>> rose: welcome to the program. we begin this evening with a look at the russian airstrikes in syria and talk to mike morell, former deputy director to have thof the c.i.a. >> when i think vladimir putin's fundamental goal is in life, what he wants his legacy as the leader of that country to be and, by the way, charlie, he plans on being the leader of russia for a long, long, long time, what he wants his legacy to be is the reestablishment to have the russian empire and if he were sitting here with us and the cameras weren't running and he really trusted us, he would use those words, he would say that. this is not some a analytic construct from the analysts at c.i.a., this is what he says to his closest friends, and you would say what does that mean, reestablish the bungs empire? and he would say -- the russian

empire? he would say direct control over or signature influence in all of the parts of the former russian empire which just happened to match up nicely to the former states to have the soviet union. that's what he wants is the reestablishment of the dploar of the russian state. >> rose: we conclude with french foreign minister laurent fabius. >> it is not a question of person. i have to be clear. but you cannot have a contradiction. imagine, you're a syrian, okay, your family has been destroyed by the shah. it's more than 50% of the population, and you say to this family, okay, the shah is the one. no, it's not possible. they will go to daesh. we want to beat daesh.

we need russian, >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by: american express. >> 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 latest developments in syria, russia carried out new strikes today. moscow said it was waging a campaign against the islamic state but reports suggested the strikes hit other groups that oppose syrian president bashar

al-assad. russian foreign minister sergei lavrov defended the actions at a press conference this morning. >> if it walks like a terrorist, if it fights like a terrorist, it's a terrorist, right? i would recall that we always were saying that we are going to fight i.s.i.l and other terrorist groups. this is the same -- the same position which the americans are taking, the representatives of the coalition command have been always saying their targets are i.s.i.l, al-nusra and other terrorist groups. >> rose: russia and the united states are set to hold talks about their forces. mike morell, former deputy director of the c.i.a. he's a colleague on cbs. i'm pleased to have him back on this program. mike, let me begin with basics here. president putin telegraphed what

he was going to do, increase military presence with equipment and advisors, and he began building up to that point, and then he launched air strikes. it is said these were air strikes against moderate forces, and some stories that they may have been against some people that the c.i.a. was engaged with. tell me what he is trying to do and what he deliberately -- and why wouldn't he hit i.s.i.s. in order to prove his presence, even though he says, i'm there, said most recently to me, i'm there to prop up assad because i think they need a central government in the fight against i.s.i.s. >> right, charlie. so i think there are a number of reasons he is doing what he is doing. i think the most important

reason is that he believes that president assad needs to be propped up so that i.s.i.s. does not take over the entire country. president putin believes that if president assad were to depart the scene that there would be even more instability in syria and, with that greater instability, i.s.i.s. would have more running room, and you could actually end up with i.s.i.s. in damascus. so that is the primary reason he's doing what he is doing. the question is why doesn't he just attack i.s.i.s. then? because president assad is under attack from a variety of different groups. i.s.i.s. is one, al-nusra is one, and the moderate opposition is another. so in order to prop up assad to keep him in control, to make sure you don't have more instability, he wants to attack all of those groups, right. but this fundamental focus is on

i.s.i.s. so that's reason one, charlie. reason two -- >> rose: so we should believe that his fundamental opponent is i.s.i.s., and the reason that he's there is to prop up assad because he believes assad, in the end, is necessary to defeat i.s.i.s.? >> yes, i believe that. i absolutely believe that. we have to remember that russia has had, for a long time, it's own islamic extremest problem in the caucuses. in dagistan, there were terrorist attacks in russia including moscow. we have to remember al-nusra are in russia and can move more easily in russia than go europe and the united states. so i.s.i.s. is a deep concern of putin's and that's the primary reason he's there, i think, but

he's going to also attack the other groups because he needs to prop up assad. i think reason number two, charlie is, at some point, the syrian situation will turn towards a negotiation and having forces on the ground, being a bigger player there will give putin a bigger say around the negotiating table is the second reason he's there. the third reason he's there, and i think you saw this clearly in your interview with him, is russia in general and putin in particular want to be big players on the global stage and in particular the middle east. it's been a long-standing desire of theirs. he has now achieved it. one way to think about the big player on the stage here is what happened yesterday? russian combat operations in the middle east. what happened yesterday was the

first time we've had russian combat operations in the middle east since the end of world war ii. >> rose: what do you think went on in the meeting between barack obama and vladimir putin? >> i'm going to speculate as to what went on in the meeting. i think what went on is president putin explained his perspective. he's concerned if assad goes i.s.i.s. will have more running room and we'll have even a bigger problem in syria. and i think president obama probably gave his perspective and his perspective is that, yeah, you're probably right that, if assad goes, with no government following him, we'll be in a worse situation, but if we were to have a transition from assad to another government everybody can agree on, then we're actually going to have more stability in syria, and i think the president probably argued that, as long as assad is around, he is a magnet for

fighters to join i.s.i.s., to you know al-nusra to fight assad, and that you can't ultimately defeat i.s.i.s. and al-nusra without getting rid of president assad in the process, simply not possible, and they probably talked right past each other, charlie. >> rose: there is a question as to how strong the moderate forces are. there is the historical question of whether they should have been given more support or not. but how strong are they and why did the russians attack them today if they were not part of a significant opposition to assad? >> yeah, good question. so the moderate opposition is not particularly strong. the strongest fighting groups opposing the assad regime are i.s.i.s., al-nusra and the moderate opposition in that order, so they're not particularly strong. so two questions, right.

the first is why did the russians do this now, right, and the reason they did it now is that president assad is at his weakest point under pressure from all of those groups, is at his weakest point since the fall of 2012, when the iranians came in, in a major way, to prop him up. why did he go after the moderate opposition? because they're the closest in to assad and his forces. i.s.i.s. is further to the east and al-nusra is further to the south. so they will eventually deal with i.s.i.s. and al-nusra, but the threat facing assad right in his face is the moderate opposition. so i think that explains the timing and that explains the first set of strikes. >> rose: okay, let me make sure of this. one question is did they know exactly what they were doing? did they have sufficient intelligence to know exactly who they were striking?

>> so i think that they had enough intelligence probably given to them by the syrians. this is not their own intelligence. they had enough intelligence to tell them that they were shooting at opponents to assad, people who were fighting the syrian military. i don't believe they had enough intelligence to tell them that they were fighting u.s.-backed rebels, right. i don't think they probably had that. i don't think that's what attracted the russian fire. i think the fact that the groups were fighting assad is what attracted the russian fire and nothing else. >> rose: the c.i.a. is well known for having profiles of foreign leaders, and the question is what's the u.s. assessment of vladimir putin for his intelligence, his strategic sense, his need to surprise, his ability to think beyond tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow?

>> so, charlie, i'll tell you what i think of this guy. so, first, i'd say that i think bob gates was right when he said whin you look in putin's eyes you see kgb, kgb, kgb. by that, i mean this guy is a thug, this guy is a bully. second, he only understands relative power -- who's got more power who, 's got less power. that's how he thinks about relationships. third, i will tell you that he tries to create the image that he is the great strategic thinker. he's not at all. he is a very good tactician, taking advantage of situations

but not good at thinking them through. i think he is the biggest loser over the long term in the ukraine crisis and has miscalculated what he's doing in syria now. so i don't think he this great strategic thinker. the the other thing i would say about him is he's entrepreneurial and a risk-takerrer but a particularly dangerous risk taker. when vladimir putin takes a risk and it pays off, he oftentimes is willing to take a bigger risk. he takes a risk, something goes well, then he'll take a bigger risk. that's why, during the ukraine crisis, i was worried he may have done something similar in the baltics, and while the west might not have been willing to go to war over ukraine, we certainly were over the baltics, so i thought that was a place he might miscalculate. i think it's possible, charlie, what you see him doing in syria today is in part a reflection of the fact that he thinks he won

ukraine, right, that he came out of that on the top end, that he came out of that the top guy. that's sort of the portrait that i have of the guy in my mind and everything i've seen, including your really good interview, kind of reinforces that to me. >> rose: well, he said to me the reason what happened was precipitated by the coup d'eétat and claims the c.i.a. and america were involved. i said to him how do you know? he said i know, we know ukrainians, blah, blah, blah. taking like a kgb agent, as a matter of fact. >> right. and i tell you, charlie, he didn't just say it, he actually believes it. one of the really interesting things about the russian intelligence services is they tell their president things that simply are not true, that simply are not accurate. so i'm absolutely convinced that the russian intellgence

services were telling him that the c.i.a. was fomenting the democracy movement in kiev. so he didn't just say it, he absolutely believes it. >> rose: i quoted him once a kgb agent always a kgb agent and a friend in moscow said to me there is no such thing as former kgb agent, but why is it if you are a former kgb agent yeu are a bully and thug? >> they rough people up, they take negative incentives to recruiting people, black mailing people, that'sust the way they do things. i will also tell you, and i found this interesting in your interview, he doesn't like people referring to him as former kgb. why? because the kgb does not va

great rep -- does not have a great reputation just for the things we talked about, roughing people up, putting thempeople in jail. he doesn't like that association domestically. he might internationally but not domestically. he wants to walk away from that part of his life because the kgb is not popular in russia. >> rose: when you look at where the united states is, what are our options and what should be our response? >> yeah, that's a really good question. let me first answer that by saying what are the implications of him doing what he's doing here, all right? i think the most important implication of what he's doing is that he is complicating a political solution to this problem. in my mind, charlie, the only way ahead in syria is the following -- to get all of the

key players together at the table, and the key players are everybody with the exception of i.s.i.s. and al-nusra, they don't get to play, but all the other key players at the table, so that means the united states, western europe, turkey, the arab states, iran because they are a big player, russia because they are a player, all those people have to come together, and assad's got to be at the table, too, all of these people have to come together and they have to agree on a transition from assad to a new government, and that new government needs to be inclusive of all the different groups in syria. >> rose: including the alawites? >> including the alawites. everybody has to have a role. it almost has to be like in lebanon where everyone is guaranteed a significant role in the government no matter the voting, everybody has a particular job that goes to them. that's the way the outcome in syria is going to have to be.

so transition from assad to that. once you have an agreement on what that looks like, then you can take the syrian military with everybody helping, right, with the united states, the arabs, western europe, iran, russia, with everybody helping and you can go after and defeat i.s.i.s. and al-nusra. but until you have that political settlement, nothing else is going to be able to happen, nothing else will work because everybody is working across purposes here. the one thing that absolutely has to be true for that political negotiation to work is for assad to be weak enough that he's willing to come to the table. if assad feels that he's strong, if assad feels that he's winning, if assad feels he can win this thing, then he has no incentive to go to the table. so the fundamental implication of what the russians are doing is they are propping him up and making it less likely that he's going to be willing to come to the table and have a serious

negotiation. that's the main problem here. >> rose: and they're making sure they have a vote when they choose the new leadership. is it possible that iran, russia, saudi arabia and the united states and people in syria could come together on what ought to be the next government, which would have the support and confidence of the syrian people? >> so i think the answer to that is yes. the question is what are the circumstances that have to exist in order for that to happen? and i think, charlie, there are two. the first circumstance is that most of the players are war weary, right? most of the players are tired of the fighting and tired of the dying. that is largely the way insurgencies end. i don't see that today in i.s.i.s. and al-nusra, and i don't see it in assad.

so -- and most insurgencies, charlie, go on for ten, 12, 15 years. you know, we're only four to five years into this thing. so this is, now, short by historical standards of insurgencies. so people tend to come together when people are war weary. that's what happened in the balkans and other places. the the other thing that has to be true is that assad has to be willing to come to the table and have a serious discussion. as i said earlier, the only way that's going to happen is if he feels, right, if he feels like he could lose this thing. no incentive to come to the table if he feels he's winning. >> reporter: does anybody convince the russians he needs to -- can you convince the russians that they have a way to represent their interests without it being assad? >> well, i think that's what we have to do -- charlie, that's what we have to do

diplomatically is we have to convince the russians of two things. the first thing we have to convince the russians of is that you can't successfully deal with i.s.i.s. and al-nusra without assad going away. we have to be able to convince them of that. we really believe that. we really believe he is a magnet for drawing people to i.s.i.s. and to al-nusra and that people will continue to be drawn to them until he goes away. >> rose: i raised the point with him, as you know, i said to him the argument against assad is that he is a recruiting tool for i.s.i.s. >> right. the second thing we have to convince him of, charlie, is that the people he has backed for a long, long time, the alawites, that they will have a future in syria and, you know, if you look across the border into iraq and you look at the

people who used to run the show in iraq, the sunnis, right, and you look at their situation today, it's going to take some convincing of him, right, that the alawites will have a future. but that's why i say we have to have this kind of lebanese-style government, while the president is of one group, the prime minister is another group, the head of the military is a third group, right, that everybody has a role to play. >> rose: looking at it from today's circumstance at this moment, is i.s.i.s. win org losing? >> so the way i think about it, charlie, is that you know, if you look at what i.s.i.s. said its goals are -- i.s.i.s. said its goals were to have an islamic caliphate in a charge chunk of the middle east, not just iraq and syria but parts of

jordan, israel, even parts of saudi arabia. so their great expansion, right, from a year and a half ago, their great expansion has been stopped. they are no longer expanding. they have been stopped by the shia militia, they have been stopped by the kurds, they have been stopped by american air power, their expansion has stopped. but we haven't pushed them back significantly. so their expansion stopped, but we haven't pushed them back. so i think we're kind of at a stalemate, charlie, where they're not gaining, we're not gaining sufficiently, and the problem with that is that they continue to radicalize both militant groups outside of the middle east. there are now militant groups, charlie, in 20 countries who now say they are aligned with i.s.i.s. and that number continues to grow. of course, there is the radicalization of individuals, right, in western europe and

australia and canada and the united states. so while we're at stalemate, that radicalization process continues. so stalemate, while certainly not allowing them to get to where they ultimately want to be, they're still doing pretty well and they're still dangerous in terms of this radicalization. so if i had to pick win or lose, i would say they are winning because they're not losing enough. >> rose: you believe russia genuinely wants to cooperate with the united states? >> no, i don't. you know, what i think -- what i think vladimir putin's fundamental goal is in life, what he wants his legacy as the leader of that country to be -- and, by the way, charlie, he plans on being the leader of russia for a long, long, long, long time -- what he wants his legacy to be is the reestablishment to have the russian empire -- of the russian empire. and if he were sitting here with us and the cameras weren't

running and he trustedwus, he would use those words, he would say that. this is not an analytic construct from the analysts at c.i.a. this is what he says to his closest friends. you say what does that mean, reestablish the russian empire? he would say direct control over or significant influence in all of those parts of the former russian empire, which, by the way, just happened to match up nicely to the former states of the soviet union. that's what he wants more than anything else is the ave the russian state. glory to >> rose: -russian -- of the gloy of the russian state. >> rose: it's fear of influence instead of taking territory back. >> he doesn't want to take a territory back. he wants to take over or have a sphere of influence in. >in.

he certainly has a point that there are russians that are slavs who are russians that live in many places because they spread during the soviet union. they certainly do not outnumber the populations in the other countries but he's absolutely right they're there. >> rose: john kerry and sergei lavrov said today the two governments would try to deconflict their operations, meaning what? >> so when two countries or two parts of the same military are conducting the same kind of military operations in the same area, you have to deconflict, right, or you create the risk of two aircraft running into each other. the way it works in practice, when you do serious deconfliction, is you meet every morning, every single morning,

you meet and you say, we're flying here today, and they say they're flying there today, and if you're too close, you adjust, right? that has to happen every single day. that's what n.a.t.o. does, that's what we're doing with the coalition in iraq. that's what we did with the coalition in libya. i don't know if the russians are up for that or not. >> rose: you would think that it would be a perfect way to be shown that they are equals. do we want to suggest to them that relisten to them, we hear them and treat them as equals? do we want to communicate that to them or not? >> so, charlie, i had a boss at the agency who i learned a lot from and i walked into his office one day and i said, dave, we have a problem, and he said, michael, michael, michael, there is no such thing as a problem, only opportunities. i think there might be an opportunity here for the united

states right now, and what's that opportunity? the opportunity is that, because of the refugee crisis and because of what the russians are doing and the great media focus and the great international focus on this, we have an opportunity to say to all the players, it's time to come together and have a conversation about doing what is in the best interest of the future of syria. and if i were secretary kerry, i would be thinking about making that offer to everyone, including the iranians and including the russians, and it plays to that russian sense of power and purpose and influence, right, to invite them to the table. so i would do that right now and try to begin to have that diplomatic conversation that's so important to ending this thing. >> rose: this has been enormously helpful, michael, thank you so much. this is an unfolding crisis and, as your friend dave said to you,

it perhaps, because in the darkest night comes the morning light, perhaps there is some way that they can come and see there is enough crisis here on the table to demand coming together. a nation has suffered enough. it ought to be said. >> i hope so. >> rose: michael morrell from washington. thank you. >> thank you, charlie. >> rose: back with the foreign minister of france. stay with us. >> rose: laurent fabius is here, the french foreign minister, in town for the neighs general assembly. there have been important developments in syria and iran. russian warplanes have been conducted air strikes in syria however appears their target is a rival coalition not i.s.i.s. secretary of state john kerry says he has great concerns about targets in syria. russia has put hundreds of

groups on the ground. the french government opened an investigation as to whether assad commit crimes against humanity and france will welcome 30,000 refugees in the next two years. i am pleased to have laurent fabius back at the table. welcome. >> hello. >> rose: this is a busy time at the united nations. >> yes, it was a busy time. the problem, the famous cup 21 about climate, is going in the right direction and it's very important. we should see that this year in paris. >> we have consequences from copenhagen and now everybody is aware of the problem which was not the case before. we have to be active. we have still a lot of problems to solve, i'm rather optimistic. >> rose: what kind of result do you expect from that? >> four things.

first one, a legal agreement in such a way that we shall not be over 2 degrees attend of the century. that's the first thing. the first universal agreement. second, every single country must deliver what we call a commitment and today where with we are speaking, 140 countries have delivered what they intend to do in the 2020 and 2030, which is completely new. it's to match the first time the countries will say that is the way welsch deal in energy matters. third, finance and technology. the poor countries need finance and technology in order to go to renewable energy. four, non-governmental actions,

because obviously the decision is taken by government, but we're looking at who is responsible for the emission of greenhouse gas, it's towns, regions, companies and, for the first time, they're committed and, therefore, we have to make progress on the four items. welsch no -- we shall not solve everything, but hopefully paris can be a turning point. >> rose: do you believe china is on board? >> yes. one of the main differences is china is completely on board because it's a vital problem for them. >> rose: yes. and it's a new flavor. >> rose: you had a kind of agreement between president obama and -- >> yeah, exactly. >> rose: on some of the aspects of this. >> that is the good thing. >> rose: what could go wrong? you mean -- >> rose: in paris with respect

to -- >> well, first, it's very difficult to convince 196 countries and can be decided only by consensus and you know the difficulty. >> rose: is france and the united states on the same page. >> yeah. >> rose: is france and china on the same page, sort of? >> yes, but we have to convince some other countries. if you explain to oil producers that the future would have to be less carbon producing, it's not easy. >> rose: that's the bottom line as we see it. >> i'm pretty optimistic. >> rose: let me turn to the iran nuclear deal. you -- you are given credit and your other foreign minister of the p5+1 for having the deal

because evidently you and your other foreign ministers came to washington, talked to members of the senate about why you were on board for this deal, and that was the convincing argument, it has been reported. >> no, it's true. but before that, france is said to have been tough in the negotiations. >> they were and in fact often was said tougher than americans. >> i will not compare, but it is true. i say it is true. >> rose: why? what is true, that you hat influence with the -- >> no, that we were tough. but why? because -- how could i put it? the idea is not only to prevent iran from getting the bomb, the idea was to convince the regional powers that our agreement would be efficient

but the other countries -- egypt, saudis, turks -- you say okay, you sign something but it's not real, they would have become nuclear as well and it would have been a catastrophe because the region which already is erupted would have been nuclear. and the position of france is we think that it is necessary, but we have to be tough in order to convince people. obviously, it was sort of a catching behavior, and i think it has been helpful. >> rose: do you believe the saudis are really supporting it or are they simply giving lip service? >> no. you know, we have excellent relationship with saudis. i think they are convinced that, for the next ten years, it's safe. afterwards, it's not open for them. >> rose: are they right?

that's one of the concerns, what happens after the ten to 15 years. >> yes, i know that argument, but, look, today -- >> rose: but is the argument right? >> today, what we call the breakout time, the time that is necessary if the iranians want to get the bomb to get the bomb. >> rose: it's about two or three months now and a year under this agreement. >> more than ten years, which makes a difference. afterwards, according to the international relationship, what we're doing, it will get back to three or four months. but this is a great advantage. i think all in all it was a necessity. but it's not a production for eternity. >> rose: in other words, after -- meaning you will have new agreements and new understandings and governments will change and technology will change and you have to constantly look at changing circumstances.

>> that's right. and we had snapback, the inspection by i.a.e.a. which is really serious. we have a discussion with the inspector general of i.a.e.a. and -- >> rose: it is said that the procedures both in terms of technology and in the agreement are stronger than any verification procedures that has ever been in this arena. >> that's right. >> rose: so it is also said it was convincing for many of the democratic senators was the argument that you or others within the foreign ministers' group, they convinced the democratic senators that if this agreement was not confirmed, there would be no possibility of putting the coalition and sanctions back together. >> it's very try. can you imagine -- not only speaking about france -- but you

imagine that we have signed something. >> rose: right. if it was turned down, do we imagine that russians and chinese -- >> rose: would have never agreed to sanctions again. >> -- would come back and say, okay, we are repeating and beginning again the negotiation? no. >> rose: so president obama has said the russians were very helpful. >> yeah. >> rose: what did they do that was so help snfl. >> they were positive. you know, it's a general tone. in fact, what was very important, because we were six on one side and one, iran, on the other side. we decided the six would be united because if we were not united unit would be very difficult to discuss. as a matter of fact, we have been united. the russians have played a pivotal role.

the chinese as well. let me tell you an anecdote because i have it in my mind. there have been many phases in the discussion, but at one phase, two years ago, it was a bit tense, and particularly france was a bit tense because what russia proposed was to us not really serious, not enough. and, therefore, we had difficult discussions among us. zarif said, evidence like that, either way, i stand up and go away! and chinese said, if i were you, i would sit down. and you were feeling in the back of this man 1,300,000,000

people. you know, they have been very helpful. but all of us, you know, it's a collective agreement. >> rose: the last time you were here, you said, we're not going to be engaged in airstrikes at this time in syria, right? >> right. >> rose: so what changed? there has been some shift in this particular point, and you are very clever because it's completely right. why? up to the recent months, we said, well, we are committed in iraq, okay, with our airplanes. >> rose: yes. but in syria, it's a different story because, in iraq, we have been called by the government, okay, whereas, in syria, obviously, mr. bashar al-assad, we shall discuss him, the same, but we were not

present in syria. but as you know there have been a lot of terrorist attacks in france, and we had precise information showing that some elements were coming from syria. therefore -- >> rose: some of the terrorist elements had connections to syria? >> yes, and attacks and preparation and all that stuff and, therefore, the french president is still undecided and i think is completely right to send planes for civilians and knowing exactly what was taking place on the ground, and he said a few weeks ago, if we see that daesh is preparing things against us, we shall strike. we have done it -- >> rose: it's a new turn of events for france to join a coalition to airstrikes -- >> not coalition. >> rose: you're doing this

independently because you had information from your own intelligence sources? >> exactly. but we are acting in the framework and not only in a legal aspect of self-defense, article 51 of the u.n. when you know there are people who are preparing to kill french people, you cannot stay like that. that's the reason why we have this shift and it is right. >> rose: president putin says the reason i'm in syria is entirely legal because the president of syria asked us to come in. that's why i'm there. >> from a legal point of view, that's maybe true. but the original statement of the russians saying we want to fight daesh, is their statement, and we want to have a general agreement -- >> rose: but also we want to prop up the government, too. >> that's a different story. >> rose: okay. but the idea, when lavrov

came in this, the security council and said, gentlemen join us, everyone together against daesh. that's a very good idea. >> rose: that's this week, i think. >> but the problem is, when it comes to reality, the strikes today are much more ontoponents, not terrorist. >> rose: you have access to intelligence that i don't. >> sure. >> rose: who are they striking? who are these airstrikes directed against is the first question. second question, do you think they have enough intelligence about what's happening on the ground to be choosing to only strike so-called rebels and moderate rebels? >> i tried to answer this, too. they have a lot of information either directly or through

france. now we have direct information on their target. no. as far as france is concerned and other countries as well is to say if it is against daesh and al queda, it is okay. we have to coordinate our action against daesh and al queda. but if it is, how can i put it, some sort of pretense in order to fight against the opposition and, therefore, to reinforce bashar, it's another story. >> rose: who says bashar has to be the beach o -- the futuref

syria? >> syria. when you discuss it with russia, they'll say we'll see but we have to reinforce him. what are they doing today? they're reinforcing him. >> rose: they a acknowledge that. they say they're there to prevent assad from being overthrown because they think they need him. >> the argument is very good. but to avoid chaos is not to maintain ba shad for eternity. it's not a matter of a person. but you cannot have contradiction. imagine you are a syrian and your family has been destroyed by bashar, it is the situation with more than 50% of the population, and you say to this family, bashar is the one.

no, it is not possible. they will go to daesh. we want to beat daesh. we need russian, iranians, americans, arabs, everybody. >> rose: it takes everybody to defeat daesh. >> if you say at the same time bashar is the one, it's a con diction. >> rose: i don't understand what your policy is on the ground militarily. >> we don't go on the ground. >> rose: but in terms of strikes, are you saying -- is the french government prepared to, if you think this bad of assad and everybody in the world seems to have that view, and i think the iranians certainly have that true that there has been terrible damage done to the state of syria and its people. but my point is how do you say we want to get rid of assad and we want to get rid of daesh, how do you do it at the same time? >> you have to have a military action for daesh. you know, it's not a problem

which will be solved in just a month. okay, military, and it's the reason why the proposal of russia if it's against daesh is a good one. >> rose: everyone would join in that. >> and as far as the future of the regime is concerned, that's diplomacy, we have to talk. >> rose: in the mean time, here is daesh, you taken fromch, american, british and soviet airstrikes against daesh. over here is the assad government. >> the assad government is capable of acting if the iran -- are incape aable of acting if the russians and the iranians aren't supporting you. >> rose: but do you attack now. >> no, we're not attacking. >> reporter: you're opposed to him, why not? >> the military, we have to concentrate on daesh and al quaida. at the same time we must have diplomatic action in order to prepare the transition.

>> rose: you say mr. assad we'll have diplomatic transition and figure out where you go and what's going to happen. >> and president putin will be friday in paris because we have to discuss about ukraine and syria as well. >> rose: do you believe they have an interest in convincing you as representative of the french government, secretary kerry as a representative of the american government, that they want to eliminate i.s.i.s. and that they are prepared to strike i.s.i.s. in the future? >> sure, sure. >> rose: and they say that? sure. >> rose: and you say to them what? show me? >> well, we say to them, show us, and till now the information that we get are not going in that direction, but we shall be very happy if the reality are according to the -- what you said at the beginning. i mean, let's join together in

order to fight daesh. daesh, it's not their position -- they're different. >> rose: does the moderate opposition have strength at all. >> yes, but it's not only military, but my guess is that most people in syria, well, they are victims, and, obviously, they are living in terrible circumstances, and we have to organize things in order to have a future. look, i want to add another point, which is important. it's very likely that in the coming day -- >> rose: yes. one of the great advantages would be if all that would turn to sectarian conflict. >> rose: yes. sunnis, shia. >> rose: which happened in iraq. >> yes, and we have to pay attention to that. all of us -- obviously the

regional powers, us as well, and russian as well, you know, because it's not their interest. >> rose: do you think the world in the west, the french american and british government and others have shown enough urgency about the fight against i.s.i.s. to recognize what the threat was and did you organize -- and have you organized sufficiently to stop them? because you can't stop them without ground troops as well. >> two answers. first, when we discussed in geneva, when was it, 2012, there was no terrorist in syria. >> rose: when was this? june 2012, no terrorists in syria. >> rose: no al-nusra? i don't know -- i was a new

foreign minister in france. >> rose: 2012, three years ago. >> and we are discussing about the good formula to have a new government and nobody was speaking about terrorists. at that time, i think a lot of time has been wasted, afterwards, and, therefore, one year, two years later on, you had al-nusra, daesh and all that stuff, which in the beginning, as far as daesh is concerned, were encouraged by different reasons by bashar. a lot of time has been wasted. afterwards when daesh has been more and more powerful, there has been a reaction, the international coalition, but it's not enough. we have to be more coordinated. we have to tackle the different elements. there is military and this and

that, and there is a lot of good will. well, maybe it is changing, but it's an enormous -- we are committed to fight. >> rose: a sense of urgency and priority. >> yes. but what i would like to explain, i don't know ifly convince you -- i don't know if i will convince you, is to say the solution is bashar, it's contradictory. the solution, obviously we have to fight very fiercely daesh because they're horrible people and al quaida and so on, but we have to find a political solution which helps it and not which would put into i into thef daesh the population. >> rose: let me turn one last question. help us understand the migration, the refugee issue in

europe and the responsibility of governments there. germany, france, the responsibility of the united states, the vatican. >> sit a close language -- it is a close language we're discussing. not all are coming from syria. it is true the numbers are very high and, therefore, europe is in a difficult position because we are not accustomed to that. well, it would be a long debate, but our view is that, so far as political refugees are concerned, we have a duty, it is a tradition in europe. but as far as immigration is concerned, it is a different story because we cannot welcome everybody. and we have, obviously, to make utmost in order to solve the syrian problem because if you're only as a consequence, it's

always very different. >> rose: do you worry that most of the people are coming for reasons of political persecution but that some may come because they want to use this as an effort, a covert way to -- >> well, there are different people and situations. >> rose: how do you separate and make sure that -- >> well, we have what we call hot spots. >> rose: right. at the entrance, and people who are in charge of checking who is who. >> rose: right. it's a difficult job but it's necessary. >> rose: a pleasure to have you here again. >> thank you so much. >> rose: laurent fabius, foreign minister of the republic of france. thank you for joining us. see you next time. for more about this program and earlier episodes, visit us online at pbs.org and charlierose.com. captioning sponsored by rose communications

captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

>> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by: american express. >> rose: additional funding provided by: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide.

steves: westminster abbey. this most-historic church in the english-speaking world is where kings and queens have been crowned and buried since 1066. while it was first built in the 11th century, much of what we see today is 14th century.

when there's a royal wedding, the world looks on as, amid all this splendor, thousands of britain's glitterati gather under these graceful gothic arches. the centerpiece is the tomb of edward the confessor, who founded the abbey. and surrounding edward are the tombs of 29 other kings and queens. this is the tomb of queen elizabeth i. her royal orb symbolizes she was queen of the entire globe. the abbey is filled with the remains of people who put the "great" in britain -- saints, musicians, scientists, and soldiers. for lovers of english literature, strolling through poets' corner can be a pilgrimage in itself. king henry vii's lady chapel, with its colorful windows and fanciful banners, has the festive air of a medieval pageant.

the elaborate ceilings is a fine example of fan vaulting, a style that capped the gothic age. at the far end, a wall of modern stained glass marks the royal air force chapel. it honors the fighter pilots of all nations who died defending britain in 1944. with saints in stained glass, heroes in carved stone, and the remains of england's greatest citizens under the floor stones, westminster abbey is the national church and the religious heart of england.

the following kqed production was produced in high definition. ♪ calories, calories, calories! >> wow, it rocked my world! >> it just kind of reminded me of boot camp. >> i don't know what you had, but this is great! >> it almost f