Cia and the ambassador from the United Arab Emirates to the United States. We are ready to sit down tomorrow and negotiate the 13 demands. If the qataris are willing to say that they are ready to negotiate. So far they havent been able to d a solution has to be a diplomatic solution. But the willingness to find a solution lies not in rhiyad, certainly not in washton, it lines in. North koreas accelerating nuclear prospects and conflict in the middle east and gulf states when we continue. Funding for charlie rose is provided by the following 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. Rose we begin this evening with north korea. American intelligence agencies now estimate that north korea will be i believe to launch a reliable Nuclear Capable interkonl miss thail could reach the United States in one year t had been previously thought that pyongyang was roughly four years from fully developing longrange missiles however in a test earlier this month north korea launched a missile capable of striking parts of alaska. It was the latest in a series of tests that have forced u. S. Intelligence officials to recognize that they have miscalculated the countrys aggressive technical advances under the leader kim jung you know, President Trump vowed to con fropt north korea. Joining me is david sanger, National Security correspondent for the New York Times and im pleased to have him here. He wrote this story in todays new york sometimes experts say north korea could have a missile to reach u. S. By next year. What changed . Well, charlie, a couple of things changed. The short term thing that changed is one you minged which is they conducted this test. It was done in a very high one of 1700 miles and came down, it didnt go very far in distance but anybody who knew anything about Missile Technology knew that flattening that out isnt very hard, just stretching it out, right. And it is interesting politically that they decided not to do that. Because the reaction if you drop one of these things off the coast of l. A. Or Something Like that is going to be a lot greater than if you do this high parable test. The test actually was more useful to them because what they need to figure out is can they make a warhead reenter the atmosphere and not burn up. And that is an issue that took us a lot of time in the 1950s. It took the soviets a lot of time in the 1950s. We dont know exactly how close they are to that. But everybody in the intelligence agencies had been whispering for a long time that that foryear out number could well be wrong. And what you are seeing happen here, charlie, is the end of a caution, the overcaution that came from their mistakes in iraq and intelligence agencieses. Rose let me read your last paragraph. In the iraq case the intelligence agencies overestimated saddam husseins ability to reinstitute what was once a healthy Nuclear Weapons program. In the north korean case, one Senior Intelligence official noted last week the speed and sophistication of the program have been consistently underestimated, much as it was with the soviet union 70 years ago, an china more than 50 years ago. Underestimated. You know, charlie. We are all captivated by the last mistake we made in life, okay. So their last big mistake was saddam heuses hughes has Nuclear Weapons and missiles and all that am and they reached that conclusion in part because he had made great advances before the first persian gulf war. And in part because every previous mistake that the. Is intel gengs agencies had made from World War Two forward had been to underestimate how close a country was to getting a nuclear capability. So harry truman had a memo on his desk the weekend of the soviets conducted their First Nuclear test in 1949 saying dont worry, they still got, we have still got time on this. We underestimate the chinese in the 1960st. We underestimated the indians in the 70st and pakistanis in the 19 80s. And so for a long time in the Intelligence Agency the theory was if you dont be more a dpressive and say it could happen earlier, you can get fired. Then after iraq, it was if you overestimate and you know, embarrass us, you can get fired. Were getting back to the norm now. Rose but this july 4th test, i think it was july 4th. Thats right. Rose showed them a lot in terms of the possibility. Thats right. Rose we assume that they can make a weapon small enough to fit on the missile that they are developing. If they cant now, they will be able to in a few years. It is hard to do. But remember, theyre not doing this to american speks. When the Unitied States goes out to build a Nuclear Weapon it is to highly precise specificses. These guys do in the plan to be in a nuclear exchange. This missile is for one thing. It is to guarantee that kim jungun stays in office. They are not actually thinking operationally about how they might do this and launch missiles on the United States. They know that is the end of their regime. Rose end of everything. It is the end of everything. If this entire Weapons Program is all about survival for kim jungun. He looks out at the landscape and what does he see, he sees somebody like qaddafi in libya who had a nash yent nuclear program, no place close to what the North Koreans or even iranians hadk and gave it up in 2003. We said dont worry, dont worry. Give it up, we will integrate you to the west, come on in. The integration was pretty poor. And then when his people turned gebs him, the United States, europe and the arab states all came in and bombed him until somebody pulled him out of a ditch and shot himment kim jungun looks at that and says not me. Were going full speed at the program. The big difference between him and his father is he is really is going full speed. Rose you is have to give the devil his due. He has shown a sense of urgency that has paid off. Urgency, determination, i mean some day when somebody writes the history of this, it is going to be the history of a dead broke country with, you know, no Silicon Valley to fall back on. That has figured out how to steal, beg, hire and bribe people to build a nuclear arsenal. Rose is part of this it the scomg psychology of trying to say to everybody, we have to get more urgent about our options and what were doing because clapper and others have argued former dni, director of national intelligence, have said we have to act, and yet they have a weapon. Everything we do has to be based on the premise that they had the possibility to do this. Thats right. Rose that is the assumption we operate on. I just saw general clapper last week. He was out at the Security Forum with a lot of other of the intelligence chiefs. And this was a big theme. Look, a year away or two years away or three years away, doesnt make that big a difference for american planning. Because the fact of the matter is it takes so long to deploy improved defenses, fixing your missile defenses, figuring out your next cyberattack on north koreas missiles that you have got to start now as if they had it now. Rose there is also this. Some have said to me who know something about what intelligence, what americas strategy is, that they are already faced with this he request. We either have to do one of two things. Sanctions are not going to work. The chinese obviously are not going to do what we hope they are going to do. So it is either we have to live with the North Koreans having the weapons potential or else we have to attack them. And the president is going to have to make their hard decision. Known that if they attack them, they will be a counter attack against south korea which will kill at least 200,000 people. Is that wrong . Well, its probably right. There are some offramps from thatment and you know, here you have to have a little bit of sympathy for donald trump. Because every american president of the past four or five has kicked this problem down the road. Every time they saw an incremental north korean advance, they looked at just the two options you have just described and they head locked. Were not going to attack these guys and lose seoul, rate . So lets put up with it and try. It is seoul for millions of people. 10 to 14 Million People depending on how you its one of the great economic powerhouses of asia and of the world. And more importantly, you know, its a close american ally. So thats really not an option unless youve got an attack plan that the South Koreans agree to, and that seems unlikely. So every american president has decided we cant go that route. They often dont want to give in, so they ended up, you know, were going to increase sanks. Were going to isolate them more. It almost becomes a joke, you go to these briefing and they would have to try to convince you that the sanctions they are going to do this weak are more super deuper wonderful and effective than the ones that they tried three months before. And as you said, there is only one sanction here that is going to work. It is the chinese turnoff the oil. Or if we find a way to turn the oil off on the north korean side, other than that. A sieb weapon, something awful happens to the pipeline, an accident happens, a Maintenance Issue happens, there are a few other things you could do to squeeze them down. President bush has some good success when he found a single bank in macao that kim junguns father kept his fortune in and that was the money that was used to pay off all the generals around him and others for their loyalty. And when they stopped that bank, it really caused a lot of screaming. The North Koreans learned a lot from that. They spread their money around a lot more than that. But you are right, we are in this bad spot. And you have got to wonder right now whether awful as that is, when President Trump looked at this issue, you know, a north korean crisis has certain advantages for him, it focuses attention on something other than the russian scandal and something other than what he is doing. And i dont mean for a moment to suggest that he wants to go get us into a war. I dont think he does. But hes got a real crisis right in front of him at a moment where he would really like. That was. Thats right, that is why the best thing he left, and the one possible offer is the combination of cyberelectronic warfare and other steps to sabotage the system. The problem of cyberattacks as you and i have discussed on previous shows is what works on thursday may not work next monday. Theyre quite temporary. They buy you some time. They bought us a year in iran. It was a critical year to get the iranians to the table. They bought us a little time in north korea but it looks like time is up. Rose thank you, david. Thank you, charlie. Rose great to see you. Great to be with you. Rose coming back well talk about the ctnflict between qatar and its arab neighbors. Back in a moment, stay with us. On june 5th the middle Eastern States including saudi arabia, the United Arab Emirates severed relationships with qatar, accused the gulf state of supporting terrorism and their iran. The dispute has thrown an already unstable region into deeper turmoil. Joining me for a conversation about the crisis and other recent developments in the middle east is the United Arab Emirates ambassador to the United States since 2008. He has been called the most influential ambassador in washington. And michael morell, former Deputy Director of the cea and acting director of the c, a and freak guest on this program, of which we are deeply grateful. Let me begin with you, qulowsev yousef, what is the mob with the qataris for your country . What is it they are doing that is so offends you . I think there are two ways to look at this. First is this a diplomatic disagreement or is this more a philosophical disagreement. I tend to think our differences with qatar go beyond the diplomatic and more philosophical. If you ask uai, sawedy, jordan, egypt, ba ran, what kind of middle east they want to see ten years from now, it will be fundamentally opposed what what i think qatar would like to see. What we would like to see is more secretary you lar, stable, prosperous, empowered, strong government. What we have seen qatar do for the last 10 to 15 years is support groups like the mus imbrotherhood, hamas, taliban, islamist militias in syria, islamist militias in libya, exactly the opposite direction we think our region needs to go. So our disagreement is about what the future of the middle east should look like. And thats not something that we have been able to square request with the qataris for a long time. Rose what do they want it to look like. I think they want more groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, hamas, the taliban. I dont think it is a coincidence that inside you have the hamas leadership, the taliban embassy, you have the Muslim Brotherhood leadership, groups going on al jazeera promoting and justifying suicide bombs. Why they do that, we dont have a answer, perhaps michael and some of his can help us. But we seem to be at odds with a very core belief of what we want the region to be. Rose is there a demands because there was a long list of demands including ending al jazeera and other things. You have essentially wanted to isolate them. It hasnt worked entirely, jordan is not isolated from qatar. Partially. What are the core demands . How could this be negotiated. This is a great question. So the core demands if you step back and look at what we went through with qatar in 2014, just to put some context behind what is happening today, 2014 saudi, uae and bahrain pulled their ambassadors over the exact same set of grieveances. The exact same set of issues. Support for terrorism, meddling in our internal affairs and incitement and provocation. November 2014 the late King Abdullah hosted a meeting in riyadh and hosted all the gcc leaders and had a very, very open conversation, well call it a very honest airing of his grieveances with the qatari leader. And at the end of that meeting, there was a document that was signed and we called it the riyadh agreement. And i brought a copy with me. It is right here and it has the signature of the imir of qatar it was over the exact same set of issues. And qatar promised to stop supporting the groups and individuals that were giving us a hard time. Unfortunately, everything that has been signed into this agreement has been violated for the last three years. So the collective frustration with the four countries today is at a new level. So the demands while they are more specific, they are still in tari signed up to in 2014. We are ready to sit down with qatar tomorrow and negotiate the 13 demands. If the qataris are willing to say that they are willing to negotiate. So far they havent been able to say that. But we want a solution. And the slawtion has to be a diplomatic solution. But the willingness to find a solution lies not in riyadh, not in abu dhabi, certainly not in washington, it lies in doha. Rose this disagreement took place in what year . 2014. Rose so three years ago. So this just didnt happen because of the visit of President Trump to riyadh and the arab summit conference. Absolutely not. This has been, this is like a pot sitting on the stove for a really lining long time and its finally boiled over, except it boiled over twice. One three years ago, it was resolved. But these commitments were never lived up to. And today it has actually gotten worse. So we got to a point, charlie, where we said we cant live like this any more. You cant sit around the table with us and support the groups that are threatening to kill us and kill our children 6789 you cant be inside a tent while you are supporting the groups that undermine our security. And so if you want to continue that Foreign Policy and supported hamas and the brotherhood and islam militias, you are more than welcome to. They have every right to come back tomorrow and say we reject these demands and dont want to negotiate. And we will also within our rights to say, we dont want to have a relationship with you. It is very hard for you to come and force upon any country having a relationship with a country where they dont think that relationship is in their best interest. And you have four countries who feel that qatar has been supporting groups that undermine them. Not one or two, and like i said, this has been going on for a very long time. Rose all right, what is the u. S. Attitude about this . Because on the one hand you have the president saying he is all in. And then you have the secretary of state saying hes trying to negotiate. Well, first i will tell you what my attitude is and then we can get to what their attitude is. Look, i think yousef is absolutely right. This has been going on for a long time. I think what happened here is that qatar, a small country, small population, significant wealth from natural gas, wanted to play a bigger role in the region. They wanted to have a Foreign Policy that was outsized for itself. And they looked around, they looked around and said okay, where can we, where can we make a difference. And one of the areas that was open was talking to these groups that the rest of us wont talk to and wont interact with. And they saw an opportunity to play a role with that. And as they became closer and closer to these groups over time, they started supporting them. Rose supporting them financially. Supporting them in many ways. As yous