From your studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. Ian bremmer is here, president of the eurasia group. The new cold war on business. Businesses in russia and china, businesses continue to cascade. Isis threatens a town on the turkish border. And ebola continues to spread. Im pleased to have you back at this table. Turkey, a place you know really well. Turkish inaction on isis dismays the United States, wall street journal. U. S. Turkey at odds as military advance. Most people believe isis will take the town right on the border. You have kurds in turkey that are able to see them. Thats how close they are. And the turks have made pretty much every bad decision that could be made in the middle east. They have been on the wrong side of the conflicts and it will be hard for them to get to a place where they can line up with the americans in the coalition. Thats kind of where we are right now. Why . Just because of the fear of kurdish radicals on the syria side . There were almost 20 dead. And the kurds very unhappy with the lack of turkish action. You know the one, better than most, he isnt going to react to street violence and say im going to do it. If anything, that has made it harder. He doesnt want to have his troops fighting against isis. He is not supporting isis, but not a strong opponent. He has wanted asaad to go and isis has been useful. He got the Vice President to apologize for saying that he had supported radical groups like isis or isis in syria. Getting the Vice President to apologize, that is true. Biden says something that are intemperant but have a whiff of truth. Turks arent saying here is a bunch of money. What biden said is that the turks could have done more to close their border and im sure thats true. Werent the turks supporting isis . I dont think they were supporting isis. There is a difference between how far you are willing to go against them and how far you find them useful and tolerant. That sounds like syria to me. It does sound like syria. You are here from the pentagon today, that the United States, military brass does president believe we have any credible partners on the ground given that isis doesnt care. No credible partners on the ground . Not capable. Thats what the president has believed and why the president can insisting if he injected weapons in two years ago, it would have made a difference. There are no credible partners on the ground. I have been very critical on the president but on isis, the president has done a pretty decent job. Everybody says he doesnt have a strategy. If the americans arent actually leading, it be hoofs you not to talk to the teammates. Not enduring freedom or whatever. Dont need to name it something. And also, its not clear how quickly you want to win if you dont know what you are going to do afterwards and thats a problem, too, because the fighting on the ground in syria and much of iraq is being done by people we arent prepared to work with. We arent ready for that. What does this mean for the advancement of isis if you cannot find a significant force on the ground, especially in syria . This advancement is in syria. What it means opening up a route to the town, arent they . They said they are. Theres no question that the fact that the United States is not out in the lead with the strategy, boots on the ground, means its going to take a hell of a lot longer to contain isis, never mind to ever functionally destroy them. Thats certainly true. At the same time, principal challenges opposing isis to the countries in the region and even to the europeans, if you have the countries that are most affected by these things, not prepared to take a broader role, that tells you something how important it is to them. It tells you that they dont feel like they have to have its not urgent, its not a crisis. Rex would you say it was a crisis . The advancement of isis and offering a safe haven to significant groups of terrorists . I think it is a sufficient crisis that the United States is right to be working to contain them. I dont think its a sufficient crisis that the u. S. Should be putting troops on the ground, because i dont think it is sustainable. Because they will not do the job . You dont think troops on the grouped will do the job, combined with american air power . Thats not my point. I think they will do the job but wouldnt maintain from the United States. We get massive criticism internationally. Building a Broad Coalition is you need complicity. Not even cooperation. Cooperation is going up. Yes, this is a real threat, we have to do something. What happens when it starts to go wrong. Civilians are dying. The saudis have some air force involved, its not that they are being so helpful to the americans, but their governments cant say we are doing things wrong, because they are part of it. We need complicity. We have so little complicity. We need for the world to know not just u. S. Versus muslims . Exactly. I think it is a big win for u. S. And obama and kerry to have some of the gulf states flying right with us there because it means if this war is going to go for years and probably will, then most of the countries that are relevant around us, they will be forced to support the u. S. Position. How serious do you think it is, the threat of isis . I believe that isis the best funded well Armed Terrorist Group in the world. In the history of the world. A very big threat. But i think they are very bad strategically. They have institutionalized themselves. They have declared a state and have to govern it. That requires a hell of a lot of attention and requires resources to be devoted to that territory. Something that terrorists should never want to do. When they took the dam at mosul, they didnt mine it and say, if you attack us, we will blow it up. Thank god. The kurds what do you mean they didnt think about it . Maybe they should have waited until they could have done something. People said it was going to fall apart if it wasnt fixed. If you are isis leadership, isnt that important . The fact that the kurds took more territory. The best fighting force in iraq and they were on the sidelines until isis overextended themselves. They are very strong. They are fighters who are willing to fight and they have a lot of ammunition. But strategically, thus far, they have been making a lot of mistakes and given that this is going to be a long war, that is our benefit. Immediate threat to us in terms of what they can do . Immediately, how would you measure other than their Training Ground for jihaddists who have american passports and come back and wreak havoc . I hate to see this brand that has the ability to get people excited about violent radicalism against the west. You never want to see that because a whole bunch of lunatics are going to take advantage of that. If it werent for isis, would some whacko in oklahoma decapitate a coworker . I doubt it, frankly. That does affect the United States. And there is no question that americans have gotten concerned about this and affects our travel patterns. Can it affect the order in the middle east . Threaten our friends . Can it threaten our friends . The single thing it has the greatest impact, the Iran Nuclear Deal less likely to happen. We have aligned ourselves with the saudis and the arab monarchies. Irans top priority is isis and not getting a nuclear deal with the u. S. We only have six weeks left to get that deal done. Everything i have seen on the grouped is the oneterm president. He lost a Key Parliament member. I dont think they have this ability to get it over the goal line. The Supreme Leader doesnt want it . Anyone smart in iran right now is they dont think the deal is going to happen. Even if the compromise is possible, i dont think the will is there. What does that mean in terms of their getting a nuke lar weapon . They have Nuclear Weapon . They have a few months. What does breakout capability means . They would be able to develop a Nuclear Weapon without without consequences of strikes. In other words, you would no longer have breakout capability. Beyond this point, they dont have a Nuclear Weapon, but you cant functionally stop them. They could have one if they wanted in a matter of weeks . Im not inside the intelligence. I have heard Different Things from the israelis, from the americans historically. Years . Its months. Its months. Within months they could have a Nuclear Weapon . Yes. And you believe the president of the United States would strike if they were to soon have a Nuclear Weapon . There would be a discussion inside the white house . Do we do this or not . On balance, its hard to imagine that the americans would engage in preemptive strikes to stop the iranians from having a weapon. There are difficult questions. What would happen if there are russians supporting their brethren in estonia, would the United States intervene to support estonia . I dont think the answer is preordained. Nato . The americans are going to be the leaders. Not going to be the germans. And if you ask me if the israelis will strike if they know the americans wont, its a closer call, but i dont think they will. I dont think they will. Even if they know the americans wont . I dont believe so. Its important for the israelis to make us believe that that is absolutely what is coming. Thats the diplomacy. They wouldnt do it because i think the knockon effects for israel would be significant. Iran has a real military. I think that israel they say its a threat, but israel has 100 Nuclear Weapons themselves. They are in a strong relationship right now. Their relationship with the west would be very seriously damaged and massive calls for boycotts and as long as israel they dont want to do it . I dont think they do. If you ask me, is it bad for iran to have Nuclear Weapons . The answer is yes. Im not sure if im more worried about this than india and pakistan. Pakistan or north korea. Are they more reasonable . I think they have slightly more capability of actually Holding Together as a state and maintaining control, certainly the north koreans. They are within six weeks, say, breakout capability . Have enough centrifuges. If in fact they are at that point and getting closer, unlikely that the israelis will do it . Unlikely that to the United States will take it out with an airstrike. So therefore, the iranians will have a Nuclear Capacity i think thats probably true. What do you think the saudis are going to do . I think they have been supporting plutonium project or pakistan thatn clearly is meant to be so that if they need to have new there is a very big difference between the iranians having Nuclear Capacity and developing a Nuclear Weapon or testing a Nuclear Weapon. Like so many things we have seen in so many conflicts in this world, where you decide to draw that line or not draw that line. I could ask a better question what if they are in fact what if in fact they do have a Nuclear Weapon. What if they test it and have it, do you believe the u. S. Would strike then . They test it and have it, the answer is clearly no, because the rabbit out of the hat. Then the saudis have to react and that sets in action a whole bunch of steps. Retaliatory, as the real tory steps. Tory steps escalatory steps. If i was sitting in iran and i thought you had the ear of the president , i would believe that the iranians could say we are going to have a nuclear bomb . I feel that the iranians dont have to listen to me to have that understanding of the white house right now. The iranians know the president wouldnt strike . They would not strike. Does the pentagon believe that . I believe the pentagons belief is that the white house has been very reluctant to provide them with options and leverage to use force or to threaten to use force. Almost across the board. Pentagon believe that the white house is reluctant to give them instruction to have a military option . Why would you there is so much criticism despite of all the things to be positive of obamas strategy and isis, why would you take the option of boots on the ground off the table . If china has problems with the country, they dont say, no matter what, tanks are not going to roll. I never heard a china leader say that. They would never say that. Certainly not in hong kong. In hong kong, the chinese negotiation is, how would that work for you . The alternative is there. They have handled it pretty well. They have gotten support. One interesting thing i have heard in the last couple of hours, the hong kong chief executive, that apparently there is news that he is taking some money from some australian organizations that might be illegal. And the timing of that is very interesting. Maybe the chinese want to find a way to get rid of this guy. Im not even sure they need a means. Since we are talking about this region, we reported on cbs this morning as we taped this on wednesday afternoon that the leader of north korea has not been seen for a couple months now. Where do we think he is . Why do we think he is missing . Give me a scenario. You know its a bad week when the best news that you have is from north korea. Im not sure that is good news. Uncertainty is usually bad news. But in this case, at the same time that he has not been heard from and the official north korean media, which we should put great stock in, says that he is experiencing discomfort. And i dont know about you, but i wouldnt want to experience discomfort in north korea. That seems like a bad place to experience discomfort. I love the vagueness of that phrase. But at the same time, thats what they are saying . He is experiencing discomfort. I love the vagueness of that phrase. Its dark and cold in his cell. Its possible. But there was the leadership of north korea outside the military leadership went to south korea for the closing ceremonies of the asiapacific games last week and not only were extremely solicitous of wanting to engage but set a date few weeks down the road to engage. Now i have to say in any condition, if there were a transition, if kim jong is out, the worst thing that could happen is internal fighting and the place implodes. You couldnt do that south Korean Mission in that case. First case, the military leaders wouldnt leave the country. Worst case is to leave the country. Hes done. So they clearly feel comfortable. Either kim jung un is out or he is still in and actually experiencing some mild heartburn and wants to show everyone he is still in charge and continuing and making a bold move. Whats the bold move . Sending this delegation to south korea. Thats the biggest opening we have seen between these countries in years. Years. At the same time that he is not been heard from. How long will we take to find out . How long do you think . They might never tell us. He has to make an appearance. What if he is dead. We wouldnt know. We wouldnt know. One place we cant analyze. He could be dead. He could be in custody. Or he could be leading the country in a most brilliant step to take his country in a direction that none of us fathom him doing. We have no meaningful way to say what the hell he is doing but the thing that should bother us the most, does it have the potential to implode. The view is its doing pretty well. Biggest question to me where are the chinese and what do they think . The chinese have not been saying anything. If anybody is going to be concerned about disorder in the north korea, its the chinese because they dont want a bunch of people coming across their border. Definitely. Absolutely. Russia, before we leave here. Where are does that stand now . Where is putin . Has the United States convinced him that no more . No. But the fact that it is the last thing you are asking me about in this interview is indicative of the broader issue is a lot of things have run past russia in the priorities of the white house right now. We can talk about ebola, look at that, isis, china and hong kong. The fact that the russians are still in ukraine and troops still in ukraine and the ceasefire is at best marginally holding. With the europeans it is getting colder russian gas is going to start to be important. And many european states are saying, we want to talk about reducing sanctions and removing them as long as they keep the ceasefire. Cease tire. Not pull troops out or come to a deal, not give back territory, just keep the ceasefire. Who is saying that . The french. The germans . No. Not to germans. The slovaks and the fins that are under pressure. The germans are under less pressure economically. The germans are still strong on this and the brits are, too. But we have reached a peak. And last thing is we have questionable Cyber Attacks on whole bunch of american banks. Is there, among the people you know a conventional wisdom who is doing it . Conventional wisdom its from russia. There is a conventional wisdom that the attackers have links to the russian government and conventional wisdom, no idea whether or not the russian government is behind it. But im absolutely concerned two reasons why the russian government has not engaged in Cyber Attacks in the past two years are because of concerns of retaliation and their own restraint. I dont want to bet on each of those two things. For the next six months, fullyear, that sort of thing. He they doing anything different than what the chinese have done, i mean private companies in china . The chinese cyber is different. Most chinese cyber comes from the p. L. A. And espionage to support their industry. National security issues. Where the russians engage in espionage, most Russian Companies wouldnt know what to do with it. They do engage in Cyber Attacks to support the russians strategically. We have seen it in estonia. So it is consistent, especially after the u. S. Has threatened stronger actions against th