>> charlie: welcome to the program. i'm jonathan karl, filling in for charlie rose, who son assignment. we begin tonight with a look at the escalating crisis in the middle east. alexander marquardt joins us from gaza. >> there's a huge amount of outrage and you look at the death toll. the vast majority of people who have been killed are civilians, not militants, and a lot are women and children. so when you drive around the gaza strip and you see the houses that have been blown apart that have massive craters in them, people lost their livelihoods, they're not turning around and say we want hamas to stop firing rockets, they're saying, we want revenge, we want you to keep firing the rockets. >>urther consideration in the middle east with vice admiral bob harward and former acting director of the c.i.a. john mclaughlin. >> it's a more existential threat to neighboring countries

far beyond the threats that afghanistan pose. i think it's much more significant. we have to go back and remember, our goals were to create a sovereign nation and government in iraq. we met those objectives. so this decision to leave forces in iraq was an iraqi decision and that central government. so, again, i think we're at a different time now where we're relooking at the issue of what assistance they want. >> continue with matt bradley, the middle east correspondent for the "wall street journal." >> maliki is more than determined to stay in power, fiercely sticking to his position which is he got a plurality in the april 30t april 30th elections and that it's his electoral right to remain in the prime minister position. so he is not going to be budging. however, we're starting to see disent within his own party and kohl's and these are the groups who propelled him to power. >> continue with guest host of

tommy smyth of espn, looking at the world cup with claudio reyna and giovanni saverese. >> i think argentina is going to win. for me, it's a story that has to end. i think they'll find a way. you can see the last two games they've gotten better and i just have a feeling he hasn't, you know, played great the last two games but i feel in south america he's going to lift the trophy and get the weight off him. >> the crisis in the middle east and the world cup when we continue. funding for charlie rose is provided by the following: >> there's a saying around here: you stand behind what you say.

around here, we don't make excuses, we make commitments. and when you can't live up to them, you own up and make it right. some people think the kind of accountability that thrives on so many streets in this country has gone missing in the places where it's needed most. but i know you'll still find it, when you know where to look. >> rose: additional funding provided by: >> and by bloomberg. a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> jonathan: good evening, i'm jonathan karl filling in for charlie rose who is on assignment. we begin this program with the escalating crisis in the middle east as the volley of rocket

fire between israel and hamas intensifies, israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu said is a cease fire is not under consideration and hamas is saying pretty much the same. the palestinian health ministry said 70 people have been killed, mostly civilians. rocket fire from the gaza strip is reaching deeper into israel, though no israeli casualties have been reported as of this taping. we now turn to abc news correspondent alexander marquardt in gaza. alex, tell me, what is the sense of where you are now? is there a feeling we are seeing the beginning of an all-out war between the israelis and the palestinians? >> feels like we're on the edge of it. all day, theres to the chorus of sounds of war, missiles from israel, buzz of drones overhead, artillery from offshore or outgoing rocket fire, there does feel like a place under siege, but, at the same time, life hasn't completely ground to a halt. people are still out in the streets.

there is less hustle and bustle. fewer people are out doing errands. on the other side of the border in israel, i was talking to friends who say in tel aviv, people are searching, on the beach, in cafes, but, at the same time, you have the sirens going off all the time across israel, people looking for cover, rockets incoming being intercepted by the iron dome in the skies above. the secretary general of the u.n. today said that this region is on an ice edge and it certainly does feel like that. it feels like it's about to get worse before it gets better. >> jonathan: there's a sense of deja vu here. in 2012 you had attacks from gaza, rocket attacks in israel, the israeli response went on about eight days. how is this different? >> this feels more intense. you have benjamin netanyahu, the israeli government and military talking about a prospect of ground incursion and it's shaping up to look that way.

i was talking to martial analyst a short time ago who thinks there will be a limited incursion. he has three brigades of troops on the border, a fourth by the weekend. in 2012, four brigades carried out an invasion of the gaza strip and made the situation a lot bloodier. around 1,200 palestinian people killed of which some 400 were children. >> jonathan: what would be the israeli objective with the ground invasion? are we looking at potentially the reoccupation of the gaza strip? >> that's certainly something they're trying to avoid. the israeli government and military have given the impression that they are extremely reluck about the to come in here. it's something they're floating as a show of force but something they're considering seriously because they want to stop this rocket fire. there is no sign of a cease-fire in sight, so the only other option that they may have to stop that rocket fire coming

from hamas and the other militant groups might be to come in with ground troops. >> jonathan: the nightmare scenario for the israelis is that you would have rocket fire actually handing at -- landing at the airport in tel aviv. is there any indication that hamas, which seems to have much better, more rocket power now than in 2012, that they have the capability to actually hit that airport? and what would happen if they did? >> well, it would cripple israel. that's the main international airport. flights are still going in and out. if you were able to stop flights, the you were able to ground that to a halt, israelis have a very limited options in terms of getting out of israel. of course, they can't go into neighboring countries syria and lebanon which they're technically at war with. they could go into jordan and fly from smaller airports into cypress but it would make israel more of an island than it is. the fire power out of gaza is more impressive, destructive and

powerful than we saw last time. we've seen rockets flying out of here going 100 miles north to the city of hifa. they've unveiled rockets we haven't seen using before like the m-320, the r-160, if that means anything. these are rockets we believe are designed by the iranians so they have a much longer range. in 2012, we saw rockets being fired at israel's two main cities, tel aviv and jerusalem, and now are going a lot farther and with the unveiling of this new arsenal they can hit almost every square inch in israel. >> jonathan: you're on the ground in gaza city. what is your sense, talking to people, talking to palestinians? obviously, there's anger towards the israelis. is there support for what hamas is going? and what is the feeling is the end game here? what are they trying to achieve with these rocket attacks? >> oh, absolutely, there's a huge amount of outrage. you look at the death toll. the vast majority of the people

who have been killed are civilians, non-combatants, not militants, a lot of them are women and children. so when you drive around the gaza strip and see the houses that have been blown apart that have these massive craters in them, people have lost their livelihoods, they're not turning around and saying we want hamas to stop firing rockets, they say, we want revenge and we want you to keep firing the rockets. now, hamas is in a difficult situation. they're not nearly as powerful as they once were. their financial base has been eroded. they no longer have strong relationships with countries like syria, iran, egypt, so they have been painted into a corn and one of the things they have been trying to do is establish a relationship with fa tad, the other remaining palestinian political party to create a yiewnphyte fide government. effectively over the course of the past few weeks with israel's operation in the west bank, following the kidnapping of those three israeli teens, that

has been dismantled. they have severely been weakened and, during that operation, they've rearrested more than 50 hamas leaders who had been released as part of that deal from a couple of years ago. so the main demands of hamas right now are not only that israel stop its strikes on the gaza strip, but that they release those prisoners and allow the palestinians to create a unified government. >> alexander marquardt, thanks so much for joining us. stay safe and thank you for your reports. we'll see you again on abc news. >> thank you. >> jonathan: joining me now are two distinguished guests with deep knowledge of the middle east, vice admiral bob harward is the former deputy commander of the united states central command, a former navy seal. he has commanded troops both in afghanistan and iraq. his experience in the region goes way back. admiral harward graduated high school in tehran and fluent in

farsi and also a abc news contributor. john mclaughlin is former deputy director at the the c.i.a. and matt bradley, middle east correspondent for the "wall street journal." john, you've written two columns over the past few weeks that are frightening. the first you say iraq is potentially going to cease to exist as we knew it, created in 1920, and that the redrawing of the borders could result in a middle east atritic of a full-scale regional war. and in the second column, you talked about the echos from 2014 and 1914, of course, the beginning of world war i. >> in my career, in my experience, this is probably the most complicated and dangerous time that i've seen in that part of the world for all the reasons i mention in those columns.

you know, i think one of the problems that we have now is that everyone in the area is linked to someone else so that, for example, if you look at iraq, the kurds in the north have brethren in iran, syria, turkey. if you look at i.s.i.s., the group rampaging through the central part of iraq and seeking to establish and consolidate territory bounded roughly by the tigris and euphrates river as runs through syria, you have there a group linked to sunnis throughout the middle east either via financial support or some other way, and in the governing group in iraq, in baghdad, the shia, you have a group linked very closely to iran and to shia throughout the region. so the conflict underway in iraq right now reaches out -- it spills out beyond its borders

very easily and, you know, when i say that there are parallels with 1914, i'm not saying we're on the verge of a world war, but what we, i think, are on the verge of is a situation where conflict is going to be very hard to stop and very hard for national decision-makers to make choices. bob and i were talking a few minutes ago, if you look at the extremist group that's rampaging in iraq now, they, on the one hand, are opposing assad in syria. we oppose assad in syria. >> jonathan: it's complicated. so right away, in making decisions about opposing either assad or that group, an american decision-maker has a difficult choice to make, and the only sensible way is to oppose them both, but that's very hard to do at the same time. so, in every case, or look at

the government in baghdad. in supporting the government in baghdad, we're allowing our -- we're aligning ourselves with iran. in a sense, that's fine. that's just the world as it shakes out in that region, but it makes it, i think, more difficult for, you know, american decision-makers to make quick, clear decisions about what to do next. it seems to me as someone looking in from the outside that they're having trouble deciding. >> jonathan: there was a sense a few weeks ago we were on the verge of air strikes against i.s.i.s. in iraq. >> it does feel like paralysis. i think, again, in my experience, it's very difficult -- this may be surprising to many people, but it's very difficult for the u.s. government at that level to deal with more than two, three, four, crises at a time and the problem, if you look around the

world now, there are fires burning everywhere. you've got the middle east, most obviously, but you have serious problems with russia. if you look at the far east, i could make the case that what we see going on in the south china and the east china sea may be the most dangerous place in the world for a whole series of reasons. so sitting in the white house in the state department or defense department, you're looking at a world where you can't work on two or three crises and say i'll put these aside for a while, they're all burning at the same time. it's hard for the u.s. government to organize forces and deploy forces to deal with all that. >> jonathan: you were deeply involved in iraq, what is your sense of the threat al quaida poses? is this a group that, as we've

seen some suggest, may be more of a threat than bin laden's al quaida was pre-9/11? >> that's exactly right. the al quaida we went after in 2001 when we first went into afghanistan and iraq is a much different al quaida than we're seeing today. i think that core element, as the secretary of defense said before he turned over to mr. hagel, is that we had somewhat defeated them at the strategic level and, yet, the franchise is alive and well, if not growing, and part of that is because these populations in iraq and syria where they don't depend and rely on a central government to secure and provide for them have to turn to these other elements that through intimidation or the ability to provide security or resources appeals to them, and that's the broader issue we're going to see across the region.

i'd like to go back to something john talked about earlier, this dilemma the administration faces in this very rapidly changing series of events and what it means to our national security concerns. you remember, last year, we were seriously considering striking assad in retaliation for his use of chemical and biological weapons and to prevent the further use. >> jonathan: we thought we were 24 hours out. >> that's exactly right. that was our national security concern. of course, we did not take that act. well, now look at the situation. assad may be the better option than these violent extremist groups who pose an existential threat to the nations that border. so if your strategy was previously to contain that problem, now that it's spilled over to iraq. >> jonathan: what is the bigger threat? is it assad or this i.s.i.s.? >> i don't think you can clearly

discern one as bigger than the other. i would say the more immediate concern, the one you have to start with is i.s.i.s. you have to the take them seria. i.s.i.s. is a big threat. the major thing is they have succeeded, so far, in something that al quaida never succeeded in, and that is grabbing territory and holding it. we don't know a lot about what they're doing inside that territory, but there are some indications that they've learned from the past that you can't simply brutalize the population and impose law without public services. they've begun to do that from trash to postal service. >> jonathan: this is the second largest city in iraq. >> what's shaping up is a terrorist state in the heart of the middle east going back to

something i wrote regarding 2014 versus 1914, we're not anticipate ago world war, but, at the same time, all the major world powers has serious interests here. the united states i don't think, in the end, can tolerate what i.s.i.s. is turning into, cannot tolerate it, and that raises the question of how you combat it. do you combat it with bases, drones, capture operations? how do you do it? we can talk about that, but that's a major issue now. how do you combat this terrorist group which is holding terrorist and which -- which is holding territory and says it apriors to attack the united states ultimately? so i would say at this moment the larger threat in the middle east is this possibility of a terrorist state taking shape. it has no allies and friends, so it's not exactly poised as, you know, i think david ignatius said the other day it was a sense born with a suicide pill in its mouth because if it acts as most terrorist groups do

ultimately, someone will destroy it or it will self-destroy, but so far that's not happening. >> again, i'm always sensitive to the word "terrorist" in clearly defining the problem. these are violent, radical islamists. they have controlled terrorist before. they controlled afghanistan in their partnerships before 9/11. after 9/11, we realized that and they then controlled and influenced an area in fatah. so they're acting in areas where we can't and no other nation acting unilaterally be it iraq, afghanistan or pakistan is able to influence those areas without partnership and support from us. >> jonathan: so you were involved in the fight against al quaida and iraq and the effort against cza czar zarkawi.

it involved finding allies in the sunni territories. how do you do it now without any u.s. personnel besides a couple hundred trainers on the ground? >> over these last 12 years, we developed capacity, capabilities and tools to do that. we never had before and we can mention the fusion of intelligence, the collection of large amounts of data, drones, other techniques and procedures that really allowed us to get after these, but th the issue ws access. thousand did you -- how did you bring that to bear and you needed to do that to control not only land by the airspace in iraq. before we turned over sovereignty, we had that access. in afghanistan, we've had that access. we do not have that same access now and never had that access in syria. so until you have that partnership honoring the sovereignty of those nations and those nations want your

assistance, you're not going to have that access. so access is the critical component. >> jonathan: let's assume i.s.i.s. continues to gain strength, as it appears to be. it's now working hard to consolidate and advance its gains in syria, things having stalled a bit for them in iraq. so they're pushing into syria with the effect of their success in iraq, bringing new recruits to them in syria. they're just now taking over the largest oil facility in syria, for example. let's assume this continues. at some point, the united states has to say, how do we get at this? >> well, one area that will be threatened by them is the i kurdish area, which i suspect they've raised the issue of referendum on independence and i suspect they will raise the referendum and become independent or quasi independent. at some point they will seek things from the united states to defend themselves, weapons, intelligence, so forth.

maybe it will be time to request bases in kurdistan to attack i.s.i.s. i don't see how you attack i.s.i.s. unless you have close-in access somewhere. where? well, jordan has its problems. you're sort of out of iraq except with a small group of advisors. you're not going into iran. saudi arabia isn't pos chiewrd to do that. at some point, you have to have close-in access to go after this group unless somehow inexplicably and unlikely they peter out or die or are defeated locally. >> jonathan: will there be a nuclear agreement with iran? doesn't sound like we're headed in that direction. if that doesn't happen, how does that complicate it because then what? >> of course, what i've always expected to happen here, and we'll see, is when we got close to july 20, we would be close enough to an agreement to not want to give up and there would

be a request, as is allowed in the agreement, to extend for another numbers of months, another six months. i wouldn't be surprised if that happens. the core issue is the president for a year now, rouhani, i think generally wants to move into a more productive, less conflicted relationship with the united states but he lives in a system bob understands very well, he lives in a system that is not portraying him as a universal good guy but he lives in a system where there are a lot of constraints starting with the supreme leaders. >> jonathan: he doesn't really run the place. >> he doesn't run the place and he's on a short leash, so i think he's walking a tight rope to get an agreement. as the supreme leaders said the other day, they want more capacity to enrich uranium than, so far, this agreement is permitting them. so that's, i think, going to be the core thing that we struggle with this year, capacity to enrich uranium, even if it's at a low level.

so i would say the chances of getting this agreement are not great, but the chances of continuing to negotiate with them are pretty good. >> i think rouhani is concerned with the sanctions, the impact that's had on the iranian people and it highlights how effective that is to bring them to the bargaining table. so, at the end of the day, those negotiations will be predicated, i believe, on their path, looking at a way to get relief from the sanctions. i think we have been crippling with them. i think they have been very effective and it would have been our best foreign policy with iran. >> jonathan: you graduated from the american school in tehran in, what, 1974? >> yes, i did. >> jonathan: you have been in that embassy? >> sure, graduated from high school there, downtown tehran. >> jonathan: do you think you will live to walk into an american embassy in tehran there?

>> actually, tehran has the most amazing skiing in the world and i think the iranian people are still looking outward, not inward, so i think they're hopeful something will come from these negotiations. i think they believe rouhani is a different breed of cat than the previous president ahmadinejad, and i think he wants to move in the iranian people he can look broader as well. >> jonathan: to get an agreement like this would be a revolutionary development in our relations with iran. it wouldn't change everything else we object to in iran's behavior. there's support for hezbollah and terrorism in sot instances, but it would be an opening wedge to a better relationship with a country that is along with israel only one of two countries in that part of the world that actually exert sovereign control over their territory. >> if we don't get the agreement, are we back to talking about timeline for potential israeli air strikes

and how to prevent them from getting the bomb? >> i think we're back to all of that. among the complexities is the fact that we've entered into this negotiation strained our relations with saudi arabia, israel, both of whom are extremely skeptical for different reasons about iran's intentions, motives and plans. so if we get this agreement, then it sort of plays back into those relationship as well in ways that will change them. >> well, i think it's important to remember, now, iran has processed and enriched enough material to make a bond. they do not hold that because they've converted that material back into fuel rods for their test reactors. but the fact that they've done that and have that capacity is a problem. so we're going to have to find a solution to ensure they tonight meet that objective as part of our end of the negotiations. we cannot live with them having

that capability. >> jonathan: right, and i wanted to ask you about afghanistan because we seem to be in a situation where i think it would be falling apart there as well. we've had the presidential election and the runoff and there's the dispute over what happened and whether or not there was widespread fraud. >> well, we don't know yet the facts but at some point there will be fraud in any election. but at some point the world community has to say, it's over, settled, there has to be a president. if they don't settle this, what will happen here is international assistance to afghanistan will not be sustained. if that assistance is not sustained, join i don't what it amounts to, nearly 4 billion or 5 billion a year. >> jonathan: it's a majority of the government. >> if not sustained, this country will laps back into the warlordism and openness to terrorism and the taliban surging that we've seen in the past. so a lot's at stake here and we

need to get the bilateral security agreement or we will see a deterioration that will mirror to some degree what we're seeing in iraq. >> jonathan: what do you make of this? i mean, you fought, you saw comrades die in afghanistan and iraq. you have a situation where both countries seem to basically be at risk of giving back everything that was gained. >> i wouldn't characterize it like that. >> jonathan: how would you characterize it? >> i would say both countries have evolved, given the fact of the conflicts and what we did in those nations, it will be to those people to realize. i had a meeting with abdullah abdullah. he saw the fraud and was concerned how the election would turn out. next he was concerned about the bilateral support agreement. he said your country's coming to

ask can me to sign the bilateral support agreement yet your president announced everyone's leaving in two years. the gunpoint point is we made commitment for 98 troops for the next two years ther thereby prog funds for security and economic development. so having forces to ensure and guarantee to those countries that development can concur rests with both those candidates. they both realize how important that is for the long-term future of afghanistan. so i agree with john, let's see how this plays out, but both those candidates realize how important this is, and i'm optimistic we'll get a resolution or some agreement that won't split the country and we can move forward. >> what i'm hearing out of the white house is a threat, is a threat that if they can't come

to an agreement on this, if they can't resolve this dispute over the election that the united states will not only pull out militarily but will put out the financial support for that government. as you said, can we allow afghanistan to devolve back to where it was? >> i hope what you're hearing is exactly that, a threat to sober them and to bring them a realization they've got to come to an agreement, but i think it would be disastrous if id played out in that way and we follow through on such a threat. one of the problems now is the united states has to be deeply involved in all these areas, deeply involved, trying to influence them, and we're probably at a moment in time where our influence is at a low ebb in that part of the world. >> jonathan: why is that? a lot of reasons, i think. >> jonathan: the fatigue from the wars? i mean, the popular support for being deeply involved is just not there.

>> we looked at the surveys of the american public. there is fatigue from the wars, then when you look at our policy, it was a mistake to make a threat to syria and not follow through on it, even though one can argue there were benefits from the reduction of chemical weapons. the effort to pour so much effort into the middle east peace process while the other fires were burning puzzled a lot of people in the region. a lot of things like that have led to a moment when i think the u.s. is simply not carrying the sort of clout that it once did in that part of the world. again, withdrawal from iraq -- virtual presence is no presence. >> jonathan: would this be happening if we had struck an agreement? i mean, it's hard to say, but if we had truck struck an agreement to leave behind the small force in iraq, the 5,000 or 6,000 that was being talked about, would we have seen i.s.i.s. able to come

and take over the territory they have been able to take over? >> my feeling is, my judgment is the chances of that happening would have been diminished. now, we said earlier, this is very complex, now, and the caveat i would have to put on that is, even had we stayed, syria would still be raging, and much of what we see happening in iraq is a combination of two things, the fact that we're not there advising, assisting, striking and the fact that syria has been raging in a way that has eroded, really erased the border between iraq and syria so that that has simply spilled over into iraq. combine that with the policies ofo government in baghdad, al-maliki, who ceased to pay sunni militias opposing extremists in anbar province, who sought to arrest a sunni

vice president and sunni finance minister, but all those things together caused what we see happening in iraq now. but would the chances of it be diminished if we were still there? yes, i believe it would. >> jonathan: are you more pessimistic when it comes to iraq and the optimism? >> i think the threats are greater. that's a more exothingsle threat to the neighboring countries, far beyond the threats that afghanistan posed, it's much more significant. we have to remember our goal was to create a sovereign nation and government in iraq. we met the objective. so the decision, the forces to remain in iraq, that was an iraqi decision and central government. so we're at a different time now when we're relooking at the issue of what assistance they want and what they're wanting to provide. >> jonathan: they practically begged for air strikes. >> again you can't do air strikes in and of themselves without the broader mechanisms and capabilities that make them

effective. this was the same issues when we looked at strikes in sir. i can't when you strike an airfield and take out helicopters, what does that accomplish in itself? this is more difficult, you're entities and people in a mixed population, it's a much more challenging and difficult situations where civilian casualties will cause them to become against the government as much as which side of the line they want to be on. >> it requires much more precise intelligence. >> but this whole i.s.i.s./islamist movement inside iraq and syria is an existential threat. we've seen the impact on lebanon and jordan, it has broader ramifications beyond their borders as well. >> jonathan: the president authorized 300 special operations forces to go to iraq, 200 i believe are on the ground now. what can 200 special operators

do? >> help illustrate the capabilities, inject the capabilities, help mentor and guide the fusion of intelligence and operations that make iraqi forces more productive and capable. over the last 12 years, we've become the best joint force that's probably ever existed. >> jonathan: before we go, i wanted to ask you at the former deputy director of the c.i.a. about the latest news outs of germany where the c.i.a. station chief has been thrown out to have the country by the german government. first of all, how unusual is it for a station chief in an allied country to be expelled? >> well, a couple of points. this sort of thing happens from time to time in the world of espionage, first point. so it's not strikingly unusual. it's happened before. second, i'm sure we'll get through this. germany and the united states are about as close, when it

comes to allies, as you can get. >> jonathan: this is pretty serious now. >> it always seems serious in the moment. >> jonathan: yeah. but we've gotten through this sort of thing before. we share too many interests to let this be a permanent obstacle to our engagement. why do countries do this? >> jonathan: yeah, why do we have to spy on our allies? >> well, and why do they spy on us? because even allies don't share every single interest that you have. that's a law of nature in the international system. they will tell you most of what you need to know, but there may be some things they don't tell you that you would need to know in order to formulate your policy as wisely as you can. i recall, when the first controversy with germany

flared, i believe it was madeleine albright who said well when i was a ambassador, the french wee monitoring me. it's the sort of thing that happens when it gets to the public arena it becomes a controversy. it's incumbent on both governments to figure out how to walk it back and keep their relations on a normal keel, but we'll get through this. >> jonathan: john mclaughlin, bob harward, thank you very much for joining us. >> thank you. >> jonathan: we turn to matt bradley in baghdad. he is the middle east correspondent for the "wall street journal." matt, thanks for joining us. >> thanks for having me. >> jonathan: you have been in baghdad for about a month. what is your sense of life in baghdad while all that is going on up north is happening? does it feel at all like a city that is under siege? >> no, and, in fact, it's not really a city that is under siege. right now there's a curfew at midnight, nothing new to the

residents of baghdad, and life is going on as usual. people are doing business. everything is just carrying on as normal. security is a little tighter than it used to be when i was here about a month or two ago before everything broke off on june 10th, before the islamic state took over mosul, but, otherwise, things are going just as they were. the only difference is there are areas where there is mixed sectarian presence, sunnis and shiite muslims, we have been getting reports of violence. >> jonathan: maliki, does he look to stay in power? you get the sense that there's no sense of maliki wanting to stay as prime minister . >> he's sticking with his position that he got a plurality in the april 30th elections and it's his electoral right to remain in the prime minister

position. so he is not going to budge. however, we're seeing the sense with his own party and state of all coalition and these are the groups who propelled him to political power. so he might find as time goes on and as more and more international actors and people in his coalition distance themselves from him, we might find maliki will start to budge himself. >> jonathan: we've seen the president authorize 300 special forces to go in and advise the iraqi military. i understand about 200 so or so are on the ground. have you seen any signs of them? do we have any sense of what they are doing as they get ramped up? >> the only real sign of this is that the iraqi military has been able to have some very, very limited successes on the battlefields. we've started to actually see them move closer to the city of tikrit, which if you remember is one of the cities that was taken over after the islamic state took over mosul and charged down the tigris river. so right now from what i understand from u.s. officials,

the u.s. advisors are telling the iraqis that they shouldn't draw the enemy into an urban warfare situation like in tikrit, that they should secure the highways outside of tikrit and try to just choke the area and prevent the islamic state fighters from really bedding in any further that be they already have. so right now it's really -- this whole situation is in a slow boil and looks like it's going to take a very long time for the iraqi military to make it all the way up to mosul, the first city that the islamic state took back on june 10. >> jonathan: matt bradley of the "wall street journal" in baghdad, thank you, matt. >> thank you. >> jonathanhello, welcome to che rose show. my name is tommy smyth, i'm an analyst with espn and it's my privilege and honor to sit in charlie's chair at charlie's table because charlie is not here tonight and we're going to discuss the world cup. the world cup in soccer started

every four years, you know, started on the 12th of june. it's down to two teams. representing europe we have germany and representing south america we have argentina. joining me is charlie stillitano, venue director at the statement for the 2014 world cup and c.e.o. of relevant sports. claudio reyna is currently director of the world cup team. giovanni saverese is the head coach of the new york cosmos. please to have all of them. charlie, '94 was a great year. the seeds for this world cup were sewen. you showed americans what great soccer or fuútbol can be. do you think it goes to '94 and

up? >> yes, i think there were several moments. the cosmos in the late 70s were several moments and i think the world cup. we weren't sure we would fill the stadiums. we had great attendance. i remember filling the stadium for saudi arabia morocco and people said we couldn't even fill it in saudi arabia (laughter) so the americans responded well. the other moment was kickoff of major league soccer, absolutely. now we have, you know, this moment where you're filling up stadiums for viewing parties which is just extraordinary to see the u.s. team play. >> claudio, you were can tape of the u.s. teams, world cups. what did you think of the americans this time around? >> they certainly were put in a very difficult group and a great

achievement to get out of that group. i think the team was set up well to get results. i think that's where maybe some of the other teams faltered, where they were trying to play good fuútbol. i think it was good the way they approached. the attitude they had getting the first win was fantastic and the momentum went from there. i think talking about on the field we can play better, certainly, you know, with timmy howard was aplages but we would rather shoot 16 times on a goalie wrath than give it up but what we did overall was a beg achievement. >> got out of the group, into the round 16, but only went as far as the previous world cup. what does it take for the u.s. to get to the next level? you got to the qualifiers. the u.s. hasn't been in the semifinals since 1930. what does it take to get back to

the semifinals? >> it's a lot of different things, certainly. the league continues to improve. i feel we need to develop different kinds of players. if we look at the team, we had a lot of good players. in defense, in midfield and attack we lack special players that do something different when you need it and against the big teams. so i don't have the answer or the magic wand, but, you know, certainly across the country, across all levels there's a lot of resources being put into it, a lot of work being done to develop the future stars, and i think we're moving in the right direction. >> gio, you're south american and from vens larks what does this world cup mean to you and what will you take away from this world cup as a south american? >> the first thing we saw at the beginning is it would be dominated by the south american teams and we saw european teams

competing under difficult conditions. look at germany, even though people thought they had great team and players, it would be difficult to play in brazil. holland went to the semifinals with a young group. i think we remember that the europeans can come to south america and compete. colombia, chile were able to perform very well. so there are many, many interesting things about the world cup that i think will remain forever as being very successful. >> you coach one of the sexiest names in soccer, the new york cosmos. everyone knows about them no matter where you. go what can you take out of the world cup that you can apply to the cosmos? >> if we're talking about on the field, many things. you saw a lot of interesting things from different teams. teams going back to play in the

back. some teams finding it difficult to find resources going forward. so as a coach, we can look into what was in the world cup. but as well as in the nation, in the united states, here, new york, especially the interest the world cup brought in, people are looking into it that were not interested before, i think this is a good time for soccer in the united states and for us to build up our project and we can take a lot of good things from the world cup. >> tony, you have a team coming in playing in 2015 in new york city in yankee stadium. what will you be looking to get out of the world cup for them? >> the power of team versus individuals, you know. i think, yes, there are individual stars in the media and everyone loves to see them and hype them up, but it was great to see the good teams and performances, the likes of chile, colombia, although they

did have a star, but the germans define that more than anything. we have david via wh villa who a star player. a collective team will take you further than anything and that's important. >> charlie, you're rubbing your hands with all the teams you brought to the wub. never been a buzz like it before in this country. >> no, there's never been. in the past, it was more ethnically-driven. and you would have my family from italy, claudio's from argentina and gio from europe as well. it's regular folks that love the nba and the nfl and you see it all the time now and i think that's the big difference in the world cup that we're seeing here in the states. >> things stand out about this world cup that brought in the technology. americas i'm a -- me, i'm a

simple fellow. i can't understand why he gets on the players boots. he never seems to get it on the ground. going into these finals. who did you take? >> i have argentina, brazil in the final but switched my pick round 16 from germany to argentina. you were with me when i made the pick. >> i picked average nay-brazil and germany to lose to italy because they always lose to italy and no one else. >> i also picked brazil-argentina. i thought argentina would make it their own way and saw brazil in their own country could make it and felt germany was the best team but i felt there was struggle in argentina and brazil in south america but my wife proved me wrong.

>> we'll check all your tongues for black spots to seeio f you're telling the truth. >> i say argentina, but i don't know. >know. it's been a high-scoring world cup. we haven't heard one complaint about the ball. do you think that's good or the goals come from that? >> i think it's been great outside mr. louie suarez and a few minor incidents, the best thing has been the soccer on the field, the goals, the attacking style of play that the teams played in. so credit to the coaches and players. for the most part, you can always find mistakes with the refereeing, but i have been impressed, it's been good and they've learned from past world cups where games shifted, i won't say who, (talking at the same time) but it's all about speeding up the game and great, but i think this world cup was the best for me, definitely. >> i agree in the sense that

this world cup is marked by team spirit more than anything else. there's great players. we see, of course, they had their moments. rodrigues is probably the biggest star that's come out of this cup. but i think really it's the team effort and spirit. when i was in europe -- funny, i have to go there for business a couple of times -- everyone kept saying to me about the u.s., they have great team spirit. and i think not just the u.s., but costa rica, you see a lot of teams, even the dutch, it's a team spirit, a collective spirit. argentina, you know, they still have with them that professionalism, if you will, but it's a team. everyone's playing for each other. >> it showed most in the brazil game because i think that specific game against germany, they lacked somebody that can be a leader, even though the steams have shown they need to play together, they always need

somebody who can push them together and brazil lacked somebody against germany. >> do you expect that this is going to be a high-scoring final? >> argentina on the other side the way they have been playing, no, because i think they're going to be very pragmatic, they're going to be very tactical, weigh, do what brazil did. so i think it's going to be a high-scoring game and great fun. >> are you surprised so many big teams just didn't get there, england, portugal. >> don't forget spain. i think i wasn't so much prized with italy and england because they were in a difficult group, but i was very surprised both of them went home. spain, i think we're all shocked. no one expected them to collapse as they did all at one time.

>> how do you see the world cup going now, the final? >> i think argentina's going to win. it's something -- for me, it's a story that has to end. mesi is the greatest player ever and will lift the trophy and i think they'll find a way. you can see the last two games they've gotten better and he hasn't played great the south two games but i have a feeling in south america he'll lift the trophy and get the weight hanging over him off of him and, you know, i don't know what it is, i have a feeling, maybe it's my hea rtand not my head but i stick with them. >> but for argentina to win potentially in brazil -- (laughter) >> i thought their day couldn't get worse. eduardo was on our show who wrote the book "six games that shocked the world" and he went back to six terrible games that

happened in brazil included the '82 game when they lost to italy and he said almost prophetically before the game would kick off, well, in the morning, anyway, and said, i hope i don't have to write another chapter because that would be seven shocking. i think the guy's probably sitting there right now writing another chapter. >> i think germany, if you look, everyone played great against brazil. that was crazy, that was a shocking result. >> i think the only thing missing -- soccer is a game, made for 90 minutes and when it's over, the germans have won, and i think that will happen. we look forward to seeing the cosmos in action. charlie, you have so many great teams coming, no excuse for people not to see good soccer in the united states. and we're looking forward to

claudio's new team playing in yankee stadium of all places, the best statement for new york sports, that's where your team will play. thank you and it's been great being here and i hope you've enjoyed us. >> thank you, tommy. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

>> hi, i'm ed slott. it's 2014, and they're at it again. the u.s. government is trillions and trillions of dollars in debt, and congress is just licking their lips trying to get their greedy hands on your hard-earned retirement savings. don't let them. i'm here to show you how to rescue your retirement. stay tuned for an updated package of gifts for 2014 that will help you and your family and help support this great public television station. thanks. >> announcer: your retirement is in danger. 20, 30, 40 years of your hard work is at risk. wall street banks and congress are waiting to grab whatever is left of your retirement savings' accounts. you need help.