>> rose: welcome to the program. tonight a conversation with america's ambassador to the united nations, samantha power. >> i think the reason senator obama reached out to me the obama reached out to me a long time ago is he has always grappled with whether as a senator or as a president, with the human consequences of decision-making. whether that's decision to do something or decision not to do something or non-decision. >> rose: and the consequences of war. >> consequences of war consequences of assad, consequences of the north korean regime with a hundred thousand people. so i'm even in the mix. i was not a born bureaucrat. and certainly not a born diplomat. president obama's core belief is you will not deal with the isil

problem sustainably until the assad problem has been resolved. because part of the reason foreign terrorist fighters are going to syria is because they want to fight assad and they see the attacks. you can't kind of separate these two things. it is true that we have shown as a military matter that we're fighting isil from the air and we're not fighting the assad regime. we're offering support to the opposition to fight the inside regime. but to think that you can just make the terrorists go away without dealing with the root cause of this crises and without depriving them of the recruiting tool that assad constitutes, i think it's wishful thinking. >> rose: samantha power for the hour, next. >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been 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: samantha power is here. she is the united states ambassador to the united nations. previously she served on the white house national security council. part of joining the government she taught human rights and u.s. foreign policy at harvard's kennedy school. in 2002, power won the pulitzer prize for her book, a problem from hell america and the age of genocide. this year, for the second time "time" magazine named her one of the 100 most influential people in the word. i'm pleased to have her back at

this table. welcome. >> good to be here, charlie. >> rose: congratulations on one hundred. let me begin with national security. tell me how you see from where you sit, the threats to america. >> well, from where i sit, namely at the united nations, i see a lot of countries finally getting past some of the free riding that they're used to doing and being willing to step up in a coalition against isil because of the particular gravity and horror of this movement. so isil is certainly a movement along with al qaeda that we and most countries in the world are very focused on. you'd be amazed. even in latin america and places they show up and want to know about foreign terrorist fighter flows and want to know financing and share best practices. you're seeing it come together around that thread. above all one of the more worrying developments particularly from where you sit is russia's aggression in ukraine.

because of the nature of the security council, you really need the united states and russia and the other permanent members of the security council driving collective solutions. and when one of the members, permanent members of the security council is lopping off part of somebody's country, it's not clear where putin's ambitions end. that's another threat we face every day. >> rose: he's obviously restrained by expansion into places where nato countries are engaged. >> well, and we are embarking on president's direction as you know in a major reassurance initiative with the nato countries on the eastern flank. but none the less, there's ukraine and a lot of ukrainians who are suffering this terribly the results of this aggression. and again the kind of stand off we have on ukraine or syria which is still an area of significant disagreement. we have to make sure that doesn't bleed over such as the

security council itself gets weakened again by differences between the united states and russia. >> rose: was it a mistake to have a veto on the security council. >> back in the day? >> rose: back in the day. >> not from the u.s. perspective no. i'm glad to have that in my pocket. >> rose: so much action is stopped. you have action in libya but the russians regret it. >> that's true. but as someone representing u.s. interests, u.s. national security interests, you can understand why this is a very valuable weapon in our arsenal and is part of our power. >> rose: primarily use it on behalf of israel. >> we hardly use it at all. indeed i think your point is well taken the number one user of the veto in the last five years has been russia who has used the veto four times including to refer the crimes being committed, the gassing, starvation, the barrel bomb attacks to the international criminal court. so that use of the veto has really cut down the amount of cooperation we've been able to do. and it's frankly weakened the credibility and the standing of

the security council. >> rose: looking at 2014, what are the primary accomplishments of the united nations. >> let me look at it in terms of the good things happening around the world. some of them are related to u.n. action, like peacekeeping like in the central african republic where you had really all of the ingredients for a full fledged genocide. and the french and the african americans of the security council came together for which is not happy today let me be clear but >> rose: you get a lot of credit for that because you focused the attention on the c.a.r. >> the french deserve a lot of credit because they went in in the first instance and the africans who continue to put troops in harm's way more quickly than the united nations also deserves a huge amount of credit. examples of ebola. here was something in september

of 2014, i was president of the security council rotating position for the month of september. we convened the first ever emergency meeting of the security council on the health issue. at that time, you had something like a thousand cases, new cases a week in the three countries, guinea, sierra leone and liberia. now today in may 2015 we are down to about 30 cases. and we are going we are going to get that number down to zero. again, that's a classic example of the united nations, what it's built for and made for because so many countries came together, but it's also an example of the indispensability of the american leadership. president obama injecting $1.3 billion, sending more than a thousand troops into liberia when the epidemic was at its height. watching the u.s. military learn how to put on those suits and to learn how to engage in a safe way and our medics at the epicenter again of this epidemic and the way the presence of the u.s. troops itself constitute an inflection point in terms of the

morale, the willingness of liberians trained and the response we needed. i think there's a couple examples. i think the coalition against isil again is very important. it's a slow slog against isil as you know. it's a slow slog also to curve the flow of foreign terrorists fighters who go back to their country and that's a huge risk. but the architecture has been built, the coalition has been built and already you've seen on the ground in iraq 25% to 30% of the populated areas that isil wants control has now been taken back by the iraqis. >> rose: attack by the saudis in yemen is not part of the coalition or is part of the coalition? >> that's not part of the anti-isis coalition. >> rose: what the saudis perceive as their interest. >> they are exactly trying to ensure the legitimate government in yemen which was

overrun by the hufi over the last six months that that government is restored and that kind of political framework is recognized by hufi and the president gets to go back to the country. >> rose: what's the status of that today because there's a lot of criticism of the saudis because of the civilian deaths. >> we of course are urging the saudis to show maximum restraint and vigilance in terms of civilian targets. the humanitarian situation's also a situation of grave concern. yemen imports 90% of its food. by virtue of the offensive aggression on the ground and now with the air campaign, it has proven very very difficult to get fuel and food into the country. so we're looking at a very serious humanitarian situation that could turn downward in a hurry. >> rose: it seems to me that's one more place where you see sunni/shi'a conflict. >> if you talk to yemenis that's not a dynamic that has plagued the country in the past.

>> rose: the iranians on the other side. >> again people are seeing it through that prism there's no question. i can't tell you how many visitors stream through and say we have a lot of problems in yes men, we have a massively under developed state, the fact we don't make our own food. and now we have violence and infighting that is taking a terrible toll on civilians. but we need to make sure the international community needs to make sure that that wake of the hufi takeover militarily of the country and the air campaign those sectarian dynamics don't take hold in a manner that then causes a much graver crises. >> rose: what's the status on the ground in iraq? >> well, as i mentioned, the iraqi forces backed by coalition air support... >> rose: find the u.s. air support. >> u.s. led coalition air support has taken back whether it's the mosul dam.2035% of the populated area.

they have taken out oil revenue and the ways in which isil was financing much of its efforts. so in addition to taking out tanks and some of the armaments that the isil had taken over from the iraqis, you're actually looking at also weakening the legs under this movement which i think will be evident over time. >> rose: the prime minister from iraqi when he came to see are the prime minister recently. does the united states believe he's doing everything he to reach out to sunnis and woo them, unlike his predecessor. >> well certainly his predecessor alienated sunni to an extent... >> rose: they found isil perhaps >> exactly. and we have been very very clear with prime minister abadi and he is been very clear with us that governance, alongside air strikes, is the whether this campaign can work. in other words if sunni continues to see their lot being

better advanced like monster movements like isil we're in a world of trouble. i think we've seen the recruitment of soldiers, you've seen the army of the tribes begin. but we need to see that i think for the sake again of the iraqis themselves that needs to be accelerated. it will be they who take on isil that's something that abadi's going to have to do to get those militia under... not the iranian militia but even the...

not enough progress has been made on that but we're encouraged both by abadi's commitment and the individual chosen to again take care of that task and by the statements of others who say it's intolerable to have statelets in effect in these militia. >> rose: they begin to speak out when there's some fear isil was moving towards baghdad. >> he's been outspoken on the need for again the private militia forces to integrate into the iraqi, the central iraqi security forces. >> rose: you have seen in your life a lot of violations of human rights, a lot of obscenities against humans. how do you rank isil and what creating?cub camps for kids as they do and how they do it. is it other kinds of genocide taking place. is it any different. more visible? >> if you look at the rwanda, who passed out machetes and said let's go kill everyone, that's an extermination mindset but certainly what you see in isil is something similar. if you're a christian or shi'a or sunni who doesn't possess the

same horrific and exclusion elimination ideology, you're a target. target. to see what they're doing with women and children, these captives they've taken, people who claim to be respecting women and treating them as the hallowed gender, enslaving them, making them sex slaves, selling them off at markets, creating cub camps for kids as young as six and seven years old. as a mother of a six year old i don't even know what possesses these individuals. so i would certainly put them atop the hierarchy, horribles there may be others with them but it's monstrous. >> rose: is their influence spreading around the world? >> they have exploited the new technologies clearly. and the fact they can project a message they've been projecting a message how far kind of a juggernaut on the move, they've used apocalyptic utopian vision.

the caliphate... >> rose: it can be something bigger than you. >> it's part of something bigger. they have suffered a string of defeats and more they are blunted on the battlefield, the less they will seem ten feet tall. it's important we get better and non-state actors are using these same social media tools making it clear what life is like under isis for people recruited. >> rose: is that happening. >> i think it's happening. >> rose: isn't social media to communicate it. >> i think individuals whether it's clerics is, telling the story what is like when people were burned in cages or summarily executed that's an important part of again puncturing the myth that they've attempted to create for themselves. >> rose: how strong are they on the ground in iraq? >> you know, i think when iraqi national forces come together in earnest and when the sunni

tribes are mobilized, you're going to see isil roll back in earnest. >> rose: so there's a delay until the iraqi forces come together. the organization to go after mosul. >> unsatisfying though it is for those of us watching isil from far away, the fact of the matter is that national governments and national actors are going to have to take responsibility for fighting these forces on the ground. and that is a slower process than we would like. i wish we could expedite and put this whole thing on steroids so that suddenly you'd have a big movement ready to take on isil. but again, all the signs are there. the recruitment is picking up the tribes are coming forward but we need to make sure they're paid, that they have the weapons, the central government they get as you were saying earlier trusts that it's a better deal for them to empower decentralized forces to go against isil than to expect the center to be able to send everything obvious from there.

it's going to require a certain amount of trust and trust has been in short supply. >> rose: is there a time line on this? >> well i mean the president has said we're in it at least for three years in order to really make the kind of dent we're talking about but a lot depends on how quickly the iraqis move to make the sunni feel part of the population to integrate separate shi'a militia into the central forces. so you know, there are elements of this that are not strictly speaking within u.s. control. >> rose: which are? >> how the actors on the ground respond again to the challenges that they face coming together. >> rose: where isil is strong. where were you, i mean your reputation and also secretary rice, national security advisor rice was that you urged the president to intervene in libya. correct?

>> i don't discuss any deliberations with the president. >> rose: that's your reputation and people who have written about you have said that. that's assume that let's plausible. why is that falling apart? >> well let me, it gives me a good occasion to talk about libya. i think there's particularly the migration crises now is a lot of... >> rose: in terms of all the killing, people are dying because they're trying to... >> yes. and using libya as the point from which they and isil is killing christians and libya is attorney apart. there's no question. >> rose: isn't there a . >> just to go back because i think there's monday morning quarterbacking what happened back in 2011. to recall that qaddafi was himself an actor and beyond was

forever picking militia, picking nonstate actors, fomenting troubles recall that it was the libyan people who rose up. the slaughter that he said he intended to carry out i think is wishful thinking.the idea that back in 2011 they were going to stuff the revolution back in the box if one had supported cad two act bestence in the face of the slaughter where he said he intended to carry out i think is wishful thinking. >> rose: there's no way we could have allowed him to go into benghazi. >> i think at the time what you're looking at is what appears to be and there's certain massacre, it's pretty rare the leader says here's what i'm going to do. and it was a defensible territory, you had the support of the entire national community and people forget, u.n. security council supported the military intervention, to use all

necessary measures to protect civilians. that's a very different situation we've seen in syria with the divisions of the security council. the president is making a judgment about do the benefits of acting outweigh the costs. and the costs seem very very significant at the time, both in terms of humanitarian terms but also? strategic terms what would it mean to have libya on fire and in a constant state of turmoil given qaddafi and again his propensity in the amount of support for terrorism or the destabilizing activities he carried out. so flash forward now we're in a situation where libya is racked by conflict. we are throwing our weight behind the u.n. mediator who has been at it now for sometime of course trying to bring the factions together. the sad fact whether it's iraq or sore yeah ultimately it's going to be libya. it will be the libyan factions coming together and right now there's a faction between them on the one hand and the more secular house of representative

forces on the other. and those elements, the nonviolent and the seculars need to come together and need to form a national unity government and all need to then turn their sites on isil who are now using libya as you know as a base whether to kill christians or cops or potentially... >> rose: repeating the question could it have been avoided? >> i think the fissures in libya were extremely deep. we at the time the libyans, the leaders who had appealed for nato intervention were absolutely adamant no ground forces, no u.n. peace keepers. they wanted a tiny u.n. technical support mission. we heeded their wishes to do the opposite would have been to in effect after a nato intervention blessed by the world to be there to kind of go and occupy libya. that didn't seem like a very good idea given everyone in libya was saying no we would like your advice on civil society and how to create independent newspapers.

and we would like your technical expertise on security sector reforms. but we don't want your boots on the ground and we don't want a large international presence. maybe that was a mistake but we were listening to the libyans. >> rose: to syria because after there were a significant number of people who looked at our failure there in syria to support the moderate forces. the president made a clear decision and there was in controversial decisions people who supported and people who didn't support it. very big names supported. people look back and say it sent a signal. would it have made a difference, would it have been effective if we had done more for the moderate forces and would it therefore have restricted the rise of isil and other extremist groups in syria? >> well, i think what would have curbed the rise of isil would have been if the sunni regime which claims to be fighting terrorists and treats every

student with a cell phone who texts the love of freedom as a terrorist . >> rose: is there any reference now for attacking isil rather than the moderate forces that initially rebelled. >> marginally. there was a period of about two years where it appears that there were even oil deals between isil held territory and the regime. it definitely appeared to us as though the moderate opposition groups, the people who were espousing what syria would look like those were the regime targets and they would go after isil later or isil was helpful in the narrative that everybody is a terrorists. i can't speak on regime intentions you can inform me after having talked to president assad. i think the fact of the matter is moderate opposition has to be strengthened. we offered a huge a wide array of foreign support, and i think president obama wanted to make sure that we had betting mechanisms that would allow us

to ensure that the weapons didn't fall into the wrong hands. if you're a commander in chief that's a pretty reasonable request. >> rose: you're saying it was a wise decision not to do more at the time. >> i'm saying we are where we are and i'm saying we're

investing in the syrian moderate opposition both in terms of as you know train and equip program they are making gains on the ground sadly also the alqaeda affiliate in iraq, excuse me in syria, are making gains on the ground as well. >> rose: and isil? >> isil i don't, i mean isil has been defeated in kobani. they are chipping away. the coalition has not made as much progress in syria because again the regime is not putting anybody on the ground despite all their claims to the contrary and because it will take us time. >> rose: the regime is not putting any forces on the ground to fight isil, they're not putting syrian soldiers against isil forces at all? >> the syrian campaign generally

against insurgents or terrorists has been by and large an air campaign. i don't want to generalize because isil is now in the outskirts of damascus and while anybody would be different having isil in the out skirts of your city's center the response has been to use just in the last week aerial bombardment against the palestinian refugee camps where they are cohabitating unfortunately with isil. it's not that the regime is fighting isil no where but it's absolutely the case that their priority target over these four years has been moderate assist groups over terrorists groups. >> rose: now they're trying to

make the case it's either us or it's isil. >> and we need everybody are to throw their weight behind a political resolution that recognizes until we get a political transition and turn our collective sites on isil, basically creating a transitional governing council along the lines of geneva, you know, until that happens, we're not going to be joining forces against the troops both to the syrian people... >> rose: how are these discussions taking place with assad? how do you talk to him about some relationship, some possibility of transition. first of all if you say to him you can no longer remain in power, yes whiz way to survival or is it something else in how do you convince him he's got to lead. unless he leads there will be no solution in syria. >> those who have influence over assad, namely ... >> rose: iranians. >> iran. need to look at the very bleak

picture of what is syria and the foreign terrorist fighter and all of the things that threaten not just syrians but the broader international community. and make the case that it is in the interest of the syrian people the region and broader security picture for assad to go. that's an argument they need to make. it's not an argument they're prepared to make. >> rose: who are making the argument now, russians. >> russia broke the communication from the beginning. they never logged it but it's a communique that's looking the parties need to come together around a council by mutual agreement. i think it's very important that the iranians shift into that direction. particularly when you see isil making gains near damascus particularly when you see moderate opposition groups being overrun. >> rose: saying it's a stalemate on the ground. >> you know, this conflict has

ebbed and flowed. i actually think in the last couple months you've seen more moderate opposition victories and unfortunately more extremists victories than you have seen the regime on the move. the regime is always able to punish civilians with air power always able to do horrible damage. but again it remains to be seen whether this is the beginning of a new trend or whether this is just again a phase in an ebb and flow. >> rose: when i spoke with assad, i said you're using chlorine gas and he said no i'm not. i said it needs to be in your means and he said we're not using chlorine gas. and i said would you with the prompting of american this is what they want to know, would you allow inspections. are we anxious to inspect if there's a mechanism to do it, to see whether he's using chlorine gas. >> we have a fact finding mission. the fact finding mission comes

back the highest degree of confidence. >> rose: do you have access, complete access and to see everything you wanted to see. and if in fact he is, what's the case that can be made to change that? how do you change that. >> the body that created the fact finding mechanism to go in and see whether chlorine gas is in fact came back and said we have high confidence which is the highest standard that you can offer that chlorine gas is being used systematically and they described hundreds of witnesses who described helicopters coming and which everybody knows well and victims, i mean it's so brutal. victims who don't have even we brought two doctors to the security council about three weeks ago in the hopes again of shaking people that this cannot go on with business as usual. to your question, i think our

belief is that there's a loophole in the international system where all that the opcw can find is high confidence that chlorine was used. but they do not have a mandate they've not had a mandate and that's one reason we had an international criminal court. we need to close that loophole and an attribution needs to be created. but let's not kid ourselves. member states of the international community who have influence over the assad regem know they are using chlorine and they need to stop them from using chlorine. and make clear that the flood of financial and military systems have come in is going to be suspended unless the barrel bomb attacks stop, the chlorine attacks stop and unless they go to the negotiating table. that needs to be the terms on that side of the equation and the opposition needs to do a better job coming together for a congealed set of actors. we need a political solution that's going to require isil off to one side, never going to be part of a negotiation.

and groups that actually want to see the state survive. every day this war goes on it's not just the people who are suffering. the state is just getting gutted from within. >> rose: i said that to them you're destroying a state. there's nothing here to build. >> he's got a bunch of people telling him everything's great happy talk, right. >> rose: he doesn't know what's going on. >> i think every time someone ... >> rose: he's not responsibility if he doesn't know what he's on. >> no, of course not. he's absolutely responsible and he appears to have good command and control. but i think the odds of a dictator of that nature, getting truth telling on a regular basis is probably not that high. >> rose: the point is so many people want to know how can we stop this, what are the options. you said we're using everything we have except boots on the ground and a direct

>> direct military confrontation with the assad regime. this is something president obama was prepared to do in august 2013 in the face, in the wake of the horrific chemical weapons that left people killed including hundreds of children. there wasn't a lot of enthusiasm. >> rose: he made a difficult decision because the russians said look we have a deal we get the chemical weapons out of there if you don't bomb. >> and that is, we have destroyed and removed 98%, removed all of and destroyed 98% of assad's declared chemical weapons. >> rose: how much is not declared? >> that is an open question and something we're pushing the opcw on. but now assad has gone further and decided to use a household industrial chemical chlorine almost like a drug user having had his sarin taken away. >> rose: we saw what sarin did from scott pelley's report. >> absolutely.

but in event, the strategy is to support the opposition such that there's political pressure and military pressure as well on the regime such that we can actually get these talks going. i think you're going to see push on diplomacy in the coming weeks and it is our hope that perhaps also the nuclear deal can go forward and we get the terms we need in that space, that you'll start to see a shift in iran. >> rose: what's the oh, in iran's posture. iran may be in the perspective to putting more pressure on their client assad. >> i can't speak for iran's intent. maybe this is something you all discussed. i'm not going to speculate on what they will or won't do, but the backers of assad need to see the writing on the wall. the regime is not legitimate. the civil war will not stop until assad is out of power. >> rose: how, madam ambassador, how far have had he have been seeing that. are you believing they about to

say this regime is terrible and we're going to withdraw his support. >> i wouldn't think the advances are welcomed by the iran regime. and i think iran is now stretched by syria, by iraq, by whatever support is offering hufi in yemen. >> rose: and the negotiations >> and wants to be part of the international community. i mean, wants certainly the sanctions to be lifted in the context of a nuclear deal but wants more than that. >> rose: they want to be respected as a member of the international community. >> it seems. >> rose: you talked to them. >> that's what they say. they want to be a member of the international community like others because of the human rights internally, because of the tension, because of the support for hezbollah and the support for regimes like assad that's very hard to imagine happening. >> rose: this is what i hear you telling me. this is hands of the russians and iranians and they have to

change attitude about a government they supported. they've got to see it's in their interest to transition out of this government. and we're not going to get this thing done until they do that. >> correct. >> rose: our options are without military force is to get the iranians and the russians to turn on their friend. >> and to increase support for the opposition groups on the ground that we want to see succeed. this is getting more challenging because of nosera but that's a critical part of this law. these are going to be the security forces that keep their neighborhoods safe when this war is over and there are security forces that is the opposition forces are going to be security forces who take on isil. as part of what we hope . >> rose: is the true that isil and everybody else could defeat them and we stand by as they did. they're growing you said they're near damascus. damascus.

isil has a presence there, court conhas a presence there, right. >> yes. >> rose: if we thought they were ready to march into damascus, what would we do? >> well, we are fighting isil. so that is something that we are seeking to avoid not only their advances but we're also seeking to roll back the territory that they've taken in syria already. we're not only fighting isil and iraq, we're also fighting in syria. there needs to be a ground presence, a ground force also contesting isil and that's why there's a program getting these troops, getting them into syria, making sure they have the equipment. >> rose: have we stopped people from coming through the turkish border to join isil. >> the united states is not maintaining a border. >> rose: i'm asking, are they better? >> turkey, yes, i think we've seen strides and against the awareness that's been raised about foreign terrorist fighters and the spread sharing a meeting with the security

council creating an interim. all of that is good but we still have a forces fighter flow. basically the borders are generally more porous than we can afford them to be and there needs to be more prosecution of people who are moving in and out. and you know we've seen countries that suffer attacks whether lone wolf attacks or attacks more orchestrated by isil, isil command. you've seen those countries put in place, new laws, new surveillance, new balance between national security and privacy and so forth. but often those come after an attack has occurred within one's borders and we need to make sure again the international community are doing things proactive. >> rose: is it true high officials who come to this table as you know and instead the assad government is no longer our priority. it is no longer our top property. our top priority is stopping isil or al nursa in syria.

that's what they said with me. >> i don't agree with that. >> rose: you don't agree that's the priority. >> if that's characterizing the administration's position >> rose: what do you mean, he is still >> he must go. i'm not going to talk about priority this or that. but the core belief, president obama's core belief is he will not deal with the isil problem sustainably until the assad problem has been resolved. because part of the reason the foreign terrorist fighters are flowing into syria is because they want to fight assad and they see barrel bomb attacks and they see chlorine attacks. so you can't kind of separate these two things. it is true that we have shown as a military matter that we're fighting isil from the air and we're not fighting the assad regime. we're offering support to the opposition to fight the assad regime. but to think that you can just make the terrorists go away without dealing with the root cause of this crises and without

depriving them of the recruiting tool that assad constitutes, i think is wishful thinking and obama thinks it's wishful thinking. >> rose: your role with the administration, because of your background, because of your experience, because of what you wrote, because of what your life has stood for, that on these very important questions where so many civilians are dying is there a conscience of the administration. >> i think the reason senator obama reached out to me a long time ago is he has always grappled with whether as a senator or as a president with the human consequences of decision making. whether that's decisions to do something or decision not to do something or nondecision. >> rose: and consequences of war. >> the consequences of war, the consequences of assad, the consequences of the north korean regime that has gulags with a

hundred thousand people. i was in the mix. he was not a born bureaucrat. >> rose: no. >> certainly not a born diplomat. >> rose: that's why we're all curious. >> i understand. >> rose: you understand that. you're not a bureaucrat in the way you think. >> but what drew me to the now president is how much he cared about the set of things that i valued. and he's the only senator out of a hundred who we had a problem from hell and what to do >> rose: he called you up and said i'd like to meet you. >> he did. but that wasn't a fluke and then he became some other guy. now he's the president and those questions of which tools can we use, have we looked under every stone, you know, what can we do about chlorine. are we shining a light on north korean horrors that haven't gotten attention. these are questions he's asking. >> rose: i sat down with the

foreign minister of iran who said to me two things, among other things. i've known him for 20 years. we've had lots of conversations. and ken leaven at this table. he said sanctions did not bring us to the table. do sanctions bring them to the table. >> absolutely. >> rose: he said we do not want a nuclear weapon. it's against our religious beliefs. is it? >> i wouldn't even say trust and verify, you know. i think verify and never trust. i mean verify verify. >> rose: don't trust but verify is what you would say. >> as he noted i'm sure, there's not a lot of trust between us. >> rose: can it be overcome though on a question of syria? and even iraq and even isil, can that question of not trusting be enemy and there's doubt that isil is an enemy of iran, is there? >> i think isil's an enemy of iran? >> rose: yes. >> i think isil's an enemy of

iran, i think an enemy of humanity. and isil's an enemy of again sunni people just as much as of shi'a or iranians or whoever else. i think it's important in the context of iran to focus on the challenge we have before us which is to bring the nuclear negotiations to a close, a close that satisfies our red lines and our objectives. >> rose: what's your sense of that now? >> we have a long way to go. we have until june 30th. >> rose: the interpretation of what's agreed on. >> yes. a few different interpretations. >> rose: you're now back to what you're doing now. that could be expected and can that be overcome? if in fact they say you got to

eliminate all the sanctions and we say no it has to be phased in because we have to be determined by conduct. is there diplomatic way to somehow figure out how to get past that kind of thing. they say sanctions immediately lifted we say phased in based on conduct. >> again, if there's a will, there's a way. but there's not a will on our side to depart from a core necessity, which is they have to do things, big things in order to satisfy the terms of the deal before you can say these nuclear sanctions are lifted.just the idea of pay for performance is a basic sort of necessity associated with this kind of arrangement. >> rose: henry kissinger who you have become, you know, communicate with. >> yes. >> rose: friends, perhaps. >> council friends, absolutely. in terms of looking around corners and looking at long term, the historical sweep that he offers.

>> rose: china, on the middle east. >> i am so blessed and amazed that i'm in the present cabinet, that i get to represent the united states and u.n. i'm reaching out widely. >> rose: what do you say in a multieditorial, questions on this >> i engaged henry about the contents of that editorial and i think he's coming around. >> rose: is he really? coming around to your point of view or the administration's point of view. can we stay with that before we move on. >> we can't. he'll have to come on the show and answer for himself. >> rose: you have engaged him on that matter. >> i have absolutely. i read the op ed and again this is what we need to do, right. we need to, if there are discrepancies of facts in terms of his understanding, if the administration wants to address that. but the core question is both

how do you feel about the terms, the core questions are how do you feel about the terms of the deal and how do you feel about the terms of the deal as related to the alternative. i think the really important message to henry and other skeptics is to remind them and everyone that sanctions brought iran to the table. there's no question about it. that is they want to be out from under them. that is why they are contemplating intrusive inspection regime of a kind we haven't seen before. no question. but sanctions did not disable their nuclear program. while these crippling sanctions were in place, they achieved a breakout in two to three months. for those who wish to go back >> rose: for the benefit of our audience a breakout in two or three months means if everything broke off and they made a headline rush for a nuclear weapon, they would do it, they would have the requisite

material. >> within two or three months. >> rose: to make one bomb or more. two to three months. >> to have enough fizzle material. once they have >> rose: that's up to a year by this deal. >> it has. and moreover the kind of inspection presence we have in uranium mines and mills and storage facilities and so forth goes well beyond what we've had up to this moment so we will know a lot more. and that cuts off the risk of a covert breakout which is what i th people are mostly ... >> rose: everybody i talked to, michael morelle. >> that is very fair >> rose: they can hide it and the inspections have to be so intrusive they can't. and if in fact they do immediately we star the sanctions and everything else. and if that fails the president has said that's unacceptable, they have a nuclear weapon and therefore there will be a military response.

>> that is material again that very few people want. >> rose: that's why the president said he would deal with that alternative. >> yes. i want to stress one feature of my world. we part of the crippling sanctions regime that brought iran to the point we are now was the multilateral sanctions regime in new york which reinforced what the congress and successive executive branches did bilaterally. we are going to ensure in this deal that we have the ability not only to snap back our domestic sanctions in the event of breach, but also to snap back the international sanctions in new york and we're going to do so in a manner that doesn't require russian and chinese support or a vote for snap back a second time around if you know what i mean. because we're in a different world in 2015 than we were when the sanctions architecture was put in place. this is something i talked with

dr. kissinger about. i think that's not well understood. i think okay if they're in breach then you have to go back to the security council and kind of start all over. we, president obama has been insistent that the snap back come about by virtue of any number of the t5 plus 1 coming forward and saying they're in material breach and snap back. you'll have some process built around it and you wouldn't want something like that done widely but you also need to ensure it can happen in a timely enough way to where it's an actual deterrent. >> rose: what are we doing about getting access to their history which was a critical provision for many people. >> that's one of the issues being worked through but there will be a set of questions. >> rose: there's a lot of work that needs to be done to make this real. >> it's crunch time. >> rose: june 30th. >> correct. >> rose: so finally this. as you can see i have great respect for you. no, i mean... >> thank you.

>> rose: calling me my friend saying here's a book, go read this book and have this woman on your show because it will change your sense of basic human rights and conduct around the world by governments. that's what he said to me. you've now had a different experience. he was a hero of yours. you've had a different experience. help us understand in a real way, what is that experience and what has it done for you and how has it changed if anything not your values but a sense of how your perspective, your prism. >> i think probably the part of government that's hardest to understand from the outside is the problem of band width. just scarcity of time in the day. i say that as one who works 18 hours every day, seven days a

week it feels like these days. but just particularly these days when there are so many crises happening. on any given day i go working from the national republic to mali to syria to afghanistan, to normalization to tpp. i mean just the sheer number of issues that we are trying to drive toward improvement or toward closure on a given day is a very large number. and imagine the if you're the president of the united states take that and put it again with the full ... >> rose: the president's done everything he can to make his life as efficient as possible. >> i gather, i read somewhere he has only but having said that, i think i'm, people say would you write your book differently now knowing. i would write the book >> rose: i'm interesting in what are you going to put in the book you write as soon as you leave government. that's the book. >> i think i have more of an acute understanding for how an

individual can make a difference from government way more than i would have had before. the way a room can turn on the basis of the simple argument. when things were trending in one direction. the way the delivery of food pellets, the people on a mountain in mount sinjar can save hundreds of lives. the way just deploring military advisors to africa has decimated the resistance army. the way as we discussed. an investment in ebola that the president makes galvanizes so i am more convinced about the good that the united states can do, the way that we can lead for all the talk of american decline. the way the delivery of food s, the people on a mountain in mount sinjar can save hundreds of lives. the way just deploring military advisors to africa has decimated the resistance army. the way as we discussed. an investment in ebola that the president makes galvanizes so i am more convinced about the good that the united states can do, the way that we can lead for all the talk of american decline. because we show up on isil 60 countries, you know, came to join us. with a showed up on ebola. that number is even higher including countries with cuba

which at that time we didn't have diplomatic relations. and people are responding to us but also within government. i think that's just in a way there's an analogue also for individuals inside the system itself that when you're pushing an issue, when you bring the perspective of people who are suffering out in the field or groups that are seeing thing we aren't actually seeing. if you are concrete and rigorous and prescriptive and you stay at it long enough, you can get the weight at times of the u.s. government behind you. and that is just, that's a formidable responsibility for anybody who serves in government but it's a tremendous privilege. because people are counting on us. >> rose: nothing's come across your desk that said this is so unacceptable that i have to either go public or i can't identify myself to the policy. nothing? >> again. >> rose: everybody loses internal battle, bureaucratic battles but nothing has come across that you thought was so powerful that you have

to consider either i have to make public my disagreement or as i think you wrote about the principle resignation. >> when i see, there are plenty of things come across my desk that keep me up all night. that's part of the question but for me it's activating. okay, what do i do with this. i saw something two weeks ago that was a version of this, i tried this. okay, what can i try on this. who might we be able to enlist from other countries to join us in doing x or y, you know. is there a u.n. pool here we can bring to bear.this is something our intelligence community to find out about. is there sanctions we can apply against the terrible people who might have done these things. in other words it's the toolbox question.

where are the tools, how we can mobilize us and who can join us, it's a privilege. >> rose: thank you for having you. >> great to be pack. >> rose: samantha power.talking for joining us for the hour. join us next time. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

this is "nightly business re with tyler mathisen and sue herera. goldilocks price? crude oil tops $60 a barrel. is it the perfect level to keep pro-russian duce- producers, prakers and consumers happy. possibility courtship. microsoft thinking about buying sales worth.com but why would it want to? redefining your golden years, why traditional retirement may be a think of the past. all of that and more tonight on "nightly business " for tuesday, may 5th. good evening, everyone and welcome. a triple-digit loss for the dow jones industrial as bond yields rise and $60 a barrel. a highest l