with yemen, iraq and serbia? i'll explain. but first, here's my take. mitt romney has picked a bad time to launch an attack on barack obama's foreign policy. as he was speaking to the annual gathering of the veterans of foreign wars this week, charging obama with weakness, betrayal and mendacity, nbc news and "the wall street journal" released a new poll. it turns out on handling foreign policy, americans prefer obama to romney by a whopping 15 points. romney's principal charge against obama is that he has angered america's allies and emboldened its enemies. >> shabby treatment of one of our finest friends. >> well, it turns out again that there's some recently released data that contradicts the claim. . the pew foundation released one of its global surveys in june. soliciting opinions from several countries around the world. when asked if they have some or a lot of trust in president obama, the numbers are overwhelmingly positive across most of the world. in britain, for example, which was romney's first stop on his foreign tour, 80% of people trust obama compared with 16% who trusted george w. bush. most countries surveyed have much higher approval ratings of america in 2012 than they did in 2008 when bush was president. and by the way, consider why obama's ratings are low in one area in particular, the arab world. the two strongest justifications given by people in every arab country that was surveyed were first that obama has not been fair in dealing with the israeli/palestinian issue, and second, that he has used drone attacks in afghanistan and pakistan to go after terrorists. in other words, the reason obama has lost some of his global popularity is that he's perceived as too pro-israeli and too hawkish. think about that, mitt romney. romney has tried to use the standard issue cold war republican attack on democrats. the world is dangerous. our enemies are growing strong. obama is weak. the problem is, most americans recognize that none of this is really true. the world is actually quite peaceful right now. our adversaries like iran are weak and isolated. china is growing strong, but it has not used its power to contest america in major national security terms. the one enemy americans recognize and worry about remains al qaeda and its affiliated islamic terror groups. and obama has been relentless in attacking them. now, mitt romney is a smart man who has had considerable professional success in his life. but even republican insiders have admitted to me that he has been strangly amateurish on foreign policy. his campaign, they note, is not staffed by the obvious republican foreign policy heavyweights, people like robert bzdelik, paufl wolfowitz, richard armitage, stephen hadley. as a result, he has blustered. actually, it's a second-rate power. he seems willing to start a trade war with china. he's vague yet belligerent about syria and iran. he's gone back and forth on a timetable for withdrawal of afghanistan. romney faces a tough problem. president obama is the first democrat in nearly 50 years to enter in an election with a dramatic advantage in foreig policy. the last time was lyndon johnson versus barry goldwater in 1964. but unless romney can craft a smart strategic alternative, that gap will only get wider. for more on this, you can read my column in this week's "time" magazine and on time.com. let's get started. foreign policy is the flavor of the week finally. so let's get to it. i have a great panel. paul wolfowitz is former deputy secretary of defense under george w. bush and then president of the world bank. two former state department policy planning directors, richard haass, now the president of the council on foreign relations, and ann marie slaughter back at princeton university. joining me from washington, "the new york times" foreign affairs columnist, tom friedman. welcome. tom, let me start with you. you talk to a lot of people in the region. what is your sense about whether assad can hold on? so far he has defied many expectations and has held on. >> well, fareed, you know, i think it's the nature of these kind of regimes that they're strong, they're strong, they're strong until they around and then they go quickly. we just don't know when that moment will be. but the reason he has held on up till now is because he clearly has support. support of the minority that he represents. first of all, his own sect, an offshoot of shias, about 12% of the syrian population, and then christians who basically fear a sunni/muslim majority taking power in syria. and then some sunni muslims who have been allied with the regime for business and other purposes. so this isn't a one-man show. there is support there. it's basically tribe and sect based. they're deeply afraid. they're cornered and they're fighting that way. >> do you feel like he can hold on? >> well, i think actually, if you look at it, he's losing ground steadily. i mean, it was back inebruary when the chin knees and the russians vetoed the first u.n. resolution. they essentially gave him a couple of months to roll up the opposition. he did actually make some real gains, but then he's been steadily pushed back. and even a month ago, if you had said they would be fighting in aleppo and damascus and you'd have an assassination of top people right in damascus, people would have said no. he's holding on but he's getting steadily weakened. i think we're moving toward the end game rapidly, although it could be long and bloody, and u.s. policy actually has something to say about that. >> you think we should be doing more? >> i think we should have been doing more a long time ago. and the arguments i heard at the time for hanging back were that the country would be broken. it would descend in chaos. the regime would collapse. all of that stuff is happening now with our not having done anything. and i think one thing that is certainly happening as this goes on is his position may be weakening with the people fighting for him are now more desperate. they have blood all over their hands. it's going to be much harder to achieve any kind of reconciliation. i think the country's going to suffer, and our interests are going to suffer as a result. >> my concern is that more people could ultimately die than the, say, 17,000 or 18,000 that could die afterwards. a tremendous amount of arms, all sorts of fear and vengeance in the air. and i actually think as much of our time as possible now ought to be devoted to preparing for the aftermath, thinking who's going to help essentially prevent syria from going the way of iraq and lebanon and becoming a prolonged sect-base, revenge-filled country. >> tom, you've been skeptical about u.s. involvement for that reason. i think you once wrote that syria won't implode, it will explode. >> yeah, i mean, my concern is, fareed, and i wrote this the other day, that, you know, syria is really a lot like iraq. in many ways, a minority-led regime, multisectarian, a state with deep fear and mistrust among different communities. and that, you know, when it does break, you're going to need some kind of midwife, some kind of armed and trusted mediator to referee its transition from dictatorship to some kind of new consensual politics without getting stuck in a hobesian war of all against all. and i think the american people have limited patience and desire for any high-profile iraqlike, you know, mandate of the united states to take this on. so, you know, i'm certainly ready to listen to any alternative. arab league force, u.n. force. i don't know. but i think it's -- i think it's a bit of a stretch to believe that the opposition will cohere, reach out to the alouite and christian minorities and find a way without a midwife. when you have no midwife and no mandela, you have a prescription for, i think, a long war. >> what do you think? >> i think all of these are exactly the reasons we actually do have to do much more now. i think richard actually outlined the scenario if the conflict keeps going, it becomes increasingly sectarian, the chances of it spilling over to other countries are much greater. we can't plan for a transition if we're not willing to help bring it about. if we try to bring it about now, it's much more likely to happen on our terms. and what we do is support the commanders on the ground who are now declaring safe zones. they now control territory particularly on the borders. what they need are antitank weapons and anti-aircraft weapons to prevent assad from pushing this back again. i think assad actually probably would be will be to use chemical weapons on his own people. i'm certainly he will bomb them, he will do whatever it takes. >> and it's a military matter. i think american leadership would make a real difference in terms of helping the opposition both to cohere and cohere around a plan that would give syria a better chance afterwards. we shunned underestimate our ability to do that. i think it's important. >> paul, what do you think the lesson that you drew from iraq is to prevent the kind of post-war problems that iraq had? >> i think iraq and syria are almost completely different situations. we're not talking about a major american ground force or an american force at all. if anything, might have some parallel, it's bosnia where for three years we sat back while the country was shattered. and then ultimately we had to provide half of a 60-000-person peacekeeping force. syria is going to be governed by syrians. i don't see why people are so comfortable saying we shouldn't be arming them, but it's okay for islamist governments in the persian gulf that don't share our objectives, it's okay for them to be arming them. i think trying to shape the political agenda of that future syrian government is very important. >> a lot of americans listen to all this and say yeah, but how are american interests directly involved? so syria is a mess. >> we have two sets of interests here. humanitarian interest. i don't think the united states is a matter of principle or to turn a blind eye when innocent people get killed the way they are in syria. we have strategic interests. the fact that iran is as involved as it is. it gives us, i think, a strategic stake here. do i think either of these interests right up to the level of vital? no. that's why the president, i believe, is right not to make an unlimited or unconditional american commitment here. >> quickly. >> we do have vital interests if you put al qaeda on the one hand who are infiltrating and chemical weapons on the other. that's the one place everybody agrees. you've got chemical weapons stocks, and you've got terrorists on the ground. i actually think we have more vital interests here certainly than we did in libya. and just on the face of it, this is one of the most strategic countries in the most strategic region in the world. >> and it's an ally of iran which makes it maybe not a vital interest but certainly a very important strategic interest. >> we are going to take a break. when we come back, we're going to talk about iran and also about mitt romney with two people who might be advising him or might not. when we come back. [ male announcer ] citi turns 200 this year. in that time there've been some good days. and some difficult ones. but, through it all, we've persevered, supporting some of the biggest ideas in modern history. so why should our anniversary matter to you? because for 200 years, we've been helping ideas move from ambition to achievement. and the next great idea could be yours. ♪ i tell mike what i can spend. i do my best to make that work. we're driving safely. and sue saved money on brakes. now that's personal pricing. and we are back with paul wolfowitz, richard haass, anne-marie slaughter and tom friedman. tom, let's talk about iran for a second outside of the syrian context. what do you think is going to happen? obama was able to diffuse the issue of a possible war with iran by saying, i really take this threat seriously. i'm going to press and press them as hard as possible, containment is not an option. we will not live with an iranian nuclear program that could become a weapons program. and so at this point, either the iranians have to surrender completely, i think, or president obama faces a problem. in other words, he's kicked the can down theroad, but it's going to come back soon. >> i think the iranians are very good at reading power on the global power scene. i think they've taken the measure of the world right now. and they don't think that anyone's going to force them to give up their nuclear program. i think they realize that israel would be very, very wary of undertaking a military action before the american election or at a time that it could tip the global economy into a downward spiral right now. i think they realize president obama doesn't want to take military action. they certainly know the europeans aren't going to do anything. so i think the only thing that could get them to move, fareed, would be the president put on the table, the kind of minimum iranian demand that they want, which is for some kind of peaceful internationally monitored civilian nuclear reprocessing program for peaceful purposes. to actually go right to the bottom line. say we're ready to offer you this. if you're not ready to take it, then we're ready to act militarily. i think other than facing them with that choice, they've read the scene quite well. i don't think they're going to do anything. >> ann-marie, the problem is if obama does look for that kind of win-win where he gives the iranians something but they have to make concessions, does he have the political room to make that kind of concession? in other words, we will roll back some of the sanctions we put in place, et cetera, et cetera, he goes to congress, to a republican house, and says would you please roll back sanctions on iran, they're going to call him an appeaser. >> he's not going to do anything before the election. i think it's on hold. he's not going to attack until after the election if an attack becomes necessary. >> i would keep lots of sanctions in place given their support for terrorism, given what they're doing in the neighborhood, given what they're doing for their own people. at the end of the day, i'll be honest, fareed, i not only want to deal with the nuclear program, ultimately i would love to see iran run by a different kind of government. and the united states should consider over the long run we want to have a different iran that's part of the region rather than a threat to the region. >> which, by the way, which is why i think what's happening in syria is so important. we sit here comfortably saying assad can't survive. that's not so clear. i can't think of anything that would be more discouraging for political change. i agree, that's where the real solution will come. >> tom, the egyptian elections, what do you make of the election of the muslim brotherhood's candidate, actually the second candidate, to be president of egypt? >> well, you know, it shows you egypt's divided, fareed. in fact, the sort of secular more liberal progressive traditional whatever you want to call them voters in egypt were a majority, but they weren't able to, you know, coalesce to actually win. so we have a muslim brotherhood president. we'll have to work through this. my view is very simple. iran today is a story of political islam in power with oil. saudi arabia is the story of political islam with oil in power. each has a story without oil. how that will ultimately shake out, i have no idea. i'm just taking notes. but i find this desire to predict that, you know, it's all going to fall apart. it's all going to be wonderful. i don't know. i'm not smart enough. watching the egyptian muslim brotherhood running egypt, that's like watching elephants flying. something you never expected before. first rule of journalism, whenever you see elephants flying, shut up and take notes. >> all right. we're going to close by asking the two of you a tough or awkward question. you may choose. romney does not seem to have developed a very -- a large coherent foreign policy, a set of positions. i mean, he's sort of flip-flopped on the afghan withdrawal. he was against it, now he seems to be for it. he has slogans about iran about being tougher without specifying how. he called russia the greatest geopolitical foe the united states has. what's going on? >> is this a trick question? i think what he's got to do is tie his principal theme, which is the economy, to foreign policy. and this would basically make the case that restoring the foundations of american and economic power needs to be front and central. much more of an emphasis on trade, which has been one of the weaknesses of the obama foreign policy. >> but he's talking about a trade war with china. >> his most recent speech he put that to the side. talked about china potentially being a partner. it can be a partner in economic order. he's also recently said something about immigration, that people with high skills and high education stapling that to -- >> you're calling all the parts that you like, richard. >> no, but what it says is that this is what makes the most sense for romney foreign policy is to take the economics that's central obviously to his campaign. you know that. everyone watching it knows that. that's really what this campaign's going to be about. and basically showing where the connection is between foreign policy and that. and to the extent he does that, i think it actually -- i'll leave it to others to say whether it's good politics, but i think it's good policy. and i would hope that the administration would do the same thing. >> i'm neither an adviser or spokesman, so i'm speaking for myself. president obama is lucky. there around, unless syria collapses, which it might, we don't have immediate criesses. and you use the words kick the can down the road. most of our problems -- afghanistan is a problem, but they've sort of kicked that can down the road. but i think it's legitimate to question, first of all, the degree to which on syria in particular but more generally, we are ceding to the united nations. we are allowing the russians and chinese to veto actions which are really quite important to american interests. and secondly and quite importantly, to use a phrase the president likes to use about false choices, posing a false choice between nation building abroad and nation building at home. the united states can't afford to lead unless we fix our problems at home. but we can't afford not to lead. the world is too dangerous. and our role is, as a democratic secretary of state madeline albright said, our role is indispensable. so we have to fix our problems both for the sake of this country and for the sake of our leadership in the world. that's what i would be saying. >> paul wolfowitz, richard haass, anne-marie slaughter, tom friedman, thank you very much. up next, "what in the world?" how the u.s. compares with other countries on gun crimes and gun control. the data will surprise you. [ mom ] dear chex cereal, i've never written a fan letter before, but you've done the impossible. you made gluten free cereals in a whole bunch of yummy flavors. cinnamon chex and honey nut chex are two of our favorites. when my husband found the chocolate one, we were in cereal heaven. the only problem is, with so many great flavors, you're making it very hard to choose. your fans, the mcgregor family. 'cause we love chex. ♪ [ male announcer ] and now try new gluten free apple cinnamon chex. consider the journey of today's athletes. their training depends on technology. and when it takes a battery, there are athletes everywhere who trust duracell. they rely on copper to go for the gold. duracell. trusted everywhere. and soon...even more reason to trust duracell. duralock power preserve. it locks in power for