what you have now is assad and us have a common enemy in isis because assad was not a threat withoute region. the syrians fought with us in the first gulf war. whereas the headquarters of isil they are planning some attacks here or in europe or with some of the folks that have gone over there to fight for them. >> and let me try one more on you, could the u.s. launch these air strikes -- say they started in iraq where there is a willing and cooperative government and though those strikes move to syria, could the u.s. launch those air strikes in syria if the assad doesn't approve -- right now the language is conciliatory -- and without a u.n. chapter 7 resolution? >> well, i think you could go in, again, because they did execute an american, and so i think that that becomes your international legal justification. our relationship with assad is going to be very dicey here. if we go after isis leadership, we're in effect helping assad, but we're not going to do it with him or get his permission, because that would make us, you know, complicit with some of the things he has done. but, yo

well after years of trying to topple bashar assad and it's time for assad to get out of the way we both agree that assad needs to go it may not be easy for the u.s. to be seen cooperated with him but while the west deliberates over going after the jihadists of these on the state in syria the issue becomes even more pressing well we're going to have to say something to the syrian government if we're going to start bombing in syria and the west may have already started helping us secretly a source told the independent that western intelligence agencies have provided the syrian government with details of the location of islamic state leaders put targeted air strikes the source claims the information was passed to assad's forces by the german intelligence service which acted as an intermediary even if there's a temporary act of convenience some sharing of intelligence which is unproven i believe the united states is still looking primarily to overthrow the assad government imagine the president of the united states coming out and saying i know i said assad is the enemy number one and all th

out of hand cooperating with assad to defeat i.s. your reaction. >> you know i wouldn't be advocating partnering with assad to go after i.s. mainly because he is part of the problem. he's created a vacuum that has allowed i.s.i.s. to grow to the strength they are today by largely ignoring them and allowing them to take over some of the territory while he focused on the moderate rebel gripes so i think that it would be dilutional to think that we could delusional to think that we could actually trust him. we have created a leverage to deal with him, i.s.i.s. is taking over territory much quicker than i think anybody has anticipated. it is estimated they actually hold territory that's possibly the size of the u.k. so if we are to go in and actually take action against i.s.i.s. i think it behooves us to at least start engaging with assad, in addition to the sanctions, and allowing us to go in and take care of the problem while negotiating with him a ceasefire, it is in everyone's best interest to end the civil war at this point. >> now

to step down do you see any connection between that policy stance you know calling on assad to step down and the growth of isis and other terror groups in the region no but let me explain my views on that my own personal view was asking someone to step down in the absence of a den of finding a kind of political way forward is not the way i would do it i think what we need to do is a den of along with some other countries and i again i would include russia in this a way forward for how syria can be governed in the future because it's clear the kind of narrow basis on which assad was governing that is on the basis of an alawite. fellow tribesman and then a few of others was not sufficient so clearly there needs to be kind of an international plan on the way forward what i'm suggesting is we need a kind of bosnia type solution and then we can figure out who can be a part of that future and who should not be well i think some people would suggest that both now is almost a failed state by by now but ambassador hill if i could again go back to. isis i think you've been very diplomatic in

you've said that assad has lost legitimacy to lead. defeating isis could help assad keep power.about how you prioritize those two pieces of your foreign policy? >> first of all, i want to make sure everybody is clear on what we're doing now because it is limited. our focus right now is to protect american personnel on the ground in iraq, to protect our embassy, to protect our consulates, to make sure that critical infrastructure that could adversely affect our personnel is protected. where we see an opportunity that allows us with very modest risk to help the humanitarian situation there as we did in sinjar mountain, we will take those opportunities after having consulted with congress and our priority is to make sure our folks are safe and to do an effective assessment of iraqi and kurdish capabilities. as i said in the last press conference, in order for us to be successful we have to have an iraqi government that is unified and inclusive so we are continuing to push them to get that job done. as soon as we have an iraqi government in place the likelihood of the iraq i securit

assad must go. over the last three years., nothing was done to assure that assad must go, but the notion of now cozying up to him and forming some kind of alliance of convenience has been dismissed by it is british, by even the pentagon. in fact, the british ambassador told me the monster of isis has been created by assad, the frankenste frankenstein. so, you know, this what they're saying. you never know what might happen. but the truth of the matter is actually assad, accord to officials, has been enabling isis partly as a self-fulfilling prophesy to say, listen, i told you we were fighting terrorists, well, here they are, but also because the moderate syrian opposition who are on their last legs, they had been fighting isis and they've been pushing back and they've been actually doing quite well until a lot of outside help came in on the side of assad, which was syria and hezbollah, as you know. >> christiane amanpour reporting from london for us. we'll have much more on these stories coming u. also, other news, including

in his country you know taking assad out and creating a power rack. that allowed all those militia groups to you know get much stronger taking a fat ass from a bin ladden out and allowing al qaeda to you know open its franchises pretty much all over the region osama bin laden was responsible for killing thousands of americans and as a consequence we hunted him down and killed him and i think that was the right policy with regard to saddam hussein he was guilty of some of the worst atrocities the world has ever seen he attacked his neighbors and his forces also attacked american forces and continue to attack americans throughout day here is that a great america ben isis let me continue now i do believe that as we look at the problem in syria the problem in syria is beyond simply the problem of terrible leader in the form of bashar assad i think it's a problem of lack of political consensus on how to go forward and this is a debate that we have in the united states quite often about how to go forward in syria and by the way many of the points that you m

could help assad keep power. talk about how you prioritize those two pieces of your foreign policy. >> first of all, i want to make sure everybody is clear on what we're going to we're doing now because it is limited. first is to protect those on the ground in iraq. protect our embassy. protect our cons late. make shower that critical infrastructure that could adversely affect our personnel is protected. where we see an opportunity that allows us with very modest risk to help the humanitarian situation there as we did in sinjar mountain, we will take those opportunities, after having consulted with congress. but our core priority right now is to make sure our folks or safe and to do an effective assessment of iraqi and kurdish capabilities. as i said, i think in the last press conference, in order for us to be successful, we've got to have an iraqi government that is unified and inclusive. so, we are continuing to push them to get that job done. as soon as we have an iraqi government in place, the likelihood of t

is effectively aligning with president bashar al assad in the fight against isis, the same assad the u.s. officials were threatening to attack exactly one year ago after his regime was found to have used chemical weapons in syria's horrific war. >> president obama believes there must be accountability for those who would use the world's most heinous weapon s against te world's most vulnerable people. nothing today is more serious, and nothing is receiving more serious scrutiny. >> if it seems inexplicable, the u.s. has gone from threatening to bomb assad's forces to potentially joining the war against assad's enemy, that speaks to just how ugly and messy the situation is in syria. the u.n. estimates more than 191,000 people have been killed since the civil war began in 2011. have a look at this graphic put together by "think progress." this spider web shows all the many players in the syria conflict and how they are in conflict or aligned with each other from outside government seeking influence like saudi arabia and turkey and qatar, to the syrian government of bashar al assad, hims

it means al-assad gets a pass. we are effectively helping him because we are neutralizing an enemy force. by the way, al-assad was happy to have isis flourish in his country for the last several months. he never attacked them because isis was busy fighting other rebels and new that they have become such a ferocious threat to him and to us, he is quite happy it seems to have the united states come in and clean up a mess that he was very happy to see ferment in his country. aside from that, if we start doing this, start bombing isis, we give assad a pass. he goats stay, but probably control a smaller state. there will be a bombing campaign in this area of no-man's land. in that band outside of damascus. that is isis stand, if you will. and this continues for a long time. this become a no-man's land, dangerous place. controlled by air strikes while bashar al-assad stays, rehabilitated and gets to keep a somewhat reduced country. that's not an outlook, an sustained long-term plan. >> that's geo politics. i think a lot

the rebels blame the assad regime. charge.ied the the americans have threatened massle and specified if casualties were infected by chemical weapons. when all these people were killed, u.s. military action against the assad regime looked certain. in damascus at that time, supporters of president assad were volunteering for militias what the anxiety about americans might do. the war seemed to be at a turning point. in britain, parliament was recalled and voted against joining the americans in bombing syria. it was a big factor in america's cancel the air strikes at the last minute. >> i think the policy that the american government followed on syria even before the chemical attacks was tentative and -- indecisive and i think it sent a signal that we not prepared to re-engage in this region. >> for president assad's supporters, volunteering as as targets in damascus, the deal looked good. recovered its nerve. it believed the americans have blinked first. full of what-ifs. a major reason why there's been military western

the turks began their opposition towards the assad government in syria saying we don't want assad. we are going to find a moderate opposition. they tried to stand up a moderate opposition and created the syrian free army. it didn't really go anywhere. these guys weren't great fighters and weren't able to fight. at that point the turks decide just let anyone into syria. that strategy of letting anyone in fuelled the worse kinds of people going into syria and forming and building what is now isis. so everybody now has had a kind of wakeup call. there are many, many debates about what you can do and how you can do it because isis is strong enough that air strikes alone are not going to defeat it. fighting from iraq alone probably won't defeat it. the real challenge is what do you do in syria? you do not have powerful, capable moderate forces. the only force that is battling isis in syria is, of course, the army of assad, the government of syria. the united states and turkey are both opposed to it. that is the strategic conundrum. we don't know how to get at isis in syria. iraq is easi

president won't seek from al-assad to airstrikes. tell that to syria's foreign minister who said this cooperation should be done through the syrian government as it is a symbol of national sovereignty. any violation of sovereignty from any party is aggression. but that would put the president in the position of becoming strange bed fellows with a regime he nearly went to war with a year ago. >> we would have preferred to go two years ago, last year, six months ago, two months ago. >> aep the white house said today that president has not made any decisions on taking military action on rg taets inside syria. that doesn't mean the pentagon isn't drawing up options. jim as you know, those preparations take time. >> jim acosta at the white house. join meg, peter mon sore, serving as executive officer to general petraeus during the surge in iraq. colonel, it would be great to start with you. i have spoken with u.s. officials who privately tell me they don't know what the u.s. strategy is for dealing with isis. is there a strategy that you

it was behind assad. it is still completely behind assad, i think. it's obviously bailed out on maliki which has been quite interesting. to turn that around. the question now is can, to me, a lot of this really resolves in the end around syria because it's very hard as brett mcgurk was talkinging at the end of the day it will be virtually solving the ice is-- isis problem in iraq without solving the isis problem in syria, and that is how assad gets dealt with and where we go from here. one big turning point is if the fssg-- fsa effectively disappear f the islamist, more moderate islamist fighters then either give up or join isis, and then you basically have isis and the regime within syria, what will happen then. will they then fight it out. will the assad regime play a productive role in one way or another in attacking isis. he sees that as his way out of this. and i suspect the iranians also will try to push him, i was in iran recently for a couple of weeks. and they pushed assad as here's your guy to solve the isis problem. and that's certainly ho

policy toward assad.ere's what he said, quote, as a matter of policy, we have not recognized the assad regime as the leader of syria and no plans to change that policy. of course there's a big difference between assad lost his legitimacy and saying the u.s. doesn't recognize him as the leader. >> remains to be seen how it impacts strategy in syria. that said, the politics of this discussion is being altered by the fact that americans are being impacted. it's a big difference from a year ago. one american hostage, james foley has been executed. another hostage, peter theo curtis held by a different group in syria was released and reunited with his family, thankfully. but we're not hearing more about another american being held. she's a 26-year-old woman who was taken hostage by isis more than a year ago while taking part in a humanitarian mission. her name is not being releelsed. by the way, it's not just americans being victimized by isis. some joined the battle fighting for the extremists. one was killed

be assad.avid? >> the critical factor here is the relationship between the iranian government and the new iraqi government. we could succeed in destroying isis, but if we don't also break the nexus between the iranian government and the iraqi government, the results of that success could be iranian controlled territory from western afghanistan to the heights. it would be hard to spin that as a success. i think that the russians and iranians are in a very strong strategic position now, largely a cause of the rise of isis. when assad talked about fighting against al qaeda, at that time he was making it up. he is not anymore. we are in a very messed up strategic situation. i don't see a u.s. strategy. what i see is a crisis response to the situation in iraq, that is largely driven by baggage relating to our own conflict there between 2003 and 2011. that is one way to look at it. i think a more important way to think about it is a geographical spillover of the war in syria. that is where our polici

assad will leave power. it's not a question of if, but when. >> i have indicated repeatedly that president assad has lost legit legitimacy. he needs to step down. the only way to bring stability and peace to syria is going to be for assad to step down. >> it's just so crazy. you hear these things. you couldn't even script this in hollywood. unfortunately, we need to leave assad there now. so that's it. because doi namices are always changing. you have to be able to pivot. i'll send him a road map saying exactly what you're doing. >> can i go back to the historical question for you 37 the arab spring was the direct result of democrats supported george bush, but barack obama is in the white house, it's his policy. that was george bush's policy. >> there was one major thing you're leaving out. that was what happened in iran. there was a possibility for a real green revolution and obama let it it slide. >> can i have one more thing? prior to the arab spring, president obama in egypt, june 2009 said, look, we hav

you're not going to be invited by assad to bring in airstrikes. >> actually, tony, with respect--assadas--assad has, indeed,-- >> i heard the signaling. i know what you're talking about. >> right, right, right, so assad has actually said that he would be open to the possibility of coordinating airstrikes with the united states if the united states coordinates back. and essentially respects his sovereignty. i would not be opposed to that kind of coordination. >> so assist the assad government. >> yes, i mean, that would be an inadvertent unfortunate side-effect of taking on isis within syria, but i want to emphasize that assad has never directly threatened the u.s. homeland, and neither has his father. i do believe ha that isis presents a real threat to the u.s. homeland. i would welcome u.s. airstrikes against isis in syria even if that requires some measure of coordination with the assad regime. and has the unfortunate affect of maybe helping him out by alleviating some pressure on him because of course isis and assad are sworn enemies now although that wasn't the case even three week

we say assad is going to be gone soon. if you look back, if you roll the tape back, you know, a lot of really silly things are said. there is a lot of talk with no consequences. well, i think that's the key. can you say a lot of silly things and get away with it if people think that you are prepared to take action when necessary. it's not that anybody is looking for conflict. the whole point of a position of strength is to deter your adversaries from taking steps that are harmful to your interest and those of your friends. and the president's rhetoric without action is gutting our deterrent and persuasion capability. >> is he going to do anything on ukraine meeting with nato next week. >> i don't think so. i think they are looking for some way to have a face saving solution or at least slow down the level of violence so that negotiations can proceed. >> so it's tough luck crimea? >> i think it's gone. because, obviously the ukrainians can't take it back from the russians on their own. i think there is a lot more we can do.

has not been fighting that aggressively against assad and that in some ways assad has tolerated the islamic state because it was targeting the moderates who were assad's main opposition, the same people by the way that the u.s. has been helping. so yes, the islamic state is an the alternate force on syria territory. but they have not been turning their guns on the assad regime. so getting rid of them doesn't necessarily relieve the pressure on assad. >> is it a viable policy though to only deal with islamic state from the air and to try avoid putting ground troops in northern iraq or syria because then you have the sort of issue of islamic state being able to claim to the muslim world, hey we're defending ourselves here? >> that's one reason why it's not viable to put ground troops into iraq or syria and the syrian don't really want american troops there. so you have iraqi troops you have kurdish iraqi troops you have other opposition forces in syria you is the other neighbors of those countries who are all highly motivated to use their ground forces to contain or push back the islamic stat

what he would say is the united states is not interested in helping the assad regime. sort of echoing comments by chuck hagel last week who insisted the assad regime is part of the problem, not part of the solution. this notion of an enemy's enemy is my friend is very much in the air in washington, partly because of the rise of the islamic state being one factor that has contributed to the slight thawing in relations between the u.s. and iran at the moment. >> the u.s. has launched airstrikes against iis targets in iraq. any chance of that whitening into syria? >> there is a possibility. they say the possibility of airstrikes is being looked at but they stretch barack obama has not this point made a decision to expand any action into syria. it's very much on the table but there have been mixed messages coming from the administration. just before the weekend, they seemed to be hinting something might be imminent, but now they may seem to be putting the brakes on expectations. it is clear they see a basis for it in counterterrorism terms, having referred to the murder of

president assad's armed forces have good intelligence and they're well supplied. but the price would be the end of pressure on him to go. what about neighboring states? syria's ally, iran, is against islamic state. saudi arabia says it is too, but building a coalition against i.s. means getting tangled in difficult, often bloody, regional politics. it won't be easy. now iraq's own sectarian conflict's emerging with the syrian war, the challenge facing anyone who wants peace becomes twice as big. syria's war has been impossible to stop. no one yet has a proper strategy to end the war in iraq either. >> for more on i violence in iraq and the fight against the islamic state, i spoke a brief time ago with the former u.s. state department spokesman. thank you very much for coming in. there is now a lot of open talk about going into syria. after all these years, how likely is military action by the u.s.? >> i think the statements by chairman of joint chiefs yesterday and reiterated by the white house today gives you a strong hint that the united states recognizes that i