tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg July 27, 2017 6:00pm-7:00pm EDT
>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." begin this evening with north korea, american intelligence agencies estimate that north korea will able to launch reliable missile that could reach the united states within one year. it had previously been thought that john yang was a roughly four years from developing long-range missiles. however, in a test earlier this month, north korea demonstrated capabilities of striking alaska. to realizefficials
they miscalculated the capabilities. president trump vowed to confront north korea during his recent visit to poland. joining a me now is a david sanger, national security correspondent for the "the new york times." he wrote this story "experts say north korea could have a missile reach u.s. by next year." what changed? david: a couple of things have changed here in the short-term thing is what you mentioned, which is, they conducted this test. it was done and a high parabola, 1700 miles and came down. it didn't go far in distance, but anything that knows anything about missile technology knows that flattening it out isn't hard. decided not toy do that, because the reaction if you drop one of these rings off the coast of l.a. or something
is going to be a lot greater than if you do this high parabola test. the test was actually more useful to them, because of what they need to figure out is can they make a warhead reenter the atmosphere and not burn up here to that is an issue that took us a lot of time in the 1980's and took -- in the 1950's and took the soviets a lot of time in the 1950's. we don't know exactly how close they are, but everyone has been whispering a long time that that four year outnumber could well be wrong. what you're seeing happen here is the end of the caution -- the over caution that came from mistakes in iraq and intelligence agencies. werlie: "and the iraq case capabilities the -- and the north korean case, one official noted this deed of
the program have been consistently underestimated much as it was with the soviet union several years ago and china more than 50 years ago." underestimate. david: we are all captivated by the last mistake we made in life. they reached that conclusion in part because they made great advances before the first persian gulf war. in part because every previous mistake that the u.s. intelligence agencies have made from world war ii forward have been to underestimate how close a country was to getting a nuclear capability. harry truman had a memo on his desk the weekend that the soviets conducted their first nuclear test in 1949 saying don't worry, we still have time on this. we underestimated the chinese in the 1960's, the indians in the
1970's and the pakistanis in the 1980's. for long time in the intelligence agencies, the theory was, if you don't be more aggressive and say it could happen earlier, you can get fired. your iraq it was, if overestimate and embarrass us, you can get fired here to are getting back to the norm now. charlie: but this july 4 test showed them a lot in terms of the possibilities. david: that is right. charlie: we assume that they can make a weapon small enough to fit on a missile that they are developing. david: if they can't now, they will be able to in a few years here it is hard to do, but remember, they are not doing it to american backs. -- two american specs. ton america builds, it is precise specifications. this missile is for one thing,
to guarantee that kim jong-un stays in office. they are not thinking operationally how they might launch missiles on the united states, they know it is the end of their regime. charlie: it is the end of everything. david: the end of everything. this is all about survival for kim-jong un he sees something like a not be has and gave it up in 2003. he says don't worry, give it up, we will integrate you with the west. the integration was pretty poor and when his people turned against him, the united eights, europe, and arab states bombed him until summit he pulled them out of a ditch and shot him. andjong-un looks at that says not me. the big difference between him
and his mother is he is really going full speed. charlie: you have to give the devil his due, he has shown a sense of urgency that has paid off. david: urgency determination. when somebody write the history of this, it will be a history of a dead rogue country with no silicon valley to fall back on that figured out how to steal, tag, higher, and arrive -- and bribe, hire, people. charlie: is a psychology we have to get more urgency about what we are doing because opera and andrs -- because clapper others have argued we have to act as if they have a weapon here it everything we do has to be based on the premise that they have the possibility to do this? david: that is right. i just saw general clapper last
week. he was with a lot of the other intelligence chiefs and this was the big theme. orear away, two years away, three years away, doesn't make a big difference. the fact of the matter is it take so long to improve defenses, figuring out your next cyber attack on north korea's missiles. yup to start now as if they had it now. ,harlie: there is also this somebody said to me that in terms of america's strategy that we already base of this question -- we will have to do one of two things. the chinese are not going to do what we hope they are going to do. so, it is either living with north korea having the weapons potential or else we have to attack them. and the president will have to make that ethical decision knowing that if -- that if a cold decision knowing it will
kill at least 200,000 people. is that wrong? david: it is probably right. there are some off ramps that. have to have a little bit of sympathy for donald trump, because every american president over the last four or five has kicked this problem down the road. every time they saw an incremental north korean advance, they looked at the two options you described and they said look, we're not going to attack these guys. so, let's put up with it and try some more incremental things. it is 10 to 14 million people depending on how you define the city's limits, one of the great economic power houses of asia and the world. more portly, it is our close american ally.
that is really not an option unless you have an attack plan that the south koreans agree to and that seems unlikely. every american president has decided we cannot go that route, but they also don't want to give in. they in-depth with we are going to increase sanctions, isolate them more. thomas became a joke, we would go to these briefings and they try to convince you that the sanctions they're going to do this week are more super duper wonderful ineffective than the ones they tried three months before. as you said, there is only one engine that is going to work, if the chinese turn off the oil, or if we wind away to turn off the oil on the -- if we find a way to turn off the oil on the north korean side. charlie: or a cyber weapon. somethingyber weapon, terrible happens to the pipelines, there are a few other things you could do to squeeze
them down. president bush had good success when he found a single bank in jong-un's father kept his fortune and and that was the money used to pay off all of the generals around him and others for their loyalty. when they stopped that bank, it caused a lot of screaming. they spread their money out around a lot more now. what you are right, we are in a bad spot and you've got to whether, awfulw as that is, when president trump looks at this issue, you know, i has certain crisis advantages for him. it focuses attention on something other than the russian scandal. i don't mean for a moment to suggest that he wants us to get into a war, i don't think he does. but he has a real crisis in front of him at a moment --
charlie: obama said the toughest thing is going to be north korea. david: that is right. the one thing he left them was the accommodation of cyber and system.rfare 27 -- the the problem with cyberattacks is what works on thursday may not work next monday. they are temporary. they buy you some time. they bought us a year in iran, that was a critical year. they bought a little time in north korea, but it looks like time is up. charlie: fascinating. thank you, david. coming up, we talk about cutter and its arab neighbors. back in moment. stay with us. ♪
♪ several on june 5, middle eastern states severed relationships with qatar accused of supporting terrorism and their enemy, iran. it has thrown an unstable region into deeper turmoil. is the united arab emirates ambassador to the united states since 2008 here it he has been called the most influential ambassador in
washington. and we have acting director of the cia we are deeply grateful. let me begin with you. what is the problem with the qataris? what are they doing that it so offends you? a first, is this philosophical or diplomatic disagreement. saudi, what kind of middle east they want to see 10 years from now, it will be fundamentally opposed to what qatar wants to see now. what we want to see is more secular, stable, prosperous, empowered, strong government. what we have seen qatar do for the last 10 to 15 years, support groups like the muslim other
islamist militias in syria and libya, the exact opposite direction we think our area needs to go. our disagreement is what the future looks like and that is not something we have been able to square with the qataris for a long time. charlie: what do they want? >> i think they want more groups like the hamas, the taliban, i do not think it is a quince event. you have the taliban embassy, you have groups going on every day promoting and justifying suicide bombing. why they do that, we don't have an answer, perhaps michael can help us. but we seem to be at odds with core belief of what we want the region to be. charlie: are there central demands, because there was a long list of demands including ending al jazeera, you will want
to isolate them. it hasn't worked entirely, jordan is not isolated from qatar. what are the core demands, how could this be negotiated? >> great question. the court a man -- if you step -- the core demand's if you want happeningtext to what today. in 2014, they pulled their ambassadors over the same set of grievances, the same set of issues, support for terrorist, meddling in foreign affairs, and inciting provocation. he invited all the leaders and had an open conversation, and honest airing of grievances with the qatari leader. at the end of the meeting, i document was signed and i brought a copy with me. it is right here and it has the
signature of the emir. it was over the same set of issues. qatar promised to stop supporting groups and individuals giving us a hard time. thatorcefully, everything has been signed into the agreement has been violated for the past three years. the collective frustration with a highr countries are at level. sit down witho qatar tomorrow and negotiate the 13 demands. if the qataris are willing to negotiate, so far they haven't been able to say that. we want a solution, a diplomatic solution, but the willingness to find a solution lies not in riyadh, not in abu dhabi, -- charlie: this took place in what year? yousef: november 2014. charlie: three years ago?
so not because of the visit of president trump to react and the arab summit? yousef: no. this is like a pot that has been sitting on the stove a very long it has boiled. once, three years ago and today it has actually gotten worse. we got to a point where we said we can't live like this anymore. you can't sit around the table with us and support the groups threatening to kill us and kill our children. you cannot be inside the tent was a porting groups undermining our security. if you want to continue that foreign policy, you are more than welcome to. they have every right to come back tomorrow and say we reject these demands and we don't want to negotiate. charlie: what happens if they do that? yousef: we are within our rights to say we don't want a
relationship with you. it is hard for you to, and horse upon any country -- and force upon any country to have a relationship where they don't feel it is in their best interest. you have several groups that undermine them, not one or two. the u.s. aboutis this, on the one hand you have the president saying he is all in and then you have the secretary of state saying he is trying to negotiate. michael: a me to you what my attitude is and we can get to their attitude. is absolutely right. this is been going on a long time. i think what happened here is that qatar, small country, small wealthion, significant 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 and said, ok, where can we make a difference. and one of the areas that was open was talking to these groups that the rest of us won't talk to and interact with. they saw an opportunity to play a role with that and as they became closer to these groups over time, they started supporting them. charlie: financially? michael: in many ways. roots that the united states of america considers to be international terrorist organizations that we have designated as such, hamas and taliban have offices, and they are supporting them and others with money and arms including another designated terrorist organization of the united states and syria. support tow, clear
terrorist groups. a lot of people talk about the muslim rubber hood. -- muslim brotherhood. we don't see it as an international terrorist organization. we have looked at it hard, but it is absolutely an organization that wants to -- through -- iical means -- we think think they would tell you a different story. charlie: they used clinical means and elected a president, right? michael: in egypt. they want to impose a way of life in the middle east and qatar supports those organizations. how should the american people think about this in my perspective? they should think about it as the qataris are trying to do what the muslim brotherhood in places like the emirates and saudi arabia what the russians tried to do in the united states
in terms of interfering in our politics. it is exactly the same. yousef: we have become really good at fighting terrorists once they are on the battlefield here we are good at defeating isis and al qaeda. once they're on the battlefield, we can take them out. our challenge has been how do we prevent them from getting to the battlefield in the first place. how do we get them before they become terrorists? there evidence they supported al qaeda or isis? yousef: there is evidence that they supported al qaeda in syria. they have supported islamist militias in libya. and they have supported groups in somalia. they allowed bin laden to live in -- >> about a year and half ago, a
senior official called a senior uae official. we will leave the names out, but the purpose was, we need your advice. how can we convince the qataris to stop supporting them. the u.s. government is aware and unable to prevent it. it is the world's worst ekept -- kept secret. do any other states support al-nusra in syria? >> i don't know. charlie: you don't know? michael: i know i have an issue -- i have an issue with qatar, because they have supported the groups. we have seen qatari funds going into syria and libya.
beenie: al-nusra has considered different than al qaeda, and my right? michael: it is the al qaeda affiliate in syria. charlie: it has gone through name changes. michael: yes. there is a third piece of this, we talked about the terrorist organizations, the muslim brotherhood, and then there is out to zero -- then there is al jazeera. in america you see freedom of the press, let al jazeera do its job as a journalistic organization. the american people need to think of it this way, what if a canadian broadcasting company was trying to incite individuals to conduct attacks in the united hates. the united states would get upset about that and have a conversation with the canadian government about that. that is what is happening here. yousef: they are not mutually
exclusive here to can support freedom of the press and the against incitement at the same time here at this is not a private channel geared they have clerics on a weekly show that remote, condone, and justified suicide bombing. and the u.s. had a problem when buthad soldiers in iraq, it still continues. americanthere is a big base there. it is used as a launching pad for activities and elsewhere, yes? yousef: yes. charlie: and their example is they are friends with everybody, that is what they say. that is what the prime minister said when he was here, we are not engaged in terrorist activities. they suggest that hamas is supported by people other than them, right? michael: this was the point i tried to get to at the
beginning, the cost of them trying to be friends with everybody is the everybody -- the bad guys they are friends with want something from them, that friendship. and that is support. charlie: financial support for terrorist activities. what about the base? connected to the base, your emails were hacked. do you want to get the american base out of qatar? yousef: i think so far it has not been harmed. i was in abu dhabi a few days ago. he think does that the base operation has not been touched geare. charlie: do you want it out of qatar? that's what it said in the email? yousef: i want qatari behavior to change. i think to an extent, the base gives them a certain amount of cover.
and i think that is what we are concerned about. charlie: that is hard for the united states, because the base has been so valuable? now we get to washington's view on this, my perception of washington's view. in the state department they look at this as not a healthy thing for the gcc, not a healthy thing for our sunni arab allies. charlie: this conflict -- michael: at a time when we are all trying to stand up to iran. they look at the base and one this to go away, right? to the secretary of state getting on a plane and go into the region to try to resolve this. we can come back to that. i think the president's view is exactly what we have been talking about here. this is behavior that is unacceptable, this is behavior that is feeding the problem we all have and it has to stop. there was a little bit of a difference of opinion, not a
little bit. notef: charlie, this is about the base or president trump's visit. this is about our issues with qatari policy and base are no base, we would still have concerns. charlie: this is not a new issue, when you brought it up with them all along -- that should not have been unexpected, what is their response? yousef: the response, you have heard the emir say this, they don't believe the groups they support our terrorists. he has been asked that and he said we don't believe they are terrorists. charlie: we don't believe that the muslim brotherhood are terrorists, according to michael. they are supporting far worse than the muslim brotherhood. or even the taliban or
hamas -- it is not one or two, it is a consistent had an of behavior. it has continued to allow them to undermine countries like egypt, saudi arabia, the uae. you are in a conference recently where a mutual friend told you about supporting the muslim brotherhood -- charlie: he worries about the muslim brotherhood. >> we all do. these are groups that undermine our stability. ♪
♪ charlie: i want to talk about you run they came out of the riyadh conference as united opposition to iran. the president has spoken to it since then. what is the basic split and basic fear of you ron, is it that they are supporting -- fear of iran, is it that they are supporting terrorism? supporting the views into the united arab emirates, is it that iran is exporting their resolution and you want to stop them to make sure they don't dominate the region? do the exportly the revolution, it is in their constitution.
they have done it with great success in places like iraq, syria, lebanon, and now yemen. they have even reached afghanistan. the hegemonic policy of iran. this is not theoretical. we see iranian footprints everywhere in the region. if you were to map out 15 years ago where iran's influence was and you would do the same map today, that area would be much larger. they have a much stronger influence in iraq, syria, and lebanon. part of the region we are in yemen is to prevent that in yemen. we don't want to see you ron replicate -- iran replicate hezbollah. charlie: what are we planning to
do as far as you know about iran's behavior? understand, he knows more than i do, is we plan to challenge in specific places in the middle east on iranian misbehavior, mostly behind the scenes, but we are going to take it on and this is a significant states.or the united for a very long metal of time, we ignored iranian -- a very long period of time we ignored iranian behavior even when it was directed at us her. in marine barracks bombing lebanon goes back to tehran, the united states did not respond.
shia militia getting advanced ied's from iranians killing hundreds of u.s. soldiers in iraq and afghanistan, two administrations, bush and obama administration did nothing. really interesting as to why the history is what it is, but i think it is changing. and i think it is a good thing that the united states along with partners are going to push back against this hegemonic behavior, conducting terrorism on their own, supporting terrorists in the region, internationally designated terrorists like hezbollah, providing to insurgents her. it is in my view about time that we push back against that and increase the cost of them doing that. . charlie: is that your
understanding of what the trump administration's hollis the is -- administration's hollis the policy is? yousef: absolutely. one of the biggest challenges i see throughout the region that is probably undermining the stability of the region is sectarianism. in countries like iraq, lebanon, guilty --he only one the mainly guilty party is iran. michael: this is one of the points most people don't understand. they think it is us, they think it has always been there, always in the attention. the iranians he hader in the region has made it much worse.
--o be in yemen, cities and went to templees together. charlie: that's what happened in iraq> michael: absolutely. there is a trick here that is a needle that is hard to thread. i think president obama was on tough line toe manage and president trump might be on the other, and here is the trick is there is a real struggle going on in iran between the hardliners -- i don't call them moderates, but centrists. leader and supreme solo money and running, and all of the people with him -- charlie: the president is a centrist? michael: absolutely. charlie: the guard and supreme leader?
you could see it in the debates between the candidates, you could see the tension and frustration one side with the other about the future of iran. and so, the question is, how do malignedback on this behavior in the region that has been going on for a long time that is making the region more unstable, but do it in a way that doesn't empower the hardliners in this internal debate, because we all want the debate to evolve over time. it will not happen tomorrow, but we want the debate to go in one direction and we want to help it. that is the top line here to walk in it will be tough to get right. charlie: are the iranians challenging us on the seas? comingan iranian vessel close today and a warning shot
had to be fired. the question is how is this going to accelerate and where is it accelerating towards? i think the iranians are good at testing people and they are trying to test how far the trump administration is willing to go. you have seen the naval skirmishes, it has happened several times -- and to the extent we can collectively signal that this is not acceptable am a that we will push back, that we will interdict your shipments whether the united states, saudi arabia, and other countries -- charlie: where is europe? yousef: somewhere in the middle, between confronting and appeasing. michael: i think, charlie, that the europeans are really important here. it is important that we bring them along. i think u.s. leadership is required to bring them along.
if we can have the europeans with us, it is harder for the hardliners to say it is all about the united states. it is important for the president to bring along the europeans. charlie: let's bring in turkey, where is turkey in this? turkey is involved in syria. turkey has had its own authoritarian regime. turkey is playing an and central role in the region, but i think that role has helped empower radical groups. what does turkey want in syria, i'm not sure i'm qualified to answer that. charlie: in theory they want to overthrow assad immediately. yousef: there are a lot of people that want that. charlie: includes the
saudi's and israelis -- yousef: at the end of the day we want a syrian government that can deliver for its people and is not dominated. finding a cease-fire agreement that would work with the russians has failed, because russians are a major player. >> before russia stepped in, each country went for their own interest separately and we were never operating as a team in syria on the same objective. charlie: who's failing was that? michael: i think it is just the way things laid out. a complicated issue and it is very difficult to get everybody on the same page. charlie: at the conference we attended, some people speaking out about that. where do you think syria -- you
and i have talked about this -- yousef: the coalition has taken mosul. raqqa.ht is on in charlie: we are going to win that fight. michael: there are areas where bes has control, those will taken. the caliphate will come to an end and the coalition will have been successful, but a couple of important points. one is, that does not mean the defeat of isis. isis will return to its original roots, which is al qaeda in iraq. it will return to an insurgency. charlie: anywhere? an online base? michael: it will be in the shadows just like before in iraq. yousef: they will go underground. but remember when the
united states left iraq, al qaeda and iraq still had several thousand fighters hidden in the shadows. that is where isis will go. there were still be a security issue that has to be mannish managedhas to be and the united states will have to make a decision. then there is a huge political problem in iraq and syria. the military fight was a necessary condition to defeat isis. a political solution is a sufficient condition, right? the military success is going to unravel unless we get the politics right. yousef said,y what having a government that represents all of its people and
not just part of the country. charlie: then you come to the question, how do you get that government and can assad be a part of that? michael: my personal view is assad cannot be a part of it. i am disappointed that the administration has act away from the idea that assad has to go. charlie: they have said our enemy and syria is isis. michael: if we don't get rid of assad, isis will come back. charlie: because of the supporting and the recruitment -- accept: they will never him as their leader. , i think it is a little easier. i think in the post isis world wo mosul, there will be to
concerns. they won't disappear or a battery, they will go underground. that is a security concern, but the bigger political concern is who is going to govern mosul afterwords. it will be responsible for governing, rebuilding, and coming up with local leadership that prevents ice is i'm coming back? i mentioned that maliki is in moscow speaking with putin. what happened after the iraqi sunnis disrespecting the and isis had room to grow. >> one example where did work was the awakening movement.
when locals stood up and took responsibility for their towns. charlie: it was a decision in their interest to knock out al qaeda at that time, because al qaeda had practices that were contrary to the wishes of people. michael: the reason they were successful is he was able to convince them that they would have a role in the future of their country. at the end of the day, they didn't get that. it will be really hard to sell that idea to them again. charlie: is the prime minister of iraq prepared to do that? he says he is. michael: i think with a sufficient amount of u.s. leadership, it is possible to get there. but without u.s. leadership, it is not. charlie: you come to the issue of u.s. leadership. how happyalked about you are that the president is willing to push back, but you
hear in the region that u.s. leadership is not there beyond what happened at riyadh, beyond the effort at extremism, against isis. think we see a level of engagement we have not seen in some time. charlie: the president says he wants to do some of the things that she doesn't want to do things other people say is necessary in syria. >> i think there is a role for regional countries to step up here charlie: that is what everyone wants. yousef: some have stepped up. arabie: take united emirates, what participation has your country had? beginning had in the -- and we had a female fighter pilot lead -- charlie: you were involved,
right? beginning.the we were trying to reach a political deal in yemen. charlie: what does that represent? yousef: very important. it represents a reconciliation between the various actions in yemen. charlie: both saudi arabia and the emirates always seem to speak together and the iranians are on a separate side. wequestion is, is that what are going to see, a desperate spite on the part of iran and and saudi arabia, the emirates, and other arab states, for influence? i think we are already seeing it. charlie: could it get hotter?
could it lead to a hotter war, there is a year that the middle east will go up in flames? president obama -- crack me if president obama was in disagreement with the saudi's and emirates as well, he wanted to see the saudi's and sunni states speak to the iranians. that was a point -- he did not want to do what president trump did, just take one side. i'm not sure you are in favor. world wen a perfect would like to see the heat turned down on both sides. charlie: how would you do that? the challenges how do you do that when the other side is turning up the heat everywhere else. how to we sit down at a table when they are on the attack?
it has been very difficult to sit down and try to reach some kind of conclusion or consensus while one team is directly attacking us throughout the region. we don't see moderation in syria, we don't see moderation and her reign, not in yemen -- --e by made a nuclear deal, the behavior aspect is carried out by forces who report directly to the supreme leader than the parliament? michael: absolutely. the other thing that is going to happen, charlie, when the caliphate is taken away is there are going to be huge issues to address. issef mentioned one, which mosul. another is the syrian fighters,
who we have been -- the united states of america and our partners have been arming, training, and supporting side-by-side -- what will happen to them? ssad go after them, will the iranians go after them, will he has ballot go after them -- will the has ball at go after them? will we protect them? same story with the kurdish syria.rs in what will happen to them when the fight is over and a sod -- assad and turkey are able to turn on them. big issues. what happened to the iranian -- desire to have this bridge. that is what they are working on, that is where they are.
how will that play out? charlie: giving them access to lebanon and hezbollah. michael: directly over land and sea. how does that play out? they have their proxies there. we are there. how does that play out when isis and caliphate is over? issef: what we want to avoid iran exporting that vacuum and taking it over and putting more asluence as a close -- opposed to local leaders stepping up and taking control of mosul. michael: here is my greatest concern and maybe yousef can make me feel better. i think our military strategy in the region is brilliant. i think jim mattis is doing a remarkable job.
what we are doing militarily has been enhanced, accelerated. i think that is first rate. is anybody inee the administration talking about a political strategy for all of the issues that, after. i do not see the secretary of state talking about it. i do not know if it is there or not and that is why i am worried. the politics are so important. charlie: do you agree? yousef: i agree. i think we have been talking a lot about this. charlie: what about this, there will be no possibility for a grand bargain unless there is regime change in iran, unless there is the moderates who have -- onfor one hand.
michael: a regime change and powers the hardliners, gives them what they want. charlie: from inside when they choose the political candidates who can run. michael: i think the key will be a replacement for the supreme leader, it could be next year or 10 years from now. that will be the major reflection point. are the high liners successful in choosing another hard-line leader, or will more moderate individual in march? that will be critical to the future of iran, the future of its relationship in the region. charlie: and the future of the region? sunnil: ultimately, our allies and partners are absolutely right for iran to stop its maligned behavior in the region. charlie: is it possible what you
want is regime change in qatar? >> absolutely not. i know that is floating around and i know people say there is a military component to this, i am here to assure you, there is no element of regime change or military peace of this. we want a policy change, a behavior change and we would welcome the opportunity to discuss it. charlie: does it have to include al jazeera? yousef: i don't want to litigate the list in public. the list was handed over to kuwait, because the mayor was going to play a leading role and we handed it to the united states as a courtesy. within two hours, could charlie did to the press and it is now being litigated and negotiated in public. it was disrespectful to the emir
>> amazon tumbling after delivering higher expenses and a disappointing forecast. that pushed jeff bezos off the top of the rich list. >> that's right. starbucks is also slumping amid sales expectations. the pressure is on to make it big in china. >> the senate approving sanctions on russia. the bill also prevents president trump from