And congressman adam schiff. A pivotal week as the Trump Presidency opens a new chapter. From abc news, this week. Here now, chief anchor george stephanopoulos. Good morning. All through last years campaign, candidate trump promised to stay out of syria. Not our fight, he said. Its time to put america first. This week, that all changed. The spark . These images. Syrian children suffocating, gassed by the assad regime. And with that, the man who pounded president obama for his red line in syria reversed course in the rose garden, drawing lines of his own. When you kill innocent children, innocent babies. Babies, little babies, with a chemical gas that is so lethal that crosses many, many lines. Beyond a red line. The big difference . After prolonged deliberation, president obama refused to retaliate. President trumps response was lightning fast. A targeted Cruise Missile strike and an expansive call to arms. Tonight, i call on all civilized nations to join us in seeking to end the slaughter and bloodshed in syria. The question now is how. This morning, assad is defiant, his airfield hit by the tomahawks is up and running. The region he gassed on tuesday is getting bombed again. So what will President Trump do now . Will thursdays strike be followed by a new strategy to remove assad from power . That was my first question for secretary of state Rex Tillerson in his first interview on this week. Well, george, i think our strategy in syria. As you know, our priority is first, the defeat of isis. Remove them from access to the caliphate. Thats where the threat to the homeland and the threat to the homeland of so many of our Coalition Partners is emanating from. Once we can eliminate the battle against isis, conclude it, its going quite well. Then we hope to turn our attention to ceasefire agreements between the regime and Opposition Forces. In that regard, were hopeful to work with russia and use their influence to achieve areas of stabilization throughout syria and create the conditions for a political process, through geneva, in which we can engage all of the parties on a way forward. It is through that political process that we believe the Syrian People will ultimately be able to decide the fate of Bashar Al Assad. But is that political process, is that diplomatic process going now require dpraert force receive the lernlg . Leverage . You have seen senators mccain and others calling for taking out the safe zone. The situation in syria, relative to the battlefield is quite complex. Because this because there are multiplegageengagements und way. We have the war to defeat isis in which many of those battle plans are being coordinated between u. S. , its coalition agreements, turkey, some of the Syrian Opposition and others. And it is being coordinated somewhat with the Syrian Regime and the Russian Forces to put pressure on isis to eliminate them. Having said that, there are other battle a have the presence of a number of al qaeda forces inside of syria. So the country is in a very chaotic situation relative to the battlefield. Having said that, that just demands greater effort on the part of a large array of coalition parties, both regionally, as well as those that are directly engaged in the fight itself inside of syria. Im not suggesting this is going to be a simple way forward. But we do have, i think, a fairly good consensus building among a number of those parties who would be part of the process that this is the this is the best way forward. Russia doesnt seem to be part of that consensus. President putin is calling wha surprised that rush that might make that statement. I will tell you im disappointed. I think the real failure here has been russias failure to live up to its commitments under the chemical weapons agreements entered into in 2013, both by the Syrian Government and by russia as the guarantor. To play the role in syria of securing chemical weapons, destroying the chemical weapons, and continuing to monitor that situation. So the failure related to the recent strike, and the recent terrible chemical weapons attack in large measure is a failure on russias part to achieve its commitment to the International Community. I want to get into russia a little bit more in a second. A couple more questions first. Directly on syria. You mentioned that the outcome of the political process is that the Syrian People can then determine the face of assad. You said that last week. Are you worried at all that that was taken as a green light by assad to launch that chemical attack . I dont see how that could be the case. This is not the first chemical attack launched by assad. There were two others the week of march 25th and 30th. And there have been chemical weapons attacks made by the Bashar Al Assad regime in the past. This was just the latest in a series of violations. You accept that right now, the Syrian People have no way to remove assad . Thats going to take greater pressure from the United States, from the coalition, perhaps military pressure. Ultimately, it could. But, george, we have seen what that looks like when you undertake a violent regime change in libya. And the situation in libya continues to be very chaotic. I would argue that the life of the libyan people is not all that well off today. I think we have to learn the lessons of the past and learn the lessons of what went wrong in libya when you choose that pathway of regime claim. We know this is going to be hard work. We believe it will lead to a durable and lasting stability inside syria. Any time you go in and have a violent change at the top, its very difficult to create the conditions for stability longer term. Sounds like from what youre saying, there is no real change in the United States military stance towards syria from what it was last week. Thats correct, george. This strike, i think the president was very clear in his message to the American People, that this strike was related solely to the most recent horrific use of chemical weapons against women, children, as the president said, small babies. The strike was a message to Bashar Al Assad that your multiple violations of your agreements at the u. N. , your agreements under the chemical weapons charter in 2013, that those would not go without a response in the future. Were asking russia to fulfill its commitment. Were calling on Bashar Al Assad to cease the use of the weapons. Other than that, there is though change to our military posture. You mentioned russian complicity perhaps with the Chemical Program in syria. We now know, according to u. S. Military officials there were anywhere from 12 to 100 russians on that base when the chemical attack was launched. Does that suggest to you that the russians knew or should have known what was going on . That they were complicit . Im not seeing hard evidence. That connects the russians directly to the planning or execution of this particular chemical weapons attack. We have been very clear that the russians were never a target of the strike. This strike was to target the air base from which these chemical weapons attacks were launched. And to render that air base, certainly its infrastructure no longer usable. I think the strik was the strike was wellplanned, proportional, directly related to the chemical weapons attack. And no other parties were targeted. At a minimum, russia hasnt done enough to get rid of the chemical stock pile because its still there and the russians are still on the base. Congressman adam schiff says you should give an ultimatum. To foreign minister lavrov when you meet with him next week on this issue. Will you do that . We have already issued very strong statements. Yes, that will be part of the discussions when i visit moscow next week is to call upon foreign minister lavrov and the russian government to fulfill the obligation it made to the International Community when it agreed to be the guarantor of the elimination of the chemical weapons. And why russia has not been able to achieve that is unclear to me. I dont draw conclusions of complicity at all. But clearly they have been incompetent. And perhaps, they have been outmaneuvered by the syrians. Do you think is an opportunity, are you hoping this is an opportunity perhaps to drive a wedge between assad and putin . To drive putin into a a commitment right now to do more to remove assad . Well, george, im hopeful that we can have constructive talks with the russian government. With foreign minister lavrov and have russia be supportive of a process that will lead to a stable syria. Clearly, they are Bashar Al Assads current ally. They should have the greatest influence on Bashar Al Assad. They should have the influence on him to cause him to no longer use chemical weapon. I hope russia is thinking seriously about its continued alliance with Bashar Al Assad. Because every time one of these attacks occurs, it draws russia closer to some form of responsibility. If we determine they are responsible . What will happen . That will be clearly damaging to u. S. Russian relations. I do not believe that the russians want worsening relationships with the u. S. But its going to take a lot of discussion and dialogue to better understand what is the relationship that russia wishes to have with the u. S. One of the big issues is russian interference in last years election. Thats the consensus view of all of our intelligence agencies. Is that on your agenda for the meeting with foreign minister lavrov . What can you say to them . What will be the consequences if russia tries Something Like that again . We have had previous conversations about it when i met with foreign minister lavrov in bonn, germany, on the g20. Well continue to talk with them about how this undermines any hope of improving relations not just with the United States but its pretty evident that theyre taking similar tactics into electoral processes throughout europe. And so theyre really undermining any hope of improved relations with many European Countries as well. Russia needs to confront this themselves. And i think examine carefully as to how is this helping them achieve their longer term objectives. And u. S. Sanctions will remain in place . There is no reason to be lifting sanctions. The reason the sanctions were put in place continue to exist. Theres been no change of the status of the situation in ukraine or crimea. And those sanctions will remain in place until those issues are addressed. What message do you think north korea should take from President Trumps decision to strike syria last week . Well, i think the message that any nation can take is if you violate international norms, if you violate international agreements, if you fail to live up to commitments, if you become a threat to others, at some point, a response is likely to be undertaken. And i think in terms of north korea, we have been very clear that our objective is a denuclearized korean peninsula. We have no objective to change the regime in north korea. That is not our objective. The whole reasons underlying the development of a Nuclear Program in north korea are simply not credible. Theres one report that the United States has drawn up plans perhaps to assassinate kim jongun. Thats not true . Im aware of no such plans. In the president s meeting with the president of china, the president often complained that china is not doing enough to take on the north korean Nuclear Program. Did he convince president xi to take more aggressive action . What was the response to the chinese of the president s determination to go it alone, if he must . I can tell you President Trump and president xi had very extensive discussions regarding the serious situations in north korea. They met for quite some time, one on one, to discuss north korea. There was a full range of options discussed between the two leaders. President xi expressed agreement that the situation has reached a new level of seriousness and threat. He expressed a view that he wanted to be supportive in terms of causing the regime in pyongyang to change its view. Around the future need for those weapons. China has expressed on multiple occasions and they reaffirmed it in our discussions with us here in maralago that their policy is unchanged. That is for a denuclearized korean peninsula. Are you seeing the actions you need to see . Well, well wait and see, george. Its only be a couple of weeks since we announced our policy changes and have called on the government of china to take additional steps. We expect that they will. They have indicated that they will. And i think we need to allow them time to take actions and well continue to be in very close discussions with them. The conversations have been very open, george, and very candid. How much time do we have with north korea . How close is kim jongun to developing a weapon that could actually reach the United States . Well, the assessments are, obviously, somewhat difficult. But clearly, hes made significant advancement in delivery systems. Thats what concerns us the most. The sophistication around their rocket launch programs, their sophistication around the type of fueling that they use, and theyre working their way towards the test of an intercontinental ballistic missile. These are the kinds of progress that give us the greatest concerns. We have been quite clear with the regime in pyongyang that thats what we want them to cease. So what we would hope was that with no further testing, their program doesnt progress. Thats what we have asked for. Them to cease the testing before we can begin to think about having further talks with them. And that development of the intercontinental missile, that is a red line for President Trump, isnt it . If we judge they have perfected that type of delivery system, that becomes very serious. A very much serious stage of their further development. Finally, sir, on the issue of mexico. You met with the Mexican Foreign minister at the state department this week. In that meet, did you make it clear that the United States expects mexico to pay for the border wall President Trump has proposed . We had no conversation about that issue, george. We were we have had an i think very productive talks around actions that can be taken to slow and stem and discourage transmigration of people coming from Central America through mexico and entering the United States. And, in fact, i know you have im sure you have seen the data that is coming out and the level of immigration illegal crossings from mexico, whether its a mexican nationals or in Central American nationals, has dropped dramatically. I think mexico is quite pleased. And we have had a number of discussions with them on how we Work Together to continue to make further progress. Thats surprising to me. No discussion of the border wall. President trump spoke about the border wall so often during the campaign. Is it the policy of the United States that mexico must pay for that wall . Its not part of the discussions between the foreign minister and myself. Were talking about how to organize a greater effort around transnational crime. And counternarcotics to stem the flow of narcotics that flow into the United States. And the flow of weapons from the United States into mexico that supports the cartel. Were really focused on working at very high levels to address some of these problems and challenges that are really in the interest of both of our countries to make progress on. Mr. Secretary, thanks for your time. My pleasure. Lets get analysis from tom friedman, the pulitzer prizewinning columnist for the New York Times. Tom, thanks for joining us this morning. You just heart secretary of state tillerson there. No change in the United States military strategy towards syria. I guess the big question is, somewhat the strategy right now . What i heard are three messages. One, that the trump people feel that in launching this Cruise Missile attack in retaliation for assads use of chemical weapons, they have reduced the chances that assad will use such chemical weapons again or that somebody else will. Thats not an unimportant thing. I think they also feel they have increased the uncertainty in places like north korea as to whether the u. S. Will use force if the North Koreans cross the red line on intercontinental ballistic missiles. But what i also think he made clear is that right now this administration is not interested in going any further than the obama team did in terms of actually changing the balance of power on the ground between the Opposition Forces, the proamerican Opposition Forces there, the assad regime, and the russians and iranians backing them. Without that, its hard to see any longterm change right now. But its still early in the process. The question is, what kind of leverage you can use with russia to get them to pull away from assad. That doesnt appear to be happening. I was struck by something King