of freeze exactly. how many centrifuges and what conditions would they be. would it be research running in parallel. what would iran do to come clean about weapons work it never disclosed, how accountable would they be for that. what iseg the cap exactly. that's one set of issues. another you mentioned at what pace are the sanctions lifted as they comply with this. how is the compliance lifted compared to sanctions relief. there's a whole set of issues about the future of iran's program beyond the life of this agreement and the term of the agreement. ten years has become kind of a political issue in the united states because it's regarded as

a kind of concession to iran. but really arms control agreements are never indefinite. there's the idea that ten years wouldn't be enough to reingage and out a completely different set of trade offs seems to me probably the least incendiary of these. >> rose: i will add about the inspections, how thorough they would be, how invasive they would be. where are they on that issue, karim, and what are the iranians allegedly going to allow? >> that's big obstacle charlie. inspections, verification and iran coming clean on past activities. from the iranian perspective they feel reluctant to be transparent about their past flirtations with nuclear weapons experiments because they feel that would only incriminate them.

where as the iaea and the united states would certainly like to see greater iranian transparency. but i have to say charlie that this is an incredibly technical negotiation. but i believe this will really come down to a political decision for the supremeit leader. it's an economic no brainer for the iranian population to have this nuclear agreement. this is a program which has cost the nation hundreds of billions of dollars. and really will have negligible economic benefit. but it is a political risk for iran's leadership. remember this supreme leader for the last three and-a-half decades has made the claim that america can't be trusted, america is iran's worst enemy. he said throughout these negotiations that the talks won't go anywhere. he's not confident. so this is an uncomfortable position for him because i think frankly the united states has conceded to iran more than even

he anticipated. and in america we say the first rule of politics is know your base. the supreme leader's base for the last three and-a-half decades have been there attending friday's sessions chanting death to america,@n america can't be trusted. and so i think this is most difficult decision he'll have to make in his 26 year tenure. i think again it's a really political decision for him, not a technical or an economic decision. >> rose: you know iran well. help us understand where the various sides are affecting the politics of iran and the political decision. >> you know, the perennial challenge we've had in our dealings with iran is that those iranian officials who are accessible to us like the foreign minister are not powerful. and those iranian officials who are powerful are inaccessible to us. so you know the best president

obama can do is write a leader to the supreme leader who hasn't left iran since 1989. in the context of u.s. domestic politics as well i think when you talk to members of congress, what really animates themiran is frankly less iran's nuclear program and more iran's regional behavior. its opposition to israel's existence support for militant groups like hezbollah islamic jihad. i think members of congress would argue listen they haven't shown any signs of moderating the regional policies. if we sign this nuclear deal, we're simply going to be giving them tens if not hundreds of billions of additional dollars to double down on these regional policies which are against our interests. so this is a tough sell in both capitals but i do think for the supreme leader it's a much more difficult decision because hostility towards the united states has really become an

inextrickable part of the identity of the islamic republic and it's not easy to abandon them. >> rose: you also when you look at this from the iranian perspective theymhfñ have these activities, whether it's supporting hezbollah or whatever it is. and some hope that if there's an agreement, it will be the beginning of a new relationship. certainly that's not what saudi arabia likes, it's certainly not with the israelis would like but there are those who believe this could be the beginning of a building block. we find the iranians on the same side as we are in the battle against isis, for example. is any possibility we're looking at something that could be larger than an iranian nuclear restriction. >> i think there are certainly people in the obama administration who think along those lines. i mean the american side has a coalition of motives and there

are really aligned and sometimes an awkward way. you have the grand bargainists, let's normalize. our alliance with8s the shah was a lynchpin of our strategy in the middle east. the iranian civilization and population are potential players in a more stable world after the revolutionary fervor dies, let's move towards normalization and take the risk of a grand bargain even though it will upset our traditional sunni allies. certainly people who think that way but there are lots of people who think small. there's a sectarian war going on in the middle east getting deeper and darker by the day. shi'a iran is a party to that conflict. some of iran's opponents are also our enemies the islamic state in al-qaeda but some of the rivals, if not outright opponents, saudi arabia. >> rose: egypt.

>> are traditional allies. i think the obama administration hasn't really squared the drive with this nuclear deal with its regional impact and implication because as karim said the mconsequence of the deal is going to be potentially to enrich iran and empower iran at a time when it is in a conflict that is expansive in character when it is supporting proxies in syria and in lebanon and elsewhere that run against the grain of u.s. interests and u.s. goals. so congress is focused on this because it's a real issue. we've been distracted by the divisiveness caused by the netanyahu speech and the partisan tone of this debate in washington. in fact, there's a real substantive problem which is that iran's behavior is not on the table in switzerland. and yet iran's behavior may be changed by this deal if it's reached. >> rose: so how would you change that. how do you put iran's behavior

on the table? karim? >> you know, charlie, i think what you and steve were just talking about is very important point because ideally% for president obama and secretary kerry, they would like to see an iran deal which is transformational and something that goes beyond just a nuclear but transforms the u.s. iran bilateral relationship and iran's role in the region. i think the leadership in iran wants to see something which is much more transactional. we'll make a short term nuclear compromise in exchange for economic relief. and i think really the debate that's taking place in a tehran is going to play out over a period of years. and the debate is between those in iran that want to prioritize the country's national and economic interest. the model they broadly want to emulate is china. to say we're not going to

relinquish power but we'll open up the country economically. and that will strengthen the islamic republic. and those are the pragmatists. the supreme leaders say look at what happened when gorbachev tried to reform the soviet union. once you abandon your ideals your principles that's when the entire house could collapse. and i think certainly for the iranian population, the two thirds who were born after the revolution overwhelmingly they favor the more pragmatic approach to prioritize national economic interest first. the principals have a monopoly of coercion, they control the revolutionary guards and i think they see an opening up as an existential threat to them. i happen to believe they're right.

that they actually like kimjong-un in north korea they're shred enough to appreciate the isolation instead of a globalized integrated iran. >> rose: there's a limit to how much they really want to join the world. >> absolutely. i do think that for the hard-liners and tehran with the united states would be far more dangerous to their interests than a continued cold war. now it's true that iran is facing terrible economic circumstances. this is a country which in my opinion has the human capital and the natural resources to be parts of the g20. you got amazing potential which is really unfulfilled, but i think in the more parochial views of hard line officials in tehran, you know that would dilute their hold on power to be part of the outside world. >> rose: is there suspicion not in iran but in the united states that the president may be

willing to give away more than÷ even people who are not his political enemies believe. >> it's hard to separate the sort of posturing for 2016 and the partisan criticism of the president's negotiation from this broader context because really the sort of speech-making on the floor of congress and on the air waves is often very narrowly about capitulation and surrender. the problem is that the technical terms of the deal are not available. so if you want to make a particular criticism about the cap for example. you've allowed them to keep too many centrifuges, you're allowing too much research, you're not getting enough revelation of the past work which is monitoring whether they're going to comply. that hasn't been available and hasn't been disclosed, the deal hasn't been reached where you're left with this political agreement. the substantive criticism is

about this tension betweenñe the consequences of enriching and empowering this regime in tehran at a time when the u.s. is embroiled in the tech -- sectarian conflict in the middle east. >> rose: when he came to speak to the congress they very much disagreed with his effort to come and influence america at this time. but at the same time, they thought that was real merits to some of the arguments he was making. >> that's the conversation we're having now. the arguments he was making was the tension between an agreement with iran that would normalize the iranian economy, allow what's a shrinking economy to recover, allow iranian oil exports back on the world market. that revenue doesn't flow to the majority of the population that karim was referring to directly.

the revolutionary guards have a call on iran's export revenue. they built a deep stake that's self funding and hard on the economy. if we were unleashing the potential that karim described in iran taking the risks of normalization and transformation might seem more persuasive. but when you're unleashing a system that has entrenched the i think it's reasonable to ask the question how are you going to contain that while you're funding it. >> rose: karim, if in fact you take all the sanctions off now you'll neput them back. i think the president makes an argument that this is a unique time to try to get a deal. do you agree with the president on that?

>> i do agree charlie. and i think above all because there are no great alternatives you know. as a nation, it's obvious that we're tired of wars in the middle east. if there is a chance to resolve this issue diplomatically it's certainly not going to be a perfect deal. these going to be valid critiques of it. i think steve has aptly pointed out it doesn't have a regional dimension to it. but i think, and this is difficult to the united states because politicians by definition have short term outlooks. whether that's two years four years or six years. and these days with social media and cable television, we're always exg things -- examining things minute by minute. if we a strategic outlook we say (mqklisten for the last threeand-a-half decades we tried to isolate iran politically and economically. the hard-liners in iran want to be isolated. their isolation is by nature.

they know they can preserve their hold on power much better in isolation. how can we prevent the iranian regime from becoming north korea and help iranians decide to become south korea. that should be the goal of our policy. if we're able to pull off a deal whereby they put their program on hold, they put on the brakes for a good 10-15 years that's intrusive inspections and verifications. they have a huge incentive not to cheat there's not great alternatives to them. >> i think it's really important to emphasize that putting a program on hold is itself a strategic hold, right. because it will prevent either the drum beat of war to preempt the program from breaking out4z and weapon sizing and it will prevent a regional arms race. i don't want my sort of criticism of it sort of regional

blindness or the tension between the deal and american interests in the region to cloud the fact that stopping iran's program through negotiations for ten years would be a very significant and stabilizing achievement. >> rose: if you could do, if the president could do that while at the same time opening up cuba, he would be a world claim i guess on some form of world policy in the judgment of some people huge in his second term. >> wewith cuba. most of the rest of the world has already normalized economic and diplomatic relations with cuba. and we had an embargo. and obviously the achievement that the obama administration can point to this year isn't complete either. and the regime and havana's been very careful in a way parallel

to what karim was describing to the supreme leader is its right to defend its position by using the united states as a sort of perpetualal opposition. in iran's case ixlstakes much higher. the they've been the heart of this region for years. it has human capacity and potential that is bottled up by this surprisingly persistent revolution. and a transformation. if one could be achieved really would change the middle east. and it has the potential both inside iranpz and in the region to deliver a more economically integrated normalized middle class-led model of achievement that the region desperately needs. and even the sunni neighbors, they're quite weary of iranian's

ambitions and power and certainly fear it revitalized iran. they would benefit from an economically successful peaceful normalized iran. so this dream of transformation, someone is going to realize it and say it could be 20 or 30 years from now but someone is going to realize it. >> rose: you need to get beyond the trust factor is what you have to do in the absence of trust factor. karim, the last word. what are the elements of change in iran and what chance do they have? obviously we had after the election in which ahmadinejad was involved in we had millions of people in3j the streets. the iranian government sort of blamed the united states in part. the president was blamed for not doing more and saying more at the time. what are the possibilities of regime change? >> well charlie, that political economic social discontent we saw in display in iran in the summer of 2009 still very much

exists but i think that after the experience of being crushed by the government, and then looking on the television sets to see the carnage taking place in syria and iraq and yemen, i think people are allergic to the prospect of tumult. they had the revolution without democracy and today they want democracy without revolution. they are not willing to pursue revolutionary means. i think for that reason the pace of change is probably not going to be as fast as people would like. it's going to take place in many years.[óbut i would say that the day when iranian starts to pursue its national interests and prioritize its economic and national interest before revolution ideology i think there's going to be plenty of overlapping sw between the imraits and iran. i think the best quotes on iran

is henry kissinger. he says there are few nations in the world they have less common interests and more to quarrel than iran but iran has to decide whether it's a nation or cause. i think that's what president obama is trying to do to strengthen those who want to be a nation and weaken those who want to be a cause. >> rose: thank you. great to have you here. >> thank you. >> rose: great to see you. back in a moment. stay with us. >> rose: bernard-henri levy. he's an author journalist. he wrote an empassed plea to french voters to reject the far right candidate. the alliance of the conservative parties were a clear winner making a come back for former nicholai sarkozy. i'm glad to have my friend bernard-henri levy because he's

always doing interesting things including politics war and culture and art. welcome. >> thank you. >> rose: tell me about french elections. sarkozy is back. >> sarkozy is back and -- is down. everybody said he would have a big victory. >> rose: reading about it sarkozy came under some criticism because he refused to say certain things before the)run-off. >> it's a trial. sarkozy said very clearly he has nothing in common with national fluence. he said it. >> rose: he wasn't prepared to join an alliance against the national front which the socialists wanted him to do. >> i know. but what he did and what he said very clearly what that between lapen and him between the left

and right it was five until the last drop of blood. sarkozy said at that time very clearly at last this is very important because in europe, the biggest enemy of the fascists of the extreme right has always been not the left but the right. the moderate right. the right, yes. and lapen made it clear so many times that the one she wanted to kill at least politically was nicholaivaãsarkozy and the moderate right. so the events of yesterday is that everyone in the french right understood this low of french politics. the extreme right hates and wants to kill the right. >> rose: how much popular approval does she have? >> she has a lot and this is a shame for france. she has a lot. one voter out of four. >> rose: 25%. >> 25% which is frankly big.

we have a unique country in europe where there's such a support for big racist party. she's on the decline already. a lot of people again predicted 30 to 33%. she did not get that. because the french not only is she a racist woman but thisparty presents to be the clean party is full of dirty people. i made a piece a few weeks ago. >> rose: anti-semites -- >> not only just crooks. there's the candidate from the national front of people who are

just hooligans. >> rose: is it different from austria and other countries where we've seen this nationalistic far right possibility. >> the difference is that mash france is more right, more far right than a lot of european parties. look at the far right english parties. they don't want to make alliance in brussels in the european parliament with maria lepen. she's black sheep even for the extreme right in europe. her best ally in europe is putin. but except putin, nobody wants to shake hands. >> rose: does putin want her alliance. does putin care that maria lepen likes him. he hasn't reject her. >> no, more than that. he finance her. as you know there was a regulation a few weeks ago a

few months ago that maria lepen came to a russian bank to find the money to fund campaign. number one. and number two putin has one of his targets to destabilize european union and to break theap european union building. maria le pen is on-line for him. like hungary, the extreme right, of course of course for putin it was sort of a black alliance sort;which are his fifth column in the west and he uses them as a big leverage. >> rose: so what does this portend for the election in france, the presidential election coming up? does it mean sarkozy is now the favorite? >> my hope is that maria le pen

in france as you know we have two rounds. >> rose: right. >> my hope is that maria le pen will not be in the second round. after that will it be holland or sarkozy. it is a choice between republicans. it's a choice who really likes france. le penbso a race, a campaign between two real patriots hollande and sarkozy. it is a civilized arm wrestle. le pen is something else so target today for people like me is that le pen is not in the second round. >> rose: here's what i don't understand. i want you to explain to me on american television which will be seen in france as you know. you were close to settling royal

helping her with her debate regulation when she was running against sarkozy. he won she lost. you have said you're a man of the left. then sarkozy wins and then libya comes up. there is the possibility of a blood bath in benghazi. the doctor on the march and you play!frenchship access to him and you get france to rally and play the principal role, there's a documentary film about you. so there you are with the french president playing a role. then he's defeated. surprise surprise by francois hollande, the former partner of royal. the next election hollande wins. lo and beholdlh u are now sort

of a friend of, have connections with francois hollande. that's today. how do you do that? in america you don't sort of advise one president and have friendship with one president so you can urge certain kind of action. b, the next president of a different party, you can urge and have access. and now? >> i don't advise anyone. to advise means to do things behind the curtain, secretly, discreetly. i don't do that. i express myself always on quite a loud voice. so i say what i think. i plead what i believe and i tried to tell it to sarkozy, when hallland when he's nervous

and to american state secretary. >> rose: you do it much differently. you try to get them to take a course of conduct. you urged them to take a course of conduct. you say to sarkozy, it will be blood on the french flag if you do not take>> of course, because i was in benghazi. i happened to be in benghazi. i was an eye witness. i could say what i was, what was just in front of my eyes which would have been one of the worst blood bats bats -- baths of the last decade. i said to soccer -- sarkozy i was in iraq i was with these valiant soldiers who are fighting against isis. the only boots on the ground fighting against isis -- >> rose: that's not true. >> are boots on the ground. not boots. >> rose: no no there are iraqi militias on the ground. >> they are blocked out.

the real guys who are really creating some casualties on the other side, the best let's say the best soldiers -- so what do they do. i did these stories. i went to seemu president hollande very openly not as an advisor and i said it would be an honor for france to receive the -- to arm them -- >> rose: it would be an arne to france to do this. >> of course. it would be an honor for france to make an alliance in this area of the world with those who risk their life to defend civilizations. i saw these girls and i was really so impressed by these men, not young men. some had our age and they were citing in a certain way. >> rose: everybody talks about both the -- >> so what they do? i convince hollande to receive

them this wednesday. they will be in paris. >> rose: who is coming? >> a delegation of seven commands. >> rose: is it a military commands. >> military commands, yes hold the front line. >> rose: they're coming to)z hollande to ask what? >> they are coming to hollande probably to introduce themself to propose political alliance or to express the political alliance which exists already and maybe to ask for some militaryyzirñ means in order to proceed. >> rose: you mean supplies. >> supplies and weapons. >> rose: and support. >> if we all say that isis is a dandruff for civilization in general. are we serious or no. if we are serious -- >> rose: one of their central complaints is they're not getting enough support from the united states. >> that's why i bring to paris. that's why i invited them to

paris with the all of these seven commands and be received by francois hallland. >> rose: they will see him at the palace. >> of course. and it is our best interest -- >> rose: france's best interest. >> the west. to give this support. it's crucial. if we see isis is dangerous. >> rose: i think they both think it's that dangerous. france actually in an interesting way, hollande surprise surprise to some has taken a stronger stand and be more willing to employ french forces than expected. >> hollande has a tough and clear foreign policy. not only on kurdistan and against isis in syria.

remember 2013the french planes were about to take off when obama changed his mind. when he decided he had to consult the congress and so on. so france was in a advance look at ukraine and putin. france also is on a very firm and tough position. hollande in defense that putin is not a good chess player but he has good political alliance. france today has a foreign policy which is good for france, good for the west and sometimes taking the leadership. i'm happy of that. >> rose: you're repeating history. you're doing the same thing you did at the time in libya. you brought the rebels to paris

to see sarkozy and to try to arrange a clinton, the secretary of state. i like doing this with you. flying around bringing people in to see the head of state in his home country trying to get him to meet these people and take action. i know of no one else that does that who is a private citizen. >> i have time, that i have energy and that i have strong beliefs.and maybe 20 years ago in bosnia,, i brought him -- >> rose: what you do is bring foreign fighters to paris. >> what i do is to i try to do my job which is to go on the ground to see things with my own eyes. >> rose: not just the to

write but to act. >> to write and then to draw the consequences. >> rose: you're not just to write. >> no. >> rose: you're different. >> just writing maybe use less in you don't try to draw the precise consequences. if you really believe that the siege of -- and to put the photos of the children massacred on the office table. commander -- >> rose: northern alliance. >> i tried to do the same thing and i did it in a way -- it's the way it is. >> rose: what's amazing is they receive you and they let you make the case. >> i don't know. yes, yes. it may surprise you but -- >> rose: it doesn't surprise me because i know all about it.

it's a very positive thing. so what happens if there's a general election in france and it's sarkozy versus hollande, where is your support. >> i will do what i did before, i voted hollande. >> rose: because you are at heart a man of the left. >> because i'm at heart a man of the left. i think some very crucial issues. today for me the west has to enemies, isis on one side and the new russia on the other side. >> rose: putin russia. >> the putin russia is real stake and a real adversary also. >> rose: what are you doing over there with the president of ukraine, what was your purpose over there. >> my purpose was to in the beginning to support the president of ukraine because he's aabecause he's a valiant president and because he's in the frontline of this battle against

putinism which is a very bad ideology for the west. and not an ideology. putin do a thing in the recent months and even weeks which was unprecedented in europe. he said that if the west had acted in crimea, he would have retaliated. he said -- >> rose: about ready to put them on alert. >> yes. but what does it mean. about copenhagen, when he said that the danish vessels if copenhagen accepts not installment of missiles and so on there will be retaliation on vessels. he retaliated more than one time. >>responsible to the left of all

of this aggressiveness by putin. >> to support clearly lithuania, estonia -- >> rose: if it's a nato country it's not an issue they'll support a nato country, they are bound by agreement to do that. ukraine not so. >> ukraine not so. that's why i don't think ukraine should come inside but my belief since the first day is that we have to show to putin that the case of ukraine is the case of europe. that the ukrainians are sentinels in this part of europe. >> rose: you don't deny that russia had a long time influence in ukraine. >> so what? france has an influence in nigeria. it does not means that they believe that algeria is forever beholden to france. it's free, it's a 1vqpá independent country influencing the path does not mean anything.

england had influence in india. doesn't mean they deny that india is a strong country. we don't care. >> rose: some say the best out for this there are those who argue putin is looking for a way out and the west should help him find a way out. that he overreacted to what happened when the president of ukraine had to flee the country and go to moscow. putin then got, you know. >> to help putin to find a way out. if putin wants to find a way out he's a good guy, he's a big guy, he can find a way out himself. we are not going to show putin the way out. in 38 39 even if the situation was comparable, we had a lot of people who said we have to help we have to find a way out. and you know where all that led. so no, we have to show putin what is the limit. what is the red line.

no, not where is the way out. >> rose: well, i mean no, people like henry kissinger know they're arguing what they want to do, you don't want to corner them sometimes you want to give them a way to retreat. >> putin was never cornered. since 14 years, 14 years, there was so many occasions all american administrations, all europe administration gave to putin happened, gave to putin support. associated russia to military with commercial links and so on. never russia has been so little isolated and so little remediated than in ú the last 15 years. so this is force to recognize. putin -- has not introduced with realty. we should not accept this

narrative which is pure propaganda. >> rose: you come to america a lot so how do you assess how the president is handling both crises the crises in the middle east of an advancing isis and the crises in the ukraine and that part of europe from an advancing russia, supporting separatists? >> i'm not sure that the current administration takes the real dimension of the threat. for sure in ukraine and i can tell you that this is on the maiden, among the cities of ukraine, they're very sad.m+ that their will to embrace the west, their will to defend the western flags are not taken more seriously. >> rose: they want the same thing. he want the capacity to defend

themselves. >> of course. >> rose: they're not asking for troops from the west. >> they know, the ukrainians know there is an absolute low of the wars. war stops only when you have a balance of force. when there is a balance of force, when we help the awegress situation. if you leave it unbalanced the war will go on and on and we will have some deaths again and again and again. >> rose: did you know boris -- >> yes, i met him 15 years ago. he was a great guy. he was a real russian patriot. he liked his country. he hated to see his cofvtry involved in such a dirty war in ukraine and he was killed. >> rose: by? >> by i don't know. i'm not a policeman i'm not a

judge but it is impossible to image him that in the country which was russia today impossible to imagine that if there was decision to kill him that is unknown. it's impossible to believe. russia is a controlled country. >> rose: if they didn't do it they knew it might happen. >> at least there was, and besides that there is such a campaign a hot campaign demonizing. opponents. transforming them in enemies of the country. of course the country plans that. when you say on and on, every channel of tv that he is a devil. that he's a bad russian and so on you take the risk that the crazy guy takes a pistol and shoots. so there is at least an undirect

responsibility of those who fuel this machine of propaganda in russia for sure. at least there is that. >> rose: so while you're doing all of this how do you have time to write books about art and write a play starring occasionally yourself? >> this is most of my time, thank god is devoted to that, is devoted to write. i was listening to these two gentlemen within this great exhibition in -- gallery. this is what i love most, to write about jackson pollack, this is my deepest will and task. but public intellectual is someone who sometimes puts the pen on the table and when there is an emergency who decides to

take the emergency. but the real time is devoted to art, it's devoted to write this play about europe which i would love to perform in america, in new york. he's welcome, he's not welcome. this is the call of my life, of course. >> rose: what are the lasting impact of what happened at charlie hebdo? what are the consequences of that cruel act? >> the consequence of that is might be thatñe maria le pen is cooling down as we said at the beginning of this conversation. there was a sort of consciousness in the depth of the french people that one could not continue to play games with these terrible ideas. it is worlds and one day the

worlds have the weight of bombs and of shots. so that's this very deep in france that you cannot just play with wars. and those that put the fire in the brains, who did throw the fire in the heads should be stopped in a cool way, should be restrained. and that is what is happening today. we had some, we have some spokesman -- you hear them a lot less since the abdulu- abdul affair. they give some shows in france. there is less shows performed by these guys. there is an understanding in the wisdom of the french people that they have played enough with these terrible ideas. so it is not a miracle of

course. the french people has not become people of angels but there is a red light. there is a sort of warning which has rung in all the consciousness of my country with charlie hebdo on the one side and the jewish grocery on the other side. the first one were killed because they were doing their job, charlie hebdo. the others were killed because they were doing their shopping the grocery. so there is this feeling today in france that you cannot indefinitely play with these worlds arguments and ideas. and this is a good thing. this poor -- and jews, they did not die completely for nothing. in a way yes, you always die for nothing and it is always, but

they did at least produce this. >> rose: courage actually. >> yes of course of course. and we maybe in a sort of new period in french ideas seen them, maybe. >> rose: thank you for coming. it's great to see you. >> thank you charlie. >> rose: bernard-henri levy. thank you for joining us. see you next time. for more about this program and early episodes visit us on-line at pbs.org and charl0lrose.com. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

this is "nightly busines report" with tyler mathisen sue herera. anything but dull. stocks close out the first three months of the year just about where they started, but the wild swings kept investors on edge and created some big losers and some big winners. priced out. frost is building in some houses. too optimistic is the market setting itself up for a big disappointment when the employment report comes out on friday? all that and more tonight on "nightly business report" for tuesday, march 31st. >> good evening, everyone. volatile. that describes the first quarter and the final day of trading was no different. stocks which had been lower most of