high drama unfolding at the united nations this morning. the president getting ready to take the world stage at what could be the most critical time for diplomatic relations in his presidency. here's what we know. and the world and what we'll be watching for. will president obama meet with the new president of iran or at least shake his hand. the state department says there's no official meeting scheduled. syria, the u.s. is still pushing a resolution that would make the chemical weapons deal legally binding, meaning if syria doesn't comply, the threat of military action is there. so far russia is not on board. plus, of course, israel and palestine, peace talks restarting this summer, but are there signs of progress? president obama has a one-on-one meeting with palestinian minister abbas today. let me bring in congressman this morning. >> good morning. >> you are one of the folks who signed a letter urging diplomacy with iran after the election of

the new president. do you think president obama should meet with him today? >> i think that the president should hold fast to his position. i think that what he did moved us to where we are today. i believe that he should cordial, but i don't think that he should seek out any kind of a meeting. i think that some kind of reaction should be -- positive reaction should be coming his way because i think he's done all that is expected as the head of the united states of president to do at this point. >> are you skeptical that there really is change afoot in iran, that their basic positions have not really altered, it's just the way that they're saying them? >> i've always been leery about who is exactly in charge. i know who the president is and

i think he seems to be a breath of fresh air. but there's always been lurking in the background what i consider to be the real decision-maker there, and that's the religious head of state. so because of that, i am always a bit leery as to how much of the ultimate authority in our country ought to be -- how far he ought to be going when we're not sure whether or not the president of iran is in fact the ultimate authority. >> so we're going to be watching that very closely. in the meantime, you guys have a few things on your plates in d.c. let me talk about what's going on at the capitol today. the battle to keep the government funded and open. the president could meet with bipartisan leaders later this week, at least that's what we're hearing. is this going to get resolved, congressman? >> oh, i think it will. i do believe that the president has made it very clear that he's

drawn a line on where the affordable care act ought to be, and i think he's going to hold to that. i think that everything is going to be kicked down the road until maybe the debt ceiling. however, i would hope that if the senate is going to hold fast to the house numbers and senators deal with that number without the defunding of the affordable care act, i would hope the senate would put in language to eliminate the sequester as well, because i'm fearful that if the numbers come back through us, sequester still in place, i'm afraid that omb will fund at a much lower level or would authorize funding at a much lower level, thereby baking in the sequester. we ought to get rid of the

sequester, and i believe the senate ought to send language to us doing so. >> i'm sure that you've been watching closely, so interesting, senate republican leaders mitch mcconnell and john cornyn are now going against ted cruz because they say they will allow a vote on this resolution, which could mean harry reid strips out the part that defunds obama care sending it back to the house. in that case, what do you think john boehner's next move is? >> well, i don't know what john boehner's next move is going to be. i know what his sentiments are. i know him very well. i know what kind of difficulty he's having trying to work with his conference. john boehner knows what's best for this country and what's best for this country is for us to respect that 59% of the american people who say they do not want to see the government close down over the affordable care act. and i think he will respect that. and i think that's what senator

mcconnell are doing. they're respecting the wishes of the american people. every time you talk to the american people about the contents of the affordable care act, they support it. now, there are a lot of people who you ask about it in a poll, 18% and 19% that do not feel that we've gone far enough, they are factored into that group that think we went too far. and so, therefore, you're given what i consider to be an unreal number when it comes to who its for or against the affordable care act. but i hope that we will continue to move forward on this. the american people had a referendum on this question last november and they re-elected president obama by record

numbers, though the percentages -- i mean one state flipped, his numbers went up. so overwhelmingly the referendum favored the president and the affordable care act. we ought to recognize that. we ought to respect that and move forward. >> thank you very much, congressman james clyburn. always good to have you on the program. >> thank you so much for having me. we are waiting for the president to arrive at the u.n. we are told that he has left. we've already seen ambassador powers coming in. so as we wait, i want to bring in our company, joel ruben, director of policy and government affairs and a former state department officer. bobby gosh is "times" international editor and usa today's washington bureau chief susan page. good to see all of you, good morning. >> good morning. >> people don't usually sit around with bated breath waiting for the latest speech at the u.n. this is different. this is a really big deal today. what are we anticipating here? >> today is different.

diplomacy is back. right now we're witnessing an international engagement with 190 countries, and the president will be speaking to them. he'll also be speaking to the american people about what his vision is for the next several years. and then interestingly, he'll be speaking to the iranians and the syrians and the russians, america's adversaries, about what he expects and hopefully this will open up the door on diplomacy towards iran and their nuclear program. >> and people are saying will there be a meeting between the president and the new iranian president. look, there's no doubt they have changed their style. he's tweeting. did you see the picture of him coming over to the u.n.? i don't know if we have a picture of him in a car for his arrival, but, you know, just like any other day you and i going to the office. but the question, bobby, obviously is, is this a real opening here?

>> well, there's a change of tone and it's important and we should recognize that. but there's been a change of tone from the white house as well. the white house has said they're open to a meeting. no formal plan is on the table. president obama sent a letter to rouhani after he was elected wishing him well. >> but will they run into each other in the hallway? >> we're talking about it. i don't think either of them are talking about it. >> the white house knows. >> yes. now, the change of tone is important and that has happened. now what has to happen next is for there to be some concrete steps. it's not enough. we've seen this before, with not doing -- before when there was another reformer running iran, he had a different tone and it was much more conciliatory, chances were missed. chances were missed at the united nations in 2000 when president clinton was in charge here. we'll see if this -- for me the more important meeting frank low is the one that takes place on thursday between john kerry and the foreign minister of iran.

that's when they will sit down. that's when the rubber meets the road. that's not the optics but that's where any real change in substantive issues will be discussed. >> i suppose you could make the argument whether or not there is some interaction between these two presidents will set the stage for what happens on thursday. susan, i'm wondering how careful does the president need to be, given the fact that iran's president doesn't speak until this afternoon? and here we see president obama coming into the room. susan, let me get your perspective as we watch him come and be introduced. >> we need to be somewhat careful because we don't know exactly what the new iranian leader will say. and while there is a somewhat different tone, we have for decades had opportunities that seemed to present themselves with iran only to be dashed, only not to make progress. so i think there's optimism, but there's a fair amount of caution too about whether you can rely on the iranians to deliver on this new tone. >> let me interrupt you, susan. the president has begun to speak

before the united nations, let's listen. >> each year we come together to reaffirm the founding vision of this institution. for most of recorded history, individual aspirations were subject to the whims of tyrants and empires, divisions of race and religion and tribe were settled through the sword and the clash of armies. the idea that nations and peoples could come together in peace to solve their disputes and advance a common prosperity seemed unimaginable. it took the awful carnage of two world wars to shift our thinking. the leaders who built the united nations were not naive. they did not think this body could eradicate all wars. but in the wake of millions dead

and continence in rubble and the development of nuclear weapons that could annihilate a planet, they understood that humanity could not survive the course it was on. and so they gave us this institution. believing that it could allow us to resolve conflicts, enforce rules of behavior and build habits of cooperation that would grow stronger over time. now, for decades, the united nations has in fact made a difference, from helping to eradicate disease to educating children to brokering peace. but like every generation of leaders, we face new and profound challenges. this body continues to be tested. the question is whether we possess the wisdom and the courage as nation states and members of an international community to squarely meet those

challenges. whether the united nations can meet the test of our time. for much of my tenure as president, some of our most urgent challenges have revolved around an increasingly integrated global economy and the efforts to recover from the worst economic crisis of our lifetime. now, five years after the global economy collapsed and thanks to coordinated efforts by the countries here today, jobs are being created, global financial systems have stabilized, and people are once again being lifted out of poverty. but this progress is fragile and unequal and we still have work to do together to assure that our citizens can access the opportunities that they need to thrive in the 21st century. together we've also worked to end a decade of war. five years ago, nearly 180,000

americans were serving in harm's way and the war in iraq was the dominant issue in our relationship with the rest of the world. today all of our troops have left iraq. next year an international coalition will end its war in afghanistan. having achieved its mission of dismantling the core of al qaeda that attacked us on 9/11. for the united states, these new circumstances have also meant shifting away from a perpetual war footing. beyond bringing our troops home, we have limited the use of drones so they target only those who continue an imminent threat to the united states, where capture is not feasible and there's a near certainty of no civilian casualties. we're transferring detainees to other countries and trying terrorists in courts of law while working diligently to close the prison at guantanamo bay. and just as we reviewed how we

deploy our extraordinary military capabilities in a way that lives up to our ideals, we've begun to review the way that we gather intelligence so that we properly balance the legitimate security concerns of our citizens and allies with the privacy concerns that all people share. as a result of this work and cooperation with allies and partners, the world is more stable than it was five years ago. but even a glance at today's headlines indicates that dangers remain. in kenya, we've seen terrorists target innocent civilians in a crowded shopping mall, and our hearts go out to the families of those who have been affected. in pakistan, nearly 100 people were recently killed by suicide bombers outside a church. in iraq, killings and car bombs continue to be a terrible part

of life. and meanwhile, al qaeda has splintered into regional networks and militias, which doesn't give them the capacity at this point to carry out attacks like 9/11, but does pose serious threats to governments and diplomats, businesses and civilians all across the globe. just as significantly, the convulsions in the middle east and north africa have laid bear deep divisions in societies as an old order is upended and people grapple with what comes next. peaceful movements have too often been answered by violence, from those resisting change and from extremists trying to hijack change. sectarian conflict has re-emerged and the potential spread of weapons of mass destruction continues to cast a shadow over the pursuit of

peace. nowhere have we seen these trends converge more power fully than in syria. their peaceful protests against an authoritarian regime were met with oppression and slaughter. in the face of such carnage, many retreated to their sectarian identities, alawite and sunni, christian and kurd. and the situation spiraled into civil war. the international community recognized the stakes early on, but our response has not matched the scale of the challenge. aid cannot keep pace with the suffering of the wounded and displaced. a peace process is stillborn. america and others have worked to bolster the moderate opposition, but extremist groups have still taken root to exploit the crisis. assad's traditional allies have

propped him up, citing principles of sovereignty to shield his regime. and on august 21st the regime used chemical weapons in an attack that killed more than 1,000 people, including hundreds of children. now, the crisis in syria and the destabilization of the region goes to the heart of broader challenges that the international community must now confront. how should we respond to conflicts in the middle east and north africa? conflicts between countries, but also conflicts within them. how do we address the choice of standing callously by while children are subjected to nerve gas or embroiling ourselves in someone else's civil war? what's the role of force in resolving disputes that threaten

the stability of the region and undermine all basic standards of civilized conduct? and what's the role of the united nations, and international law, in meeting cries for justice? today i want to outline where the united states of america stands on these issues. with respect to syria, we believe that as a starting point, the international community must enforce the ban on chemical weapons. when i stated my willingness to order a limited strike against the assad regime in response to the brazen use of chemical weapons, i did not do so lightly. i did so because i believe it is in the national security interest of the united states and in the interest of the world to meaningfully enforce a prohibition whose origins are older than the united nations

itself. the ban against the use of chemical weapons, even in war, has been agreed to by 98% of humanity. it is strengthened by the searing memories of soldiers suffocating in the trenches, jews slaughtered in gas chambers, iranians poisoned in the many tens of thousands. the evidence is overwhelming that the assad regime used such weapons on august 21st. u.n. inspectors gave a clear accounting that advanced rockets fired large quantities of sarin gas at civilians. these rockets were fired from a regime-controlled neighborhood. and landed in opposition neighborhoods. it's an insult to human reason and to the legitimacy of this institution to suggest that anyone other than the regime

carried out this attack. now, i know that in the immediate aftermath of the attack there were those who questioned the legitimacy of even a limited strike in the absence of a clear mandate from the security council. but without a credible military threat, the security council had demonstrated no inclination to act at all. however, as i've discussed with president putin for over a year, most recently in st. petersburg, my preference has always been a diplomatic resolution to this issue. and in the past several weeks, the united states, russia and our allies have reached an agreement to place syria's chemical weapons under international control and then to destroy them. the syrian government took a first step by giving an accounting of its stockpiles.

now there must be a strong security council resolution to verify that the assad regime is keeping its commitments, and there must be consequences if they fail to do so. if we cannot agree even on this, then it will show that the united nations is incapable of enforcing the most basic of international laws. on the other hand, if we succeed, it will send a powerful message that the use of chemical weapons has no place in the 21st century, and that this body means what it says. agreement on chemical weapons should energize a larger diplomatic effort to reach a political settlement within syria. i do not believe that military

action by those within syria or by external powers can achieve a lasting peace. nor do i believe that america or any nation should determine who will lead syria. that is for the syrian people to decide. nevertheless, a leader who slaughtered his citizens and gassed children to death cannot regain the legitimacy to lead a badly fractured country. the notion that syria can somehow return to a pre-war status quo is a fantasy. it's time for russia and iran to realize that insisting on assad's rule will lead directly to the outcome that they fear, an increasingly violent space for extremists to operate. in turn, those of us who continue to support the moderate opposition must persuade them that the syrian people cannot afford a collapse of state institutions.

and that a political settlement cannot be reached without addressing the legitimate fears and concerns of alawites and other minorities. we are committed to working this political track, and as we pursue a settlement, let's remember this is not a zero sum endeavor. we're no longer in a cold war. there's no great game to be won, nor does america have any interest in syria beyond the well-being of its people, the stability of its neighbors, the elimination of chemical weapons and ensuring that it does not become a safe haven for terrorists. i welcome the influence of all nations that can help bring about a peaceful resolution of syria's civil war. as we move the geneva process forward, i urge all nations here to step up to meet humanitarian needs in syria and surrounding countries.

america has committed over a billion dollars to this effort, and today i can announce that we will be providing an additional $340 million. no aid can take the place of a political resolution that gives the syrian people the chance to rebuild their country, but it can help desperate people to survive. what broader conclusions can be drawn from america's policy towards syria? i know there are those who have been frustrated by our unwillingness to use our military might to oppose assad, and believe that a failure to do so indicates a weakening of american resolve in the region. others have suggested that my willingness to direct even limited military strikes to deter the use of further chemical weapons shows we've learned nothing from iraq and that america continues to seek control over the middle east for our own purposes.

in this way, the situation in syria mirrors a contradiction that has persisted in the region for decades. the united states is chastised for meddling in the region, accused of having a hand in all manner of conspiracy. at the same time, the united states is blamed for failing to do enough to solve the region's problems and to showing indifference towards suffering muslim populations. i realize some of this is inevitable, given america's role in the world. but these contradictory attitudes have a practical impact on the american people's support for our involvement in the region and allow leaders in the region, as well as the international community, sometimes some ways to avoid addressing difficult problems themselves. so let me take this opportunity to outline what has been u.s. policy towards the middle east and africa and what will be our

policy during the remainder of my presidency. the united states of america is prepared to use all elements of our power, including military force, to secure our core interests in the region. we will confront external aggression against our allies and partners as we did in the gulf war. we will ensure the free flow of energy from the region to the world. although america is steadily reducing our own dependence on imported oil, the world still depends on the region's energy supply and a severe disruption could destabilize the entire global economy. we will dismantle terrorist networks that threaten our people. wherever possible, we will build the capacity of our partners, respect the sovereignty of nations and work to address the root causes of terror, but when it's necessary to defend the united states against terrorist attack, we will take direct

action. and finally, we will not tolerate the development or use of weapons of mass destruction. just as we consider the use of chemical weapons in syria to be a threat to our own national security, we reject nuclear weapons that could trigger a nuclear arms race in the region and undermine the proliferation of a nuclear arms regime. to say these are america's interests are not our only interests. we deeply believe that it is in our interests to see a middle east and a north africa that is peaceful and prosperous. and we'll continue to promote democracy and human rights in open markets, because we believe these practices achieve peace and prosperity. but i also believe that we can rarely achieve these objectives through unilateral american

action, particularly through military action. iraq shows us that democracy cannot simply be imposed by force. rather, these objectives are best achieved when we partner with the international community. and with the countries and peoples of the region. so what does this mean going forward? in the near term, america's diplomatic efforts will focus on two particular issues. iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and the arab/israeli conflict. while these issues are not the cause of all the region's problems, they have been a major source of instability for far too long and resolving them can help serve as a foundation for a broader peace. the united states and iran have

been isolated from one another since the islamic revolution of 1979. this mistrust has deep roots. iranians have long complained of a history of u.s. interference in their affairs and of america's role in overthrowing an iranian government during the cold war. on the other hand, americans see an iranian government that has declared the united states an enemy and directly or through proxies taken american hostages, killed u.s. troops and civilians and threatened our ally, israel, with destruction. i don't believe this difficult history can be overcome overnight. the suspicions run too deep. but i do believe that if we can resolve the issue of iran's nuclear program, that can serve as a major step down a long road

towards a different relationship. one based on mutual interests and mutual respect. since i took office, i've made it clear in letters to the supreme leader in iran and more recently to president rouhani that america prefers to resolve our concerns over iran's nuclear program peacefully, although we are determined to prevent iran from developing a nuclear weapon. we are not seeking regime change and we respect the right of the iranian people to access peaceful nuclear energy. instead, we insist that the iranian government meet its responsibilities under the nuclear nonproliferation treaty and u.n. security council resolutions. meanwhile, the supreme leader has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons and president rouhani has just

recently reiterated that the islamic republic will never develop a nuclear weapon. so these statements made by our respective governments should offer the basis for a meaningful agreement. we should be able to achieve a resolution that respects the rights of the iranian people, while giving the world confidence that the iranian program is peaceful. but to succeed, conciliatory words will have to be matched by actions that are transparent and verifiable. after all, it's the iranian government's choices that have led to the comprehensive sanctions that are currently in place, and this is not simply an issue between the united states and iran. the world has seen iran evade its responsibilities in the past and has an abiding interest in making sure that iran meets its obligations in the future.

but i want to be clear. we are encouraged that president rouhani received from the iranian people a mandate to pursue a more moderate course. and given president rouhani's stated commitment to reach an agreement, i am directing john kerry to pursue this effort with the iranian government, in close cooperation with the european union, the united kingdom, france, germany, russia and china. the roadblocks may prove to be too great, but i firmly believe the diplomatic path must be tested. for while the status quo will only deepen iran's isolation, iran's genuine commitment to go down a different path will be good for the region and the world and will help the iranian people meet their extraordinary potential in commerce, in culture, in science and education. we are also determined to

resolve a conflict that goes back even further than our differences with iran, and that is the conflict between palestinians and israelis. i've made it clear that the united states will never compromise our commitment to israel's security. nor our support for its existence as a jewish state. earlier this year in jerusalem, i was inspired by young israelis who stood up for the belief that peace was necessary, just and possible, and i believe there's a growing recognition within israel that the occupation of the west bank is tearing at the democratic fabric of the jewish state. but the children of israel have the right to live in a world where the nations assembled in this body fully recognize their country. and where we unequivocally reject those who fire rockets at their homes or incite others to

hate them. likewise, the united states remains committed to the belief that the palestinian people have a right to live with security and dignity in their own sovereign state. on the same trip, i had the opportunity to meet with young palestinians in ramallah whose ambition and incredible potential are matched by the pain they feel in having no firm place in the community of nations. they are understandably cynical that real progress will ever be made and they're frustrated by their families enduring the daily indin dig tee of occupati. but they too recognize that two states at only real path to peace. just as the palestinian people must not be displaced, the state of israel is here to stay. so the time is now ripe for the entire international community

to get behind the pursuit of peace. already israeli and palestinian leaders have demonstrated a willingness to take significant political risks. president abbas has put aside efforts to shortcut the pursuit of peace and come to the negotiating table. prime minister netanyahu has released palestinian prisoners and reaffirmed his commitment to a palestinian state. current talks are focused on final status issues of borders and security, refugees and jerusalem. so now the rest of us must be willing to take risks as well. friends of israel, including the united states, must recognize that israel's security as a jewish and democratic state depend on the realization of a palestinian state. and we should say so clearly. arab states and those who supported the palestinians must

recognize that stability will only be served through a two-state solution and a secure israel. all of us must recognize that peace will be a powerful tool to defeat extremists throughout the region and embolden those who are prepared to build a better future. moreover ties of trade and commerce between israelis and arabs could be an engine of growth and opportunity at a time when too many young people in the region are languishing without work. so let's emerge from the familiar corners of blame and pre prejudice, let's support israeli and palestinian leaders who are prepared to walk the difficult road to peace. real breakthroughs on these two issues, iran's nuclear program and israeli/palestinian peace would have a profound and positive impact on the entire

middle east and north africa. but the current convulsions arising out of the arab spring remind us that a just and lasting peace cannot be measured only by agreements between nations. they must also be measured by our ability to resolve conflict and promote justice within nations. and by that measure, it's clear that all of us have a lot more work to do. when peaceful transitions began in tunisia and egypt, the entire world was filled with hope. and although the united states, like others, was struck by the speed of transition, and although we did not and in fact could not dictate events, we chose to support those who called for change. we did so based on the belief that while these transitions will be hard and take time,

society is based upon democracy and openness and the dignity of the individual will ultimately be more stable, more prosperous and more peaceful. over the last few years, particularly in egypt, we've seen just how hard this transition will be. mohamed morsi was democratically elected but proved unwilling or unable to govern in a way that was fully inclusive. the interim government that replaced him responded to the desires of millions of egyptians who believed the revolution had taken a wrong turn, but it too has made decisions inconsistent with inclusive democracy. through an emergency law and restrictions on the press and civil society and opposition parties. of course america has been attacked by all sides of this internal conflict, simultaneously accused of

supporting the muslim brotherhood and engineering the removal of power. in fact the united states has purposely avoided choosing sides. our overriding interest throughout these past few years has been to encourage a government that legitimately reflects the will of the egyptian people and recognizes true democracy as requiring a respect for minority rights in the rule of law. freedom of speech and assembly and a strong civil society. that remains our interest today. and so going forward, the united states will maintain a constructive relationship with the interim government that promotes core interests like the camp david accords and counterterrorism. we'll continue support in areas like education that directly benefit the egyptian people. but we have not proceeded with the delivery of certain military systems, and our support will

depend upon egypt's progress in pursuing a more democratic path. our approach to egypt reflects a larger point. the united states will at times work with governments that do not meet at least in our view the highest international expectations, but who work with us on our core interests. nevertheless, we will not stop asserting principles that are consistent with our ideals, whether that means opposing the use of violence as a means of suppressing descent or supporting the principles embodied in the universal declaration of human rights. we will reject the notion that these principles are simply western exports, incompatible with islam or the arab world. we believe they are the birthright of every person. and while we recognize that our influence will at times be limited, although we will be wary of efforts to impose

democracy through military force, and although we will at times be accused of hypocrisy and inconsistency, we will be engaged in the region for the long haul. for the hard work of forging freedom and democracy is the task of a generation. and this includes efforts to resolve sectarian tensions that continue to surface in places like iraq, bahrain and syria. we understand such long-standing issues cannot be solved by outsiders, they must be addressed by muslim communities themselves. but we've seen grinding conflicts come to an end before. most recently in northern ireland where catholics and protestants finally recognized that an endless cycle of conflict was causing both communities to fall behind a fast-moving world. and so we believe those same

sectarian conflicts can be overcome in the middle east and north africa. to summarize, the united states has a hard earned humility when it comes to our ability to determine events inside other countries. the notion of american empire may be useful propaganda, but it isn't borne out by america's current policy or by public opinion. indeed as recent debates within the united states overse syria clearly show. the danger for the world is not an america that is too eager to immerse itself in the affairs of other countries or to take on every problem in the region as its own, the danger for the world is that the united states after a decade of war, rightly concerned about issues back home, aware of the hostility

that our engagement in the region has engendered throughout the muslim world, may disengage, creating a vacuum of leadership that no other nation is ready to fill. i believe such disengagement would be a mistake. i believe america must remain engaged for our own security. but i also believe the world is better for it. some may disagree. but i believe america is exceptional. in part because we have shown a willingness through the sacrifice of blood and treasure to stand up not only for our own narrow self-interests but for the interests of all. i must be honest, though. we're far more likely to invest our energy in those countries that want to work with us, that invest in their people instead of a corrupt few, that embrace a vision of society where everyone

can contribute, men and women, shia or sunni, muslim, christian or jew, because from europe to asia, from africa to the americas, nations that have persevered on a democratic path have emerged more prosperous, more peaceful and more invested in upholding our common security and our common humanity. and i believe that the same will hold true for the arab world. this leads me to a final point. there will be times when the breakdown of societies is so great, the violence against civilians so substantial that the international community will be called upon to act. this will require new thinking and some very tough choices. while the united nations was designed to prevent wars between

states, increasingly we face the challenge of preventing slaughter within states. and these challenges will grow more pronounced as we are confronted with states that are fragile or failing, places where horrendous violence can put innocent men, women and children at risk, with no hope of protection from their national institutions. i have made it clear that even when america's core interests are not directly threatened, we stand ready to do our part to prevent mass atrocities and protect basic human rights. but we cannot and should not bear that burden alone. in mali we supported both the french intervention that successfully pushed back al qaeda and the african forces who are keeping the peace. in eastern africa we are working

with partners to bring the lords resistance army to an end. and in libya, when the security council provided a mandate to protect civilians, america joined a coalition that took action. and because of what we did there, countless lives were saved and a tyrant could not kill his way back to power. i know that some now criticize the action in libya as an object lesson. they point to the problems that the country now confronts, a democratically elected government struggling to provide security, armed groups in some places, extremists ruling parts of a fractured land. and so these critics argue that any intervention to protect civilians is doomed to fail. look at libya. no one is more mindful of these problems than i am, for they resulted in the death of four outstanding u.s. citizens who were committed to the libyan

people, including ambassador chris stevens, a man whose courageous efforts helped save the city of benghazi. but does anyone truly believe that the situation in libya would be better if gadhafi had been allowed to kill, imprison or brutalize his people into submission? it's far more likely that without international action, libya would now be engulfed in civil war and bloodshed. we live in a world of imperfect choices. different nations will not agree on the need for action in every instance, and the principle of sovereignty is at the center of our international order. but sovereignty cannot be a shield for tyrants to commit murder or an excuse for the international community to turn a blind eye. while we need to be modest in our belief that we can remedy every evil, while we need to be

mindful that the world is full of unintended consequences, should we really accept the notion that the world is powerless in the face of a rwand rwan rwanda? if that's the world that people want to live in, they should say so and reckon with the cold logic of mass graves. but i believe we can embrace a different future. and if we don't want to choose between inaction and war, we must get better, all of us, at the policies that prevent the breakdown of basic order, through respect for the responsibilities of nations and the rights of individuals, through meaningful sanctions for those who break the rules, through dogged diplomacy that revolves the root causes of conflict, not merely it's aftermath, through development assistance that brings hope to the marginalized. and, yes, sometimes, although this will not be enough, there

are going to be moments where the international community will need to acknowledge that the multi-lateral use of military force may be required to prevent the very worst from occurring. ultimately, this is the international community that america seeks, one where nations do not covet the land or resources of other nations, but one in which we carry out the founding purpose of this institution and where we all take responsibility. a world in which the rules established out of the horrors of war can help us resolve conflicts peacefully and prevent the kinds of wars that our forefathers fought. a world where human beings can live with dignity and meet their basic needs, whether they live in new york or nairobi, in pashour or damascus.

these are extraordinary times with extraordinary opportunities. thanks to human progress, a child born anywhere on earth today can do things that 60 years ago would have been out of reach for the mass of humanity. i saw this in africa where nations moving beyond conflict are now poised to take off. and america is with them, partnering to feed the hungry and care for the sick and to bring power to places off the grid. i see it across the pacific region where hundreds of millions have been lifted out of poverty in a single generation. i see it in the faces of young people everywhere, who can access the entire world with the click of a button, and who are eager to join the cause of eradicating extreme poverty and combatting climate change, starting businesses, expanding freedom, and leaving behind the old ideological battles of the past. that's what's happening in asia

and africa, it's happening in europe and across the americas. that's the future that the people of the middle east and north africa deserve as well. one where they can focus on opportunity instead of whether they'll be killed or repressed because of who they are or what they believe. time and again, nations and people have shown our capacity to change. to live up to humanity's highest ideals, to choose our better history. last month i stood where 50 years ago martin luther king jr. told america about his dream. at a time when many people of my race could not even vote for president. earlier this year, i stood in the small cell where nelson mandela endured decades, cut off from his own people in the world. who are we to believe that

today's challenges cannot be overcome? when we've seen what changes the human spirit can bring. who in this hall can argue that the future belongs to those who seek to repress that spirit rather than those when seek to liberate it? i know what side of history i want the united states of america to be on. we're ready to meet tomorrow's challenges with you, firm in the belief that all men and women are in fact created equal. each individual possessed with a dignity and inalienable rights that cannot be denied. that is why we look to the future not with fear, but with hope, and that's why we remain convinced that this community of nations can deliver a more peaceful, prosperous and just world to the next generation. thank you very much. [ applause ] >> 42 minutes of a highly anticipated speech by president barack obama before the united nations at a time of great

diplomatic opportunity, but also as he looks at three major areas in the world fraught with risks, addressing syria, reaffirming that the united nations must stand up to bashar al assad, that they must pass a resolution saying there will be consequences if he does not account for his chemical weapons. he also very interestingly preferred to iran's own use of chemical weapons even as he reached out and suggested there could be a new diplomatic relationship moving forward if they were willing to negotiate on their nuclear program. here was the president just a short time ago. >> i don't believe this difficult history can be overcome overnight. the suspicions run too deep. but i do believe that if we can resolve the issue of iran's nuclear program, that can serve as a major step down a long road towards a different relationship. one based on mutual interests and mutual respect.

>> and the president also addressing the israeli/palestinian conflict saying it's time for the international community as a whole to get behind it. still with me to discuss the president's speech and we're joined by andrea mitchell. your headline. >> the headline is the outreach to iran, i think, saying it looks as though rouhani has a mandate for diplomacy so, therefore, he is directing john kerry to meet with the iranians with consultations to the allies so this takes it to a bilateral u.s./iranian negotiation, separate but cord rated with the allies which is the u.s., russia, germany and france. >> talk about the opportunities and the risks of this meeting, andrea. >> well, the meeting will take place on thursday and the opportunities are enormous. if this isn't just iranian gestures, if this is real, if

they are willing to be transparent and verifiable, which is a very big if on the nuclear program, because there has been cheating in the past, then this could be the end of 30 years plus of adversarial relations with the iranian republic, with the islamic republic. this is a relationship that was fraught, as the president acknowledged, with a u.s.-supported coup against the iranian regime that brought on, you know, the years of bitterness that led to the iranian revolution, and then, of course, there was the hostage taking and the taking over of our embassy and there have not been relations since. there have been a lot of false starts. so if there are some symbolic gestures, possibly a meeting at lunch today or in the corridors of the u.n. between the president and rouhani, if there are more gestures and real substance coming out of meetings on thursday with secretary kerry, then they can go to the next step. then iran -- i think he also hinted that he welcomes all nations into resolving the syrian civil war. if that's the case, iran wants a place at the table in geneva

negotiations to come, which have been long delayed. that was one of the things that blocked geneva from happening in may, june and july. so if iran is welcomed at the table and doesn't have 10,000 hezbollah soldiers on the ground helping the assad regime and if iran is not helping weapons get to assad, those are very big steps, but that would be a real opening. >> and what we're seeing is at least some of the window dressing. we were talking about this earlier. we're seeing somebody who gives an interview to ann curry, somebody who writes an op-ed, somebody who tweets, but as i've pointed out, bobby, they can't see that, the iranians can't see the twitter messages being sent out, so how real is it? how will we and when will we determine whether or not this is the real deal? >> well, the president was very clear from the united states point of view and international communities' point of view it is progress on the nuclear talks. i hesitate to use the phrase, but that's the red line. that's the definition of what

change the united states wants to see. it's worth pointing out, though, that there need to be other changes domestically. when iranians get more liberty, when they're allowed to use twitter, when they're allowed to speak freely about their choice of leaders and what they think of their leaders, those are very important. we have to remember that we only began to trust gorbacef when he freed his own people and something similar has to happen. the ball is in rouhani's court. he has to satisfy the international community on the nuclear issue but he's a newly elected leader. he has to satisfy his own people and their aspirations for change. >> joel reuben, your headline. >> serious signals and straight talk. the president laid out a policy rich middle east agenda. as andrea said and bobby said,

these chemical weapons were used against iran, hielgt how secretary kerry is directed to negotiate with the iranians. these are key and stubstantive and that's going to galvanize activity in the next couple of days. >> susan page, as you listen to this speech, what was it that the president wanted the american consumer, the american voter to hear? what was his message here at home? >> well, he talked about the dangers of disengagement and we obviously saw that in the debate in congress over the response to syria's use of chemical weapons. i would notice a second headline, iran was a terrific headline but another one was his commitment to a peace between israelis and palestinians. you know, that has been a john kerry initiative. the president today said that is one of his two priorities moving forward, and i think one thing to note, john kerry at the center of both of them. he's meeting with the iranian foreign minister on thursday. it's his initiative to try to get the mideast peace talks

started again. he is the man to watch. >> let me in our final seconds and we really only have seconds, andrea, get the last word from you. what are the chances that we'll see some sort of meeting between the president and rouhani? >> i think it's more likely than not. >> really? >> we're picking up signals from the u.n. and from the iranians that this might be happening. the u.s. still has not been informed. it could be very casual, it could be a handshake, but the first time in 30-plus years. >> that's going to do it for us. thank you all so much. bobby, i can see you're dying to get one more word in. >> well, i hope the handshake happens in full view. that's my sort of the editor's instinct, i'd like to see the picture. >> that's going to do it for me. i'm chris jansing. "jansing & co." wrapping up. mara schiavocampo coming up. >> i'm in for thomas roberts. we just watched president obama deliver his address to the united nations general assembly with strong words for the middle

east and north africa. >> the united states of america is prepared to use all elements of our power, including military force, to secure our core interests in the region. we will confront external aggression against our allies and partners as we did in the gulf war. >> president obama made syria, iran and the israeli peace process the focus of his speech, with the president saying america is prepared to do whatever it takes to halt the use of chemical and nuclear weapons and prevent terrorists from finding safe havens. his speech was being closely watched for what he would say on iran. its new president, hassan rouhani has been reaching out to the u.s. with a softer tone over the past few weeks. obama announced that he was pleased with the overtures. >> we are encouraged that president rouhani received from the iranian people a mandate to pursue a more moderate course. and given president rouhani's stated commitment to rea