pbs. tonight as prum unravels nuclear deal with iran, he tries to make history by stitching together a nuclear deal with north korea. but what will happen if those talks fail? from washington, former joint chiefs of staff chairman mike mullen on the risks versus rewards. plus trump's adversaries aren't the only ones trying to figure him out. some of the closest allies hit with trade tariffs are trying to do that too. and i spoke to one of them prime minister norwegian joining me here in london.

>> good evening everyone i'm christiane amanpour welcome to "amanpour." they have told them to prepare for more uranium. france is saying iran is sailing dangerously close to red line. while trump's key ally benjamin netanyahu. the south proclaimed deal maker donald trump is trying to secure a new one with north korea. less than a week before the meeting with kim jong-un, the former chairman of the joint chiefs says that if the singapore summit fails, the potential for war could be even greater than it was before. the retired admiral mike mullen

joins me now from washington. admiral mullen, that's a very dire conclusion. what do you mean that after sort of a peace making summit, if that doesn't go well, the risks and the dangers could be even worse? >> well, christian, most of us, in fact most of us would hope for diplomatic path to solve the cry cities on the korean peninsula in particicicic with respect to nuclear weapons and nuclear capability. and if that door gets shut, albeit it could be temporary, but if that door gets shut, then the other paths that are open are certainly some possibility of preventing the use or deterrence, if you will, maybe increased economic sanctions which would continue to shut

down north korea, that would depend on china. or, you know, another possibility is that the use, the likelihood of the use of military capability goes up significantly. so i think the stakes have been very high from the beginning. and they even get higher from that standpoint if the summit fails. >> so we'll talk about, well, let me ask you right now, what does failure mean? i mean, already we are seeing the trump administration sort of back away from some of the, you know, pretty accurate demands they made of north korea to show verifiable dismantling before the president should travel halfway around the world to agree, you know, that they would conduct complete denuclearization as the trump administration demanded, which was, you know, total dismantling

of this. that's not what the trump administration is it talking about. what do you think the best result from singapore could be? >> well, it's really hard to know. basically, christiane, i've come to believe with this administration, you are really not going to see what happens or know what's going to happen until it happens. and i think that will be the case for this summit. i would hope that we could reach a point where both sides are committed to the complete denuclearization. i think if you listen to the korean experts who have worked on this over decades, that the agreement on the definition of denuclearization and the time line is probably the hardest thing to achieve. so i think going into this summit, if we could come away with a commitment to get on that road, and some give on both

sides that lead in that direction, that that could be a success. and that we should set our goals in a way that are meaningful in that regard and not too high at this particular point. clearly, president trump has had an impact on kim jong-un. he's coming to the table, assuming the summit goes off as currently scheduled. there will be discussions. he's had korean leaders here in the u.s. so it looks like it's going to happen. it's just very difficult to know what comes out of it. >> well, i'm so sore to interrupt you. do you think it's enough. are you a man of war so to speak, you've been in your navy all your career, chairman joint chiefs of staff, highest military official in the united states through very turbulent times. so one things that's being mooted is that the president and

the chairman could agree to, well, the president could offer agreement to have a peace treaty. in other words, a formal peace treaty rather than the armistice that ended the korean war. is that enough? and is it a risk that he comes away with just that with all the other stuff left on the table for the moment? >> i think that in isolation, my own view, is that wouldn't be enough. because what i think we really need to it be after is the nuclear capability of kim jong-un. and that needs to be on the table in a very clear way. many people have spoken about how agreement would be to verify because of the way the north koreans have handled their weapons historically and hidden them. but the complete verify able denuclearization aspect of this needs to be on the table and needs to be a road to get there and get there in reasonable

period of time. not what has typically happening when dealing with kim's father and grandfather which is putting the whole definition of denuclearization to achieve it years even decades later. i think that would be unacceptable. >> well, already, even from the u.s. perspective, we are seeing reports that kim thinks it could take years and years. and the united states maybe have to face the fact that it might take years and years. so i ask you that, with view to the fact they already have nuclear weapons and they have intercontinental ballistic missile that they've been testing. u.s. is very worried about that. iran doesn't have either of those things. and this deal looks like it might it be unraveling. do you believe the iran nuclear deal is on its death bed? and what would that mean for american and regional security? >> well, certainly the trend is not in the right direction, when the supreme leader says warm up your nuclear manufacturing

capability, my expectations are we certainly are a whole lot closer to them starting it back up then we were. we also shouldn't forget that the iranians are very bright capable people. and that in this area in particular, when there were set backs they regenerated that capability pretty quickly. they were on the cusp, depending how you look at it several months to develop this capability when the deal was struck. so my expectation is iran could come back along those lines very rapidly. and then to have nuclear weapons developed in that part of the world, i think would be a disaster. it would cause, from my perspective, other countries to develop or by the same capability, be it the saudi, the turks, egyptians, et cetera, and having a nuclear arms race in the middle east is exactly what we don't need at this particular

point in time. just like we don't need one in the western pacific if kim jong-un is able to keep his capability. >> i want to go back to what you've said, in fact, about the risk of war. you've said about the president that casually threatening a nuclear holl holocaust over twitter suggested if it fails, quote, i don't know how if i can convey to you how shocking it is hearing the commander of cheefr talking about nuclear weapons with noncha lance. that talk has receded for the moment. but are you saying that you are concerned that we may get back to that fire and fury code if this summit doesn't go right? >> i think -- i don't know, as i was alluding to earlier, i'm not sure what else is left at that particular point in time. and i don't think we've had much of a discussion in our country about the potential use of nuclear weapons and how

devastating they are. the most devastating horrific weapons ever put on earth and the numbers of people's that they these weapons will a nye lignye -- a nye light rapidly the long-term effects radiation creates. and we almost have in a way have forgotten what happened at who schema and nagasaki and we need to have the discussion whether it's possible to get to a point where these weapons in any form choik could be used again, particularly with a leader like kim jong-un. >> i want to ask you whether you believe, like many of the very, very experienced north korean hands, the u.s. filofficials wh have had intense discussions with north korean officials over the years, those writing about what the next moments could bring. and the question is really does

kim jong-un really believe he is making it a strategic historic shift? does he want to do that? is it? his interests? so let me play this snippet of that question put to donald trump. >> do you believe kim is committed to denuclearization? >> yes, i do think so. he wants to see it happen. he wants to be careful. he wants to be, you know, he's not going to run and do things. but to be honest with you, we have sanctions on, they will are very powerful sanctions. >> so, you know, he's hedging his bets. he says yes i think kim wants to but we still have sanctions on. but of course the white house is no longer using this maximum pressure language. and the president seems to pb indicating that he is stepping back from the robust demands he made for denuclearization at the start of this process. how do you read that what he just said? >> well, there could be something in this letter that he got that gives him an indication that they are much more serious

about actually denuclear icing with anyone else expects. with kim jong-un, i don't trust him, i would want to see his action not his words. and until that point my expectation is he will keep the nuclear weapons card in his hands and on his side for absolutely as long as possible. so i think it's the most difficult part of the discussion. and it's what actually got him to the table. and for him to give that up would be very surprising to me. and i think he would have to give that up for something that he valued obviously as much, if not more, and i'm not sure what that would be. >> well, he's going to get a really big prize. that is a major meeting with the leading leader in the world. the only super powers president will be meeting with this

country who will now be defacto taken seriously as a nuclear power. so that's one thing. >> i wonder how you would respond to that at the beginning of a pros stes rather than at the end of the process. and then your military knowledge, what do you think happened when they blew up the tunnels, their nuclear site, do you believe there is evidence that they destroyed that site or just collapsed the entrances? >> well, i'm actually -- i'm not -- i haven't seen the intelligence. i don't see those briefs any more, so i'm not really sure. there was fairly widespread speculation that that particular site wasn't functional anymore. so i don't know if it's actually something he actually gave up or if it's just symbolic at this particular point in time. >> well, again, you know, you yourself have given credit to president trump for taking this initiative and many people are very, very pleased that there is this an attempt at diplomacy

over one of the most existential threats we face in the world today. but i want to ask you, because i think you were joint chiefs at the time, remember when they did their technology to syria, and built a replica of their plant in syria, and u.s. was shown intelligence. u.s. decided not to bomb it. israels did, as we now know, that was back in 2007. now assad is being welcomed back to north korea. do you worry a little about that connection? >> well, i guess i'm not surprised at the connection. north koreans were building a plants for assad several years ago. so there is obviously a relationship. in a way it had me -- assad going there has me scratching my head. >> i don't think it's really substantive. it's more symbolic. obviously hasn't travelled many

places. but i don't think at this particular point in time that it's anything more than that. and with all the players that are involved in this, from us to the north koreans to the chinese, to the russians, to the japanese, et cetera, and the south koreans, i think assad is just a bit player. >> admiral mike mullen, thank you so much for your perspective. thanks for joining us tonight. now, on the face of it, it does look like the trump administration is more solicitous of this adversary as it prepares for this summit than america's closest allies, take a listen to some of them. >> the idea that we are somehow national security threat to the united states is quite frankly insulting and unacceptable. >> we are friends and allies aen feel deep angry about this.

>> now they are mexico is bourbon. canada drawing up their tariffs so they can sting the administration without an all out trade war. as i heard from prime minister solberg. welcome to the program. >> thank you. >> so here you are in europe at a time when things couldn't be more rocky between europe and the united states. >> yeah. difficult times. >> how do you assess these trade tariffs that are being imposed on steel and aluminum? >> well, using security measures from what country like norway who is one of u.s. closest allies, who we work very closely with, it's strange to us to feel that we are having tariffs based on. >> national security. >> on national security, yell. >> i think everybody, all the allies were stunned by that and

all have said the same with you, hang on a second, we have been allies, we fought alongside you for decades and decades. but i guess i want to understand from you, you are one of the european leaders who met with the president. you were at white house a few months ago mts and if i'm not mistaken he called norway a great customer and great ally and a great friend. were you surprised, then, first by the threats of the tariffs shortly after your visit and now by the actual imposition of them? >> well, we weren't surprised something would happen, because this is what he said in the election campaign. but of course we were surprised we have met with that and the urn even allies were met with that. doesn't have a very big export to the u.s. so we are not hurt very much by it. we know higher tariffs fewer jobs, less welfare for all country ns the word. >> including the united states. >> including the united states. >> what do you make of analysts and observers saying from the very beginning european leaders

kind of bent over backwards to accommodate president trump to engage with president trump, and that that actually hasn't worked. he has actually rolled over and carried out the threats that you didn't think he was going to do. >> well, we are believers, i think in all europeans country of dialogue, political discussion, plan and compromise. maybe we were a bit hoping that not everything the said the way it would be said would be transformed into policies. >> but in the 18 months president trump has been in office he has broken a lot of deals that you all thought were good deals, whether it is the iran nuclear deal, now with these tariffs on trade, whether it's moving the u.s. embassy from tel aviv to jerusalem and many other such things. and some are beginning to say, well is president trump a partner with the allies or

competitor? and thus do you have to figure out how to respond in kind? >> well, i'll always believe that the u.s. is a partner. it's an ally. it is a long tradition of doing that. then i think it seems like president trump sort of operational mood is stir things up and then try to find good solutions. i'm not sure if that leads to the results but the benefit of the doubt is the fact that you have to watch will we get better deals or more conflict. but there are some dangerous things to that. predictability and international policies are extremely important. unpredictability likely to things happening andalating much faster than we thought. that's why predictability i think is a value on its own international policies. and of course some of the policies makes it more unpredictable. take the iran deal, we are very

concerned about the known proliferation agreement. that means other countries will start to look for more support or being on their own nuclear weapons. >> so an arms race. >> it's an arms race. and that's what we are anxious about is the iran deal perfect? no. there is it a lot of things not perfect. but it was reached and the view has been that the iran has fulfilled their promises they made. should there be something else in the agreement, maybe, but it's still what we have and we should work on that, because it could increase in stability in the middle east and we don't need more instability and more countries with nuclear arms. >> your view, obviously, collides with president trump's view and collides with his his most important ally and that is the prime minister of israel, at the same time he's in london he is, part three of the trip to try to persuade leaders such as

yourself to also ditch the iran deal. how do you counter what president trump and benjamin netanyahu is advising? >> it might be that the iran deal isn't perfect. if you get a better one afterwards, if you don't get that what will happen. >> let me ask you this, there has been a charm offensive by yourself by president macron and prime minister trudeau and none of it has worked. you have steel and aluminum tariffs, you have the president pulling out of the iran deal and pulling outfront of the climate deal. all you leaders thought you could charm your way into some common sense policies in the united states have actually been shown to have not worked. at what point? we also have our sovereignty. how do you compete on this new terrain is what i'm trying to say? >> we try to do it cleverly.

because if you just do the automatic reaction the same way, you might end up in a very difficult place for the whole world, that's why we have to do it in a way that not increase into a big trade war. and that's why i think most countries are now feeling this and looking at how to react to it. and, also, trying to see what will be the end game of these things. in politics you should not just look at the first move you make. you have to have some idea where do you end with all this? because if you don't know where the end is, you shouldn't start something. and that's what you might say is the challenging part. if everybody asks us why the u.s. has started then we are spiraling the wrong way for the international community. >> do you think the united states, do you think the trump administration knows where this is going to end up? their own end game? >> i'm not sure of that. but i think, well, my analysis is they are stirring things up and hoping for getting a result.

we'll just hope that this stirring up is not going to give us a result that is totally wrong for the development of the world, make it more chaotic. >> and, finally, again about the climate, you norway and you yourself particularly concerned about the oceans and plastic filling up the oceans. you have i think 70% of your exported economy is based on your massive sea and ocean borders. how are you going to try -- what can you do to sensitize the world to green up our oceans and get the plastic out of it? >> first of all, i think there sa people's moment now on plastic especially in the oceans. we see more than 100,000 people cleaning up along our coastline. we see it in britain and all over the world. see indonesia where tour rhythm

is hit by the fact that plastic on the beaches where you come for your dream vacation. and so there is a momentum for that. my view is that the oceans are so important for livelihoods for so many people around the world, it's a big area for nutrition in the nutrition and clean healthy and the whole ocean is what grasps cot and part of the climate change. i mean to talk about oceans and i think this is part of my message. >> gosh, that is going to it be an interesting g7. what do you think the atmosphere is going to there is room for making the decision you can start to see where is all of this happening making the world a little more unstablg and unpredictable. where is it leading us. and which steps should we together take. >> and are you going to ask and demand answers?

>> well, i'm going to be on the part of the ocean part of the g7. norway is smaller economy than richest one in the world. >> and obviously oceans and climate effect migration. that is another thing president trump is hot under the collar about. and i think if i'm not mistaken right after the meeting with him, he uttered the expletives about migrants from africa and other parts of the world. were you surprised? >> yes. i don't think -- in a way he said very nice things about norwegian, we are happy like people, but we peaked immigration in 1980s. norway is a country that has second to population to the united states. but it is 150 years since we real relevant in large numbers going to the united states. and it's important to remember if you want to stop migration,

we have to work around the world to make sure that we have an international community that creates jobs for people that are living. africa is going to become three billion people in the next 100 years. we have to create jobs in half ka. -- africa. so america is the same f there is no hopes and jobs, that's argument for more not less. >> prime minister solberg, thank you so much for joining us. >> thank you. >> views on two key encounters for president trump starting this weekend. the g7 and the singapore summit. and that is for our program tonight. thanks for watching "amanpour" on pbs. and join us again tomorrow night.

katty: you are watching "beyond 100 days." for months theresa may has walked the tie rope on brexit avoiding the big decision. christian: how much longer can she stay in the middle? all these critical issues are now coming to a head. >> are you bungling brexit, prime minister? katty: it has been a tough day for the prime minister. she is under fire from her own cabinet and the opposition. on the thorny issue of the irish border, the bbc has learned that they will publish their backstop plan tomorrow. christian: