>> rose: welcome to the program. tonight leon panetta, former secretary of defense, c.i.a. director, white house chief of staff and congressman. we talk about syria and other issues. >> in many ways, what will happen here in syria, i think will define america's role in the world. and if we do nothing, if we back away, i think it will weaken the united states, and i think it could change the stature of the united states for the 21st

century. >> rose: we continue this evening with the conversation about a new film called "the family," directed by bless, and starring robert de niro and michelle pfeiffer. >> >> when you work with great actors, eats a reminder of how to do it right. >> rose: we conclude with an exhibition at the asia society called "iran modern." >> when i went to iran, i was able to see in fact this period was very different from today. obviously, there are similarities, but it's different its difference is also in terms of the political environment. in that very period the u.s. and iran were not just politically closer but also there were many

cultural ties. iran was very cosmopolitan. it was very much part of the international community. it was a period i would describe as a great blossoming of the iranian creative expression. >> rose: leon panetta, a new conversation about the "the family," and an exhibition at the asia society, captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose.

>> rose: the syria story will soon take another turn, maybe as soon as this weekend. the report from the usmed chemical weapons inspector saturday expected to be released shortly. shortly. leon panetta has a better idea than most what the report might say. he was in congress, before that he was the chief of staff at the white house. he's had some of the most important jobs in government. and he has been through crisis when things were, as you might say, needing the most wisdom that you could find anywhere because the decisions were hard and consequential so i'm especially pleased to have him join me this evening. wk. >> nice to be here, charlie. >> rose: how is life outside of washington? do you miss it? >> first of all, there is life outside of washington.

>> rose: you didn't doubt that. >> not at all. >> rose: a man from california would never doubt that. >> it's great to be back in carmel county, in the monterey peninsula, back with my wife and boys and grandchildren, and w im doing some speaking around here in the country, and also abroad. and also working on a book. so i've been keeping very busy. >> rose: i want to talk about some of the themes you're express, in the speeches but first, syria. there are some people beginning to believe putin, the president of the prush aare worried he may be taking the united states. do you agree with that? do you worry about that? do you think there is a way we can respond to that risk? >> i think we have to be smart about this. we can't-- it's pretty obvious, having dealt with the russians time and time again, you know, it's pretty clear that, number one, you know, our word has to be good and our credibility has

to be good and we stand by what we say. but secondly, their actions are what count, not their word. and i think putin in his op-ed, you know, in my mind he clearly was trying to weaken the united states, trying to weaken our determination on this issue. and basically, trying to lecture us as to who we should be, and, frankly, you know, i think it's going to backfire on him. >> rose: did does is seem smart to raise all the red flags because he says those kinds of things at this moment? >> i think it will backfire on him, especially attack, the united states and for what the president said about our exceptionalism. i mean, the fact is, you know, we are exceptional in terms of our value of human rights and our leadership in the world. and i think for him, as a russian, to somehow condemn that, americans are going to say what the hell is he doing? >> rose: what should the president do? >> i think the president has to be very firm. now, this is a time for the president to be a commander in

chief. he's determined that what happened in syria not only crossed a line in terms of the use of poison gas, but that it clearly crossed the line that he set, and, thereof, i think it's extremely important that he must be firm. the impact this has on national security. after all, as commander in chief, he has determined that our national security interests are involved here. he made that determination and they woo have to take action. now, clearly, the russians have made this offer. the syrians have made the offer that they're prepared to allow for inspections to get rid of their chemical stockpiles. we have to take them up. we've got to see whether they're serious or not. but we cannot waiver in it i inf the credibility of the threat the united states has made with regards to a potential attack. >> rose: do you believe the

threat of a potential attack was what caused the russians and syrians to respond? >> no question, no question. they respond to power. that's the nature of those kind of relationships. they respond to power. they respond to the fact that they know that the united states would in fact do something like that or could very well do something like that. and as a result of that, i think they were prepared to do it. look, for almost 30 months we have been asking the russians to help us try to negotiate some kind of solution here. and it hasn't gone anywhere. and suddenly the threat of military action comes from the president of the united states and they now decide, oh, wait a minute. we're going to do this. after all, assad, when he was talking to you, looked straipt at you and said they had nothing to do with the -- >> the august 21 poison gas tragedy. >> that's right, with the poison gas tragedy. russia has been saying the same thing. and now suddenly they're

prepared to say, wait a minute. yes, we have chemical weapons. let's get rid of them. we'll sign the treaty and do it. there is no question in my mind that that is a direct result of the threat president obama issued against them. >> rose: i mean, it's possible that the motive here is simply to delay and delay? >> i think that is-- i think that is a concern. and i think that the united states, in conducting these negotiations, has to be very careful not to allow this to drag on. they've got to establish some time limits. whether they do it formally or whether they do it internally. they can't just allow this to be dragged on and on because the main tactic of russia and syria up to this point has been delay delay, delay, in order to give assad the time to be able to protect his regime and be able to win this war. i think that's been the name of the name game. and we have to make sure this isn't another virgz of that same

tactic. >> rose: those of suppose the president-- this fails. there is no possibility of a compromise having to do with syria giving up its chemical weapons, can't make it work. the president then has to go back to the congress and ask. do you believe the congress will be prepared to give him the authority, having been a congressman, understanding national security issues, but also understanding the rhythm of america? >> ( sighs ) you know, there's a real question mark there as to whether or not the congress will be -- >> judgey is it? what is it about american people at this stage that says we don't think this may be a good idea? >> i-- you know, i think it's obvious from what the president has said and others have said that, you know, we've been through over 10 years of war in iraq and afghanistan. there is an exhaustion about the fact that we've been confronting war for all those years.

we've lost a lot of good men and women. we've become entrenched in these wars in the middle east, and i think the american people are concerned that we're-- you know, we are going to be on a slippery slope, get back into another war that we're going to repeat, iraq that we're going to repeat, afghanistan. i understand all those concerns, but the fundamental fact is the president of the united states, as commander in chief has determined that our national interests, or national security interests are involved here because of what assad did with poison gas and the threat that constitutes to us. we still live in a dangerous world. and we have to be prepared not only to have a strong military but to use that military when our national security interests are involved. so if the congress suddenly decides that they aren't going to support the president in doing this, i think the president of the united states as commander in chief still has to look at our national security

interest and do what is right. it may not be political. it may not be popular. but he has to do what's right. >> rose: you just said the president if he believes, as he has said, that this cannot stand unchallenged, has to take a military strike, even though the congress night not give him the authorization? >> the hope is the congress would in fact support him and vote to -- >> but you are sawing hereby dp ahead even if he doesn't get the authorization. >> he, as commander in chief of this country, president of the united states, determining that our national security interests are involved here as he said to the american people, and that there should be military action tob draw a line on them. if he has come to that concliewg as president of the united states he cannot walk away from that. >> rose: there's no constitutional issue as far as you see it. >> that's correct. >> rose: you know this man, president obama. you know him well.

you've sat in moments of crise with him, and especially including the osama bin laden mission. he's reluctant, it seems, to use force. is it because he's worried what will happen after assad. >> i've worked with this president. both as c.i.a. director and secretary of defense. i have found him to be somebody who carefully evaluates each issue, tries to look at all the ramifications, tries to determine what the best course is. but i've also find him decisive in the end and he's willing to come down and make a decision. nothing exemplifies that than the decision to conduct the operation against bin laden. i think in this instance, his concern is he doesn't want to get caught on that slippery slope that entangles america in another war in the middle east.

yet he recognizing assad has crossed that line, killed 1200 citizens using poisoned gas, that the united states has drawn a line. he's crossed that line and now we have an obligation to act. >> rose: what do you say to those people who say i hear you. it would send a message to iran and north korea, and other countries on america's will. on the other hand, other nations aren't stepping together to join us. the united nation, and the pope and people who you might necessarily believe the horror of the chemical weapons have not responded. >> charlie, that is the nature of the responsibility that lie with the president of the united states and with this country.

in absence of others willing to do what is right here, willing to take steps to draw the line on i the use of poison gas, as almost every country has pledged to do, that if they walk away from it and if the united nations walks away from that, the united states still has the responsibility to act. that's been the naturele of world leadership. in many ways, what will happen here in syria i think will tefine america's role in the porl. we to nothing, if we back away from our word,icinal weaken the united states and i think it should change the stature of the united states. >> rose: this is his most important speech without question. >> they will ask will this

country stand by the president. >> rose: should he have tape it to the congress? >> i understand why he did because it is an issue that is complex and difficulty and he sensed the country had a lot of questions about this. i don't-- you know, i think it's okay to go to the congress but i also know as a member of congress that the niewgz, 537 memberses of congress, is not always equipped to make decisions on what is our national security interest and then act on that in the kind of limited action the president is involved with. it's not built that way. the perez depsy of the united states, the bill to act as commander in chief is what our forefathers.

jefferson made the decision to send the navy to help with the bacialry coast pirates. he understood the importance of the president as commander in chief -- >> you don't think the president was trying to pass the problem as he went to congress. he was trying to open up more discussion so that it would somehow relieve the pressure coming from people who quite didn't understand it. >> i think that's right. he could see that pressure billion. he could see the country was questioning. he wanted to have that debate. but in the end, as i said, this cannot be about what is popular or what is political. it has to be about what the president thinks is right for the country. >> rose: let me talk about action for a second. the president and the secretary of state have used the word "limited," now, clearly, limited can be defined as simply not having boots on the ground. but they seem to mean something else, and i don't quite know what that means when they mean limited. >> well, you know, i think that

limited is-- from a military perspective, it's a set of targets that the united states will go after, hit those targets, determine that we have in fact destroyed those targets -- >> and if you're not, you do a second strike. >> you hit them until you've destroyed the target or after. >> rose: it will weaken the assad regime we definition-- >> i don't think there's any question. >> rose: and that might give-- tip the balance to the rebels. >> well, you know, the one thing this has to be is part of the very comprehensive strategy on where we go with syria. this has got to be part of a broader strategy, not just to strike because of the fact that they used poisoned gas-- which is a concern and is obviously driving this issue right now-- but that attack has to be

combined with assisting the rebels, as we are making sure the rebel forces are those that we can support and move towards real political reform. thirdly, to have an international effort to try to build that support that's so important, to try to ensure that we keep moving in the right direction, that we look at the humanitarian needs of the refugees and continue to assist there. and that, obviously, we do everything we can to make sure that we secure these chemical sites. all of that has to be part of a strategy here that is clear to the american people and clear to the world. >> rose: all right. do you worry when you look at the budget negotiations, a subject you know a lot about as well, that we could do damage to our military? >> i do. i worry that this whole-- this whole sequester gimmick which

was this crazy idea of doing something silly and slashing everything across the board -- >> but everybody bought into it. >> everybody bought into it but the whole purpose was to ensure that they wouldn't do it and they would do the right thing. they didn't do it. and now sequester has gone into effect and it is having a terrible effect, not only on the domestic side in terms of jobs and our economy-- but also on the defense side in terms of readiness. >> rose: the argument was the republicans would be especially concerned about defense cuts, so, therefore, they would be willing to negotiate on other aspects. >> i think that was part of the hope, and the decision was that they were going to go ahead and make these cuts to kind of send a signal that, you know, they gave in on the tax side and they were going to force the issue on the spending side. this is part of, i think, a congress that is governing more by crise than by leadership. we keep having crisis after

crisis after crisis. we keep going to the edge of the cliff-- sometimes we go off that cliff. that is no way to run our democracy. it's no way to govern the country. and it's weak neng us. >> rose: clearly. how do you change it? >> i guess my hope would be that the leadership would be willing to take the risk associated with leadership. >> rose: in congress and the executive branch. >> that's right. >> rose: because they have to do it together. and they have to trust each other to a certain level. >> the fundamental problem right now is the lack of trust. >> rose: if i this, you may necessarily promise but you won't do it. >> at my time in the congress the leadership basically put us in the room with the republicans, democrats together, and said don't out of there until you cut a deal. >> rose: would that have worked? >> well, i think it should have been tried. but it wasn't. and i think the result is that there isn't that trust. and we're also kind of in a soundbite world in which

politics is not about governing. it's about how you can basically hit back the other side. >> rose: reelection. >> and reelection. >> rose: i think the president thought elections have consequences and when you run reelection things might be different. >> you know, democracy is not something that is going to just simply work on its own. you've got to push it. you've got to kick it. you've got to prod it. you've got to put people in the room and work with them. you have to continue to push it. that's the only way you get things done. every president i've worked with, every congress that i've been a part of, the only way it works is if you roll up your sleeves and you try to cut a deal. that's what they've got to do. >> rose: everybody knows that you as secretary of defense, david petraeus as c.i.a. director, hillary clinton as secretary of state, i might be missing-- bob gates as secretary of defense-- recommended doing something to support the rebels several years ago.

the president seemed to have rejected that. why? >> i think the president, you know, was concerned. i understand his reasons. he was concerned these weapons might wind up in the wrong hands and those weapons would be used in a way -- >> was he right? >> well, i think he was right to be concerned. >> rose: was he right that you couldn't figure out a way to get them to the right people. >> my view was we would do this by identifying those elements in the rebel forces that we could trust and hopefully we would be able to work with. that was my hope. and the fact is that today, the president is doing exactly that. and i think it's the right -- >> in other words -- would it have made a difference if we had done this earlier? this was before a lot of the more radical al qaeda affiliates came in. >> i think it would have-- i think it would have moved it in the right direction, but i also

think the threat from assad to use poisoned gas would have still been there, and we would still be at the same place we are today because i think they would have made the decision to use it because of the concerns about losing the country. >> rose: so you are of an immigrant family. >> yes. >> rose: proudly so. >> right. >> rose: you have served at the highest levels of your government, in the executive branch and the legislative branch. now, you have the time to think about your service, tong about big issues, and to talk to the country about them, on programs like this, as well as to write a book, as well as to make speeches. what is it you want us to know about the experience of leon panetta as america faces the challenge of its future? >> well, you know, as i said, i am the son of italian immigrants. and i always tell the story of asking my father why they came to this country and traveling

all that difference, coming to a strange country without knowing the language, without skills. why would do you that. >> rose: and what did he say? >> he said the reason was your mother and i believed we could give our children a better life. i think that's the american dream and what we want for our kid and what public service is about, to trying to give our children a better life. that's the dream. but a treme is just a dream unless we act, unless we have a vision, have the guts to take action to make it happen and the message i like to send people, if you want that dream to be there for our kids we have a responsibility to act. >> rose: because it may be slipping away if we don't. >> that's correct. >> rose: "act" means what? >> actions to resolve the issues and challenges that face this country. i think this country could take

one of two paths ape path in which he wee could have a rep sawns, in terms of our economy, or we could be a country in decline if we continue to govern pie crisis. that's the choice. >> rose: i assume the most dramatic moment of your life was the osama bin laden raid, that night? >> well, i've had some great moments throughout my career, but i have to tell you, that operation and seeing the professionalism and commitment and dedication, particularly of our men and women in uniform, and also our intelligence people being able to put that praight together-- and, also, doing it when we really didn't know whether or not bin laden was there. to have it all work was really one of those great moments in a political career that i'll never forget. >> rose: which had consequences, too. if you had been wrong,

consequences. perhaps the presidency. >> that's right. >> rose: thank you so much for coming. it's a pleasure to see you. leon panetta who has had a remarkal life in public service and continues talking about those issues that concern him and concern the country back in a moment. stay with us. >> how was the first day, pretty good. >> anything to report? >> nothing. >> you already met neighbor. >> what is he talking about? >> nothing much. roses only. >> try to fit in, will you. i'm getting tired of finding a of you a place to live in 90 days. >> you know what will happen to your family if they find you. >> you know that won't happen, right. >> the godfathers, scar face, good fellowsa americ.

a brooklyn family is sent to normandy, france. here is the trailer to "the family." >> there was a time i had it all. people would ask me, "what was it like being untouchable?" the question they really should have asked was, "what happens when it's all over?" >> you set a good example by snitching on your friends in the mob. >> we're not in brooklyn anymore. >> i don't think there's anything worse than this. >> aye tri-to fit in. i'm getting tired of finding you a new place to win every 90 days. >> do we have the same names? >> no, we are the blake family. >> exg to report, kids, schools? >> whoops. >> you're a maniac. thank you. >> let's talk about the complaints i have received.

>> complaints? >> corruption, theft, bribery. >> i'm going to see my lawyer. >> peanut butter? >> on the right, after the dog food. >> merci. >> stupid american. >> how was your day? >> fine. >> you know what's going to happen to you and your family when they fiend you. we're here to make sure that doesn't happen, right. >> it's a cleanup operation. gets that family out thereof. >> incarnation of evil. >> what is all this grief about. y

>> how was the first day? >> nothing special >> rose: joining me is buc besson, the director, michelle pfeiffer, and robert de niro. i am pleased to have them all at this table. how does this start? >> luke and i were talking about doing this film, so he support me the book, and then i read the book and then he sent me the script, and the we talked about directors because he wasn't going to do it. we went through some directors. he happily finally decided to direct it and made it a lot simpler for all of us. did you want him to trect it or did you at some point say dwr

don't you direct it? >> i wasn't expected him to direct it, but then it kind of just happened naturally that he should. i didn't put pressure on him that i can remember saying, "why don't you dect it." i might have said it once, at a time when i felt hike yeah, we will be trying to find somebody else. he's going to be managing somebody or being involved in a way. >> rose: what brought you here? >> well, i was sent the script, and robert was attached and i knew lucia that point of actually producing. of course, i was excited immediately because of his involvement. and i love the script. ite very unusual piece. and then they told me that like was kind of circling it. >> and meat it more interesting?

>> it does. it's tricky because it's a very delicate tone -- >> between comedy and the-- it really-- you know, in so much of the time those kindsef films can be uneven and it was-- it's exactly the way i envisioned it. >> rose: he mates he when i do this. what is about him that makes directors want to work with him, that makes actors who want to work with him. you said you have a short life. >> he's on a bucket list, and i had.

we would do these films and meet on the red carpet and say, "cheese." so this was very exciting to actually have the opportunity to do some-- not only work with him but some really great sceens beak directed by luc. he's one of the greatest american actors living ever. >> wow. >> rose: and you? >> this is why he likes doing interview with me wiewz i gush. sphwhrl he's been there. at their level of acting, it's nigall, and suddenly you proposed to play with somebody at your level and you're very excited. they never shoot together.

they were like-- at a pig smile and they were happy and excited for me, there are pit pall paeverything actor i think has them, and there's a but phenomenon and send you into bad performance area. when you work with great actors, it's a reminder of how to do it right and i think the more you work, the easier it is to kind of get lazy and pull from your bag ofstriction and it domestics sort of stale. there's nothing new and refreshes. it. working with the kid was that day, poyou get a whole. it makes you stay on your toes

where this fume. >> rose: what is it about gan gang. >> they have a sense of honor. they love their family. they're very faithful to each other. there's lots of things to like. that, because they're a real family. and they do things you cannot do. you cannot kill a plumber because he is late. but i wish i can. are if you lie to them, they just kill you. but if you're not lying to them they're the west people in the the world. we have a sense of high pressure we lost in our society today. people say pro problem. they don't care, and i think it's what we like about them. >> rose: there is a stf you

called us, a friend who is a journalist what were you looking for? >> in this case, with us, it was nick, because nick i called because i wanted him to talk to luke. some of the veracity of the where it came from, original story and so on. nick was so nice about everything. he was so helpful, he was a greatify. that's what it was i looked at the d.v.d. this i haven't seen and it had a lot of interview with fs have henry hill that i hadn't seen. some of what he used to say remind me tart of the.

>> rose: getting within that culture. when you were making this movie, do you have a sense-- did you guys-- that that is working? this is doing it? can i tell halfway through a movie-- >> i like to have readings because you could have a reading and it doesn't work but in my experience if the materials looks like it will be interest, there'.it lifts it off the paeje -- >> and you get a feel of what the actors bring to it. i'm surprised hearing luc say that because i wasn't sure we had the reading. it's an exercised been i have a reading soto stee, for better or worse, there's no downside. >> these two people have been

married michelle and i beating married and older if you will. the scenes have, as i say, an easy way about them and they're very simple expel nice and sweet and warm. lb it's not difficult. that helps it so much more than just it was forced or some kind of cheesy-- grawr but it's important for this film, too. >> it's funny because upon first are thing it, that isn't really what i life was i had and i was hoping it wasn't just a salesjob on his part.

it was true. >> rose: i want to show some clips. take a look at this one. it's the first one all right? glaim just the prospect of packing up and moving again when they find out you killed the plumber. i didn't kim him, why did you beat him to wnl a pels. the guy was trying to rip me off so put yourself in my woo, would have fixed the pipes pope, tho is guilty to built super markets we have, huh? >> we're calling each other on our boat, is what we're doing. it's just, you know, an old, married couple. speaking the truth, and know-- i mean, i rof that scene because

represents all the complexities of being in a long marriage and the love and the resentment, it's just know-- and justu add o that, sir? >> cawg each other out on stuff. we're talking about i almost killed the plucker and she burned down the street. upon what else is new? >> rose: do you have somebody in your life that calls you on it upon on live.

>> rose: do you have this kind of honesty with davidicle gee we do. we've been married 20 years, and if you've been married that lo long. >> roselong. >> he is the guardian dog. it is impossible to guard them. we an expression in france-- you can't change the stripes of the zebra. and they're-- you know, no matter what, they are the worst. they are the best because they love each other, the family is very solit but you can't keep their hand on them which is possible. >> congresses. the movie is called "famently,

tristate, september 13. back in a moment. stay with us. >> our upcoming fall exhibition is called iran modern, and it's a groundbreaking show because it's the first time we have an international loan exhibition that focuses on the 50s, 60s, 70s on art in iran prior to the revolution. this was an incredibly important time in iran's history because iran was modernizing, and suddenly for artists there were membership connections to the world. >> rose: the crksz "iran modern," will be on display at the asian society here in new york. the art spans 32 decades. a period of great economical, societal change

>> rose: i'm pleased to welcome melissa chu, suzanne dimaggio, the vice president of asia society's global policy programs, and tom nagorski. what is the idea for the exhibition? what brought it about? what would we see? how hard was it to put it together.

>> the actual project justice as i was finishing a protect on china's cultural revolution, and at the same time same time. the cultural revolution in china was really focused. that was the period of the 60s and 70s. when i went to withdrawn, i was abe stee that in fact this period was very different from today. obviously, there were of there are dlaf is, put it's-- the u.s. and iran are not just fulteral prize. iran was very cosmopoll tan. it was a period i would-- many

artists studied overseas, traveled the world. there were many exhibitions, in fact here in the united states. there was an exact that tramps to gent issues, there's the-- you had works being acquired by the museum of modernary here in new york. the you see all these connections coming together, and at the same time an unprecedented state pratronnage inside of whether they likeraphy shawrchg aand the foster of the scene, the domestic art scene? in aurora. and the congress, 'toine museum of cob interest rate after the.

donald judge, jackson polac that would really be the envy of any of them here. >> rose: and all of. >> durks bai, london, paris, new york, los angeles, and even iran. >> rose: some is in iran? is it displayed prominently in iran? >> interestingly enough, in august, there was an exhibition of the art from the sa saqqakhah movement. in iran we're seeing new scholarship and new attention. >> rose: were there problems in doing this because of political conflict between iran and the united states? >> well, we do have sanctions here in the united states. >> rose: right. and so part of the process of us

being able to show the works, whether they came from iran or not, they're of arabs origin. what this meant was he had to get certification from the treasury that we were not in beach of the sanctions. as it's written it's quite unclear as to whether art can be exported or not. >> rose: let's look at the first image. describe that. she visited an important shrine, she saw the ceilings of the shrine were cover. and this inspired a whole series of works she continues to do to this day. if you were standing in front of it you would see your own relection in it, and then she also painted color. you get both a painting but also

a reflection of yourself. and this geometric drak and distraction on the whole is one of the things you see in the development but also developing through a number of artist's works. >> rose: the next image? >> marcos creggorrian, who was a really important seminal figure. he was the teacher, he opens the first gallery in 1988 and she was trucing these kind of work that concurrent and very with the same ideas as earth work. >> rose: the next one is tenovile. >> there is very little sculpt nurt way up to his own kind of coming of age.

you see this work, there was a movement, the two structures orig yours. and he really wanted about a historical story of a love triangle, which is probably too complicated top into here-- here-- >> rose: the next one is from pazechnia. >> these are workers from an oil refinery, and it's one of the earliest works included in the exhibition, and it shows something of a new socialist realist bent. >> rose: what does it sale us about the politics of the time. and i think from where the artists were previously painting

were more like european pill lives and things like this. this was really everyday works. iraniana oil field and things like that, they were not the... >> rose: the next one is najimu. >> he was best known for his. so what do you hope this accomplishes? >> well, i think that more than

exls else, there is this history to an iranian art which has been largely neglebled through the 50ss, 60s, and cents, and be most upon. this is a time, iran has a long history, some of the great cultural empires of the east, you know, with a civilization dating from 4,000 b.c.eched, and peept to so there was a long long,ing-- of. >> there are some treat works by i thinker arthurs are are

produced. it's still alive and well. >> rose: let me talk to you about the agencies, what's your mission? common ground, newliualunding and i'll put it getting back to a second, a simpleical claiz was done by one of the viewers, viewer, who ban her bees-- play poorp. right now, if you're a citizen anywhere else in the tworld we'll hear jiewfa or your for theafortheap. i think in a very bhiesk, improving the understanding

between nation, and the united states, the exhibition goes a lock way to do toward. pry, really, i think-- up pot mow really. and it's fascinating. i thought i knew kind of a fair bit about it, but the fact that the iran american society had a photographer in ishshafan, and drafting on to that, comont ground that her museum andless policy space privately and public he to improve the organizations. i don't mean to sit here and shill for us. >> rose: what are your great

plans for the rest of this year and 2014? >> with, what we'd like to do is i think we have to realize that even if things proceed positively, and there are a lot of the obsteckels in the way, since the severing of diplomatic relations since 1980, there has been very little sinner action. very few pooem to people changes. asia's toet has led some of th that. that some dreamt can be reached on the nuclear issues, if some confidence-building measures could be put in place, we could see a flurrying of interaction between our countries as it once was during this period. that is our hope. if that does not turn out to be

the case, we still feel it's very important to try to build those bridges, and i think our approach from an arts and culture perspective-- i should also mention, as part of our program, we have some fantastic iranian musicians performing as well, as well as the policy work coming together we think this is a great approach to edindicate the united states and iran for better potential for relations. >> rose:s this as we have said the first major exhibition roan exibition interest rated from it's on view here in new york, to january 5. which is my birthday. sometime between now, and mying about the, you-- if in fact--

art is a reflection of society, and its cultures are a reflex of where it might be go is a section of the grass. this would be a good place to start. thank you. thank you for joining us, see you next time. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

09/13/13 09/13/13 [captioning made possible by democracy now!] >> from pacifica, this is democracy now! of all developed nations, the united states has the most unequal distribution of income. >> five years ago this week in, the wall street giant lehman brothers collapsed, triggering the worst financial crisis since the great depression. two years ago, occupy wall street began courting the term the 99% wil