tv Charlie Rose PBS September 11, 2015 12:00pm-1:01pm PDT
>> rose: welcome to the program. we begin this evening with a look at president obama's foreign policy and a conversation with jeffrey goldberg of the "the atlantic" magazine. >> this iran deal could turn out to be one of the genius moves of modern diplomacy. it could. >> rose: it could change the region. >> it could and neutralize iran. his goal is to neutralize adversaries, and to take away the most potent weapon the iranians could have. if that works, it works. >> rose: we conclude with a look at apple's new product line with josh tyrangiel, the editor of bloomberg businessweek. >> the truth is there is only been one iphone, there only ever will be one iphone. as much as apple changed history under steve jobs, the idea that first they put a computer in
your pocket with the phone is remarkable. the ability to keep ahead in that space is amazing. >> rose: president obama's foreign policy and apple's new product when we >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by: american express. >> rose: additional funding provided by: >> 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 turn tonight to the nuclear deal with iran and other big foreign policy questions, including the rise of the issue of migrants.
today, 42 senators have voiced their support for the agreement and it is expected to survive a republican opposition. wednesday, former secretary of state hillary clinton endorsed the deal in a speech at the brookings institution and said she would not h hesitate to take military action if iran attempts to obtain a nuclear weapon. and this former vice president dick cheney called the accord madness and argued a better deal was still possible. >> meanwhile, ayatollah khamenei ruled out negotiations with the united states on a nuclear agreement. jeffrey goldberg, national correspondent for the "the atlantic" and national recipient for the award for reporting. pleased to have you. welcome. >> thank you. >> rose: while i have been away, what's happened in the on't want to talk to the issue
of migrants. the pope is speaking to it, the president spoke in the last 24 hours. we'll talk about that, but, first, where are we? it's apparent that the president has enough democratic support. >> it's all over the but the shout bug there is a lot of shouting. the republicans are trying to engineer various last-minute maneuvers to try to sink the deal or delay the deal, there's this whole maneuver republicans are suggesting. some of them are arguing the deal doesn't exist because they were supposed to have seen all the provisions of the deal and there are side agreements between iran and the i.a.e.a., the atomic energy agency, that they haven't seen because no one's seen and they say, therefore, the clock never even started on the deliberation process. they're throwing a lot of stuff against the wall and seeing what happens. but september 17, this deal goes into effect. obama has the votes in the senate. so sanctions are going to start coming off and iran is going to presumably start complying with the demands of the deal.
>> rose: do we know or do polls tell us that the american people, the more they've heard the less they like the deal? >> yeah, not very popular in the american public. there have been a lot of -- millions and millions of dollars of advertising going up against it. the issue of iran starts at a deficit. especially people older than 45, 50, think of the image of iran dating back to the hostage crisis, south not an easy sell. it's not popular in the public. it's not popular in coming either. we forget, this is going to be voted down in congress, you know. >> rose: right. a little political maneuver on the part of the white house has been sort of clever to frame it, well, we have enough votes to get this through. but actually, if they had a vote in the house tomorrow, 60% of the house would vote against it, i think 58 senators would vote against it, only a minority of legislators approve it. >> rose: the president can veto the revolution.
>> the argument right now is between whether the democrats filibuster in order to avoid forcing the president to veto. the optics of the president vetoing this are not good. they have enough votes to filibuster and there is differing opinions on this within the senate. some democratic senators arguing we have to have an up and down vote, everybody has to be on the record. this is important. let's not just push this out of the public's mind. we have to state what we believe and, so, that's where the argument is now. but the deal is the deal. the deal is going through. >> rose: so what are the consequences of that? >> i norms! funny you should ask. (laughter) i mean, look, this is the first time that iran is going to be held to a deal that curtails their nuclear activities for 15 years, 10 years is one mark, 15 years is another. i'm amazed the number of people on both sides of the issue who are absolutely sure about what's going to happen. anybody who tells you that,
well, x is going to happen because we've done y, they're kidding themselves, including the advocates of the deal. the advocates of the deal, this is what happens in washington, everything begins to get sold so hard that people lose a little bit of credibility because they're arguing fanta sivment what will happen? iran will probably comply with the deal for a while because they're going to get money and keep the flow of sanctions relief coming. i bet they're going to cheat on the margins. i don't know if they're going to, ten or 15 years from now, move toward nuclearization. they're not supposed to, according to the terms of the deal. obviously, the opponents like dick cheney are arguing -- well, cheney is arguing a whole other level of drama. he's saying they're going to nuke us, that this deal leads to an inexorable pathway that they'll end up by sending nuclear weapons our way. putting that aside, a lot of opponents say this is a disaster, that this will lead to
war. obviously, advocates of the deal are saying if we don't do this, there will be war. nobody really knows what's going to happen, though. >> rose: how has the president been as an effective salesman of this deal? which -- go ahead. >> no, he doesn't like selling congress, it's not his favorite thing to do. he doesn't like calling up legislators and explaining to them patiently why they should do the things he thinks are right. we know that. he has spent more time on this issue selling, sort of -- you know, artisanal selling of this issue than anything he's ever done with congress. he is better at arguing this case than the opponents of the deal are at arguing their case. that's my personal opinion. >> rose: because facts aside? again, i'll show my hand. is the deal perfect? no. is the deal better than the alternative, which is no deal? that's the reality. >> rose: and that's his argument. created for themselves andey've
created for the world, that this is the deal, and if you don't do the deal, then bad things will happen, you know, yeah, the deas is better. i mean, if the deal didn't go through and now we're talking about theory because it is going to go through, if the deal doesn't go through, iran would be free to go pursue its nuclear ambitions, the rest of the world would look at america as sort of a feckless negotiate. >> rose: with no more chance of sanctions. >> yes. a lot of republicans believe america is powerful enough on the world stages to sanction iran. >> rose: here's what's interesting to me. just today cameron, alan and merkel. why we support the iran deal. it is said one of the important turning point of the foreign ministers of the p plus 51 countries came and said we
believe if you vote this thing down, sanctions are over. >> right. this was not russia and china telling democratic senators sanctions are over. these are our closest allies. >> rose: people who are imposing the sanctions. >> so if the deal went down, in short what would happen is the republicans would demand sanctions on companies that do business in iran. but since france, germany and great britain would all stick to the deal, their companies would be allowed to go into iran. we would be in a position where we would be setting up a trade war with our closest allies because we'll sanction french oil companies for doing business that the french government says according to this deal we can do, that's not a realistic scenario. >> rose: and they're all in favor of this deal saying the president did all he could, we couldn't have gotten more, this is a good deal -- not a perfect deal but a good deal. >> we'll never know if he can get more. the same thi is true if you go
buy a car. >> rose: all are saying that. no one's saying i'm opposed because the president -- >> no, that happens later when everything goes sideways but now everybody is as much for the deal as obama is for the deal. and in the other p5+1 countries they don't have the legislative drama going on here. >> rose: what about the republicans opposing the deal say they will drown the deal? >> i think that's an easy thing to say on the campaign trail, probably a harder thing to do once you get into the white house. if you get into the white house and you call up not china and russia again but britain and france and germany and saying, well, we're pulling out of this, it's not going to happen. >> rose: russia and china are in favor of the deal. >> yes. >> rose: the president said the russians are very helpful because they're included in
p5+1. >> there is a larger question. if you're a republican president and say this deal negotiated twi executive of the united states of america, we don't like it so we're just throwing it away, you know, one of the hall hallmarkf american power is our willingness to adhere to treaties and agreements that we sign. we are stable. we are not bipolar in that way. so if you go do that, who's going to negotiate with america thinking whatever they negotiated is going to stand over time. that is a serious problem. therefore, i think that a responsible republican president would say, you know, well, i could bust their chops a little bit more on iran, i could watch what they're doing, have zero tolerance for violations, but i just can't throw out this entire deal arranged by the international community. >> rose: there is also the idea that if there's a split between what the deal does and the rest of iran's conduct. that's what hillary spoke to, that's what the republicans are
speaking to and is what the ayatollah spoke to. >> his statements betray a very nervous man. i mean, that man is very nervous about the consequences of the deal, which should give some kind of comfort to americans who are worried. if the ayatollah is worried, that's a good thing. he said, we pushed these guys out, america, through the front door, we're not letting them back in through the window. that's literally what he's saying. he's saying, don't get any ideas about us moderating -- he's warning his people. he wouldn't have to say that unless he was worried that a lot of people even within his system are thinking, you know what, maybe -- >> rose: who? ouhani. >> rose: former negotiate. very careful guy. he's not talking about a new day and a new era. but i think that the clear signals from these so-called moderates are that we can talk
about other things as well. >> rose: my impression is the obama administration, while not saying it and while carefully saying iran's conduct is not part of this deal and carefully saying they will try to thwart iran's conduct as every step and perhaps even with a doubling effort, they believe that they have an opportunity here. >> right. >> rose: and that it's better to face an iran who doesn't have nuclear weapons as you're trying to curtail their activity than an iran that has nuclear weapons. >> president obama is very careful about talking this way. john kerry is a little bit less careful talking this way. but i think they both have at least a hope that this will set in motion a virtuous cycle in the relationship. iran will open up. americans and iranians will come into more contact. thcontact. the mod rats will be
strengthened. there is obvious hope. they believe 15 years is a long time and in 15 years anything can happen. i go back to the point that nobody knows nothing. that is perfectly plausible and perfectly plausible that iranian behavior gets worse in the coming years because the revolutionary guard corps gets a lot of money and gives it to houthis and hezbollah blah and everybody else. they have to show they're still relevant. and oil and everything else. all these things can be true. riern is complicated like the united states. >> rose: and then there are the israelis. >> yes. >> rose: the israelis made every effort they could to stop the deal. further deepening the conflict between the prime minister and the president. >> yeah. pretty dysfunctional. it's dysfunctional except it has to function. >> rose: right. here's the way i have been thinking about ts. the only reason there is a deal
is because of benjamin netanyahu. for ten years he has been arguing and lobbying and cay geology and threatening on the subject of iran. it was a combination of intense lobbying that got the american government to focus on this issue and got europe to focus on this issue. it was the threats that were judged to be credible by the pentagon, the threat of israeli unilateral action that got them focused on we've got to get sanctions in place that allay the israeli fears. so the sanctions brocket us to negotiations. >> rose: he prodded us into sanctions and sanctions delivered the deal. >> he was hoping sanctions would deliver regime change and be so crippling that the regime would collapse on itself. that was probably not realistic. it certainly wasn't obama's goal. it might have been a republican president's goal. here's a guy who could have take an victory lap in the past several months and say we've
gotten what we want, now i'm going to work with the president closely to make sure the provisions of the deal are as tough as they can be, but the man has a very black and white view of the world and that's reflected in the republicans. the issue is the idea of dealing with iran. the provisions of the deal are less important to the opponents including netanyahu and the republicans than the idea that you can negotiate with evil. this is the way -- netanyahu does not believe any deal is worth the paper is written on because the iranians are by their nature eliminationist antiseem mites that will destroy israel. >> rose: what does the president say. >> i asked him about the antisemitism of the regime.
i'll paraphrase what he said -- he believes yes they are antisemitic, thuggish, obviously sponsors of terrorism, that's what the state department says, but they respond to pressure, they respond to incentive. i think he puts north korea and iran in different baskets. there is a self-interest and reality basis to what iran does, what the regime does. and, so, he -- while he obviously signs the antisemitism -- finds the antisemitism onerous and repulsive he finds it logical and instrumental, to curry favor among arabs opposed to israel. i don't think the president believes iran with some pushback would ever dare try to harm israel with nuclear weapons. he obviously is very careful about saying, look, i take the threat seriously and israel is a close ally, but he is not in the same camp, obviously, as
netanyahu on this subject. he's not so apocalyptic. >> rose: what did the ayatollah mean when he said he didn't want israel to exist in 25 years? >> he doesn't want israel not to exist inta years. they believe th -- they have ben working through that -- toward that goal through their proxies hezbollah for some time. they have a the theological bel. he walks a line when he says it these days that obviously there are people in the system who have been cruder in the way they described it but he's reiterating in these statements core principles of the islamic revolution. the revolution are built on
anti-americanism and anti-zionism. >> rose: the majority of the country doesn't believe in that. >> israel has the most pro american population in the middle east. after israel it might very well be iran. 30, 35 years of ayatollah rule has turned that country into a very pro american place. >> rose: partly because they look at the social media and they say, we want to be like them? >> i think -- i mean, this is not a formula for a policymaker but it's good enough for me. i think the best antidote to islamist rule is islamist rule. you know, over two or three or four or five decades, it becomes quite tiresome for most to have the population that doesn't want to live under clerical rule. so they look at who does the clerics hate most, america? there must be something to say for america in that case. >> rose: shifting from that.
iran is an enemy of i.s.i.s., america is an enemy of i.s.i.s., israel is an enemy of i.s.i.s. >> i.s.i.s. doesn't have a lot of friends. >> rose: except sunnis in the anbar province. >> except in place where is it counts, yeah. this is one of the issues and i think this is why this issue is so complicated for people. we have shared interests with iran on a couple of fronts. in i.s.i.s. territory, most obviously, and in afghanistan and in sort of keeping the taliban -- >> rose: and perhaps in syria. you know, the iranians are so cynical in syria, they back bashar al-assad. bashar al-assad and the iranians combined with the russians have created this refugee crisis through their horrible behavior, and so, it's very hard to imagine iran being a productive player in that system. it's awful hard to imagine them being a productive player.
>> rose: when the history of this administration is written -- >> i'm trying. >> rose: i know you are. you've had really interesting interviews with the president, and you know the middle east and the israelis especially, is the obama administration going to come up with a pretty good grade on how it's handled the nuclear negotiations but a very bad grade on how it has met the challenge or i.s.i.s. in the region? >> i don't want to give you the copout political answer on the first part, but we don't know yet. this iran deal would turn out to be one of the genius moves of modern diplomacy. it could. >> rose: it could change the region. >> it could. it could neutralize iran. his goal is to neutralize adversaries. in this case it's take away the most potent theoretical weapon the iranians could have from him and that's what the goal is and if it works, then it works, and he'll get credit for it.
the issue is every presidency is a reaction to a previous presidency, right, and george w. bush went all the way into the middle east and the greater middle east and barack obama came in and was elected to do one thing. the reason he is president is to -- but the michael corlioni rule plays out. when i thought he was out, he's back in. the argument is if we had done more in 2011 and 2012 to stabilize the sir anysituation to move assad out before i.s.i.s. did, would that have worked? i asked the president that directly. this is where he gave the famous answer, you know, a bunch of dentists and carpenters and farmers -- >> rose: and blacksmiths -- -- so the blacksmiths and the carpets and the farmers, you
know, obama had the view early on they'd never defeat the combined forces of hezbollah and the revolutionary guard corps. and he may have been right. but action and inaction has consequences. i think there is a fair critique to be made that we should have done, we and the rest of the world should have done more before we had the spillover effect. >> rose: i don't think he ever saw the urgency of the deal and i think at every turn they would say we have recognized what a challenge i.s.i.s. is and we're initiating something new. we'll have more c.i.a. and special forces and all this, and then six months later they're saying it's really not working and we'll try this. >> rose:. so he has an allergy -- let me be fair to the president. two things he understands. one is every day that goes by where an american soldier isn't killed in the middle east is a
good day. he understands if american soldiers are being killed in the middle east there is no other issue in the world. he can't deal with asia or africa -- >> rose: he wants to pivot to asia. >> and that remains the dream, obviously. the second thing is he knows, after iraq, he knows that there is close to zero public pressure in america to further engage in the syria crisis or the iraq crisis. >> rose: but at the same time he must know, you know, that this thing is a threat. what's happening if -- you know... >> look, eventually, jihadists decide that america is the enemy, right. this is the long-term problem. the long-term problem is that we are one medium-sized terrorist attack, either in the american homeland or in the american target overseas, god forbid, we are sponsored by i.s.i.s. before we have to change policy and
pivot toward something much more dramatic than we have now. so that's where we're at. we're always one incident away from further engagement. >> rose: the other interesting thing about the obama administration is we now know that hillary clinton initiated, obviously with the president's support -- we don't know who is the mother or father of the idea -- but sending one of her key aides, jake sullivan and bill burns, deputy secretary of state, to see if there was a possibility. >> well, obama is the author. before he became president, he said -- remember the night they had, i'll talk to anybody, oh, that's so naive. now she's saying she'll initiate -- >> rose: without that, they would not have had the -- >> no, and she's trying to do two things at once and independents complicated. she's both saying look at my forward-leaning diplomacy got us
to this point, but i'm not entirely pleased with the iran -- >> rose: and i'll be tougher. and i'll be tougher. >> rose: on the non-nuclear issues. >> and i will be tougher on everything else, too. that was another takeaway from the speech. >> rose: i'll hold their feet to the fire and combat them at every turn. >> and also i don't like russia very much and i'm not going to be pushed around. this was yesterday's speech by hillary clinton was a hawkish speech. it was done within parameters but definitely hawkish. >> rose: i think she's basically more hawkish than he. >> i did an interview with her last year where she basically said "don't do stupid stuff" is not a great motto of a nation then had a fight with obama over it. >> rose: he basically said my foreign policy is don't do stupid stuff. >> yes, and that's not enough foreign policy. it's not enough to wake up in the morning and say not to do
anything stupid. but it's a good baseline (laughter) but here's a good way to think of it -- i think that hillary clinton wakes up in the morning when she thinks about foreign policy and says what can we do to make the world a better place. obama wakes up and says, what can we do to make the world a better place, but if i do that, will it have a boomerang effect i haven't thought of? in other words, it's a disposition. it's, before i do anything, let me think about the ramifications of doing it. >> rose: do you think obama thinks differently about foreign policy than most people you know about? >> i think he's more of an innovative foreign policy thinker than people -- >> rose: he's looking for creative ways to approach it differently? >> i think he's looking for creative ways to disengage from parts of the world. he's looking for creative ways to hand off problems that shouldn't be ours, in his opinion. the classic example of the chinese complaining the u.s. had to do more in afghanistan to
defeat the taliban because the chinese minds were under threat by the taliban. obama hears the chinese say that and say, why are we being suckers? if the chinese want to protect their mining interest in afghanistan, they should. the foreign policy elite disposition is we're the superpower, this is us, everything has to be us. and obama, i think, questions some -- we're seeing this develop, but he questions some underlying assumptions. one of the other assumptions he questioned is why do these small countries that are adversaries have to remain adversaries. burma was practice for cuba, cuba was practice for iran. he's achieved much more in terms of -- it's very hard for him to articulate this theory, i think, because american voters, i think, and certainly american politicians don't want to argue there are limitations to american power. that doesn't get you in office.
well, there are so many things we can't do. but i think he believes that we have to pick and choose, and that the security of the world should not depend sole on the american taxpayers' willingness to foot the bill for the world's largest military. >> rose: so where are you, the rest of the world? >> exactly. the constant question, the constant question that he asks. he was pushing britain a few months ago and britain's defense spending -- >> rose: yeah, but britain's sending planes into syria and they weren't doing that before. >> yes, and he is pushing on that stuff by the way. and, yes, he is asking more of allies. >> rose: while we're on him, we have to go, but i want to come back to the big question. is the plight of migrants, that has more emotional appeal. you have the pope on the case now and the pope is saying he's taken a syrian family into the vatican. >> quite a lecture in the oval office when the pope visits.
>> rose: i think the pope's right, too. >> do you? >> rose: yes! i don't think we can tolerate this kind of atrocity. >> well, can i make two points? >> rose: yeah. the first is, no, we can't tolerate this kind of atrocity. >> rose: i think people should have more of an open door about it. >> people should have more of an open door. but we wouldn't have the outflow of refugees from syria in particular in the world, not just the united states, had circled this problem early on. the solution -- >> rose: agreed. the solution to the syrian crisis is in syria. you can't take half the population of syria and move them to other parts of the world. >> rose: that's what vladimir putin says. >> incredibly helpful... >> rose: but exactly right. and john kerry's tried to get them together. they've been to geneva and other places and you need russia, somebody who has an fluence with
assad and somebody who has influence saying, unless, look, bashar, it's time to go. it's not time for the allies to go, it's time for you to go, you know. and we're not prepared to support you anymore, but we are prepared to play a role in the future. >> i don't think anybody knows what to do in syria, that's the long and short of it. >> rose: i'm not suggesting what the to do. i'm suggesting you need to get russia and iran involved. >> well, since they're lighting the fires, you've got to get them to at least not light the fires. the migrant issue is not just syria, by the way. it's terrifying. what's terrifying to europeans, and i just happened to speak serendipitously to european intelligence agency and what they're nervous beyond measure about is most of these syrians,
for instance, are males, you know, fighting age males. you know, they're coming in. it's very hard to vet. you don't understand who and what they are. we know that the europeans are obviously -- >> rose: it's an intelligence question. >> if, in two or three years, some of the people coming into europe now are engaged in jihadist activities in europe, you will not see europeans crying so much for these refugees. >> rose: what should we do about the refugees. >> what should you do about the refugees? i do think you have to solve these problems at the source. there's no -- >> rose: stop the war. we're taking in 10,000 now which is a minimal number. >> rose: lest assume we're taking in 10,000. does the intelligence question apply there? >> i think it does. but we're better at vetting, have more capabilities of vetting. we don't have an open border system like you have -- >> rose: but what do you think about your president's decision today to take in a lot more than
before? because we were taking less than european countries. >> but more than the arab countries, by the way. >> rose: yeah. it's actually kind of stunning if you look at the numbers of refugees taken in by the arab states, zero, zero. i don't mean to pick on saudi arabia, but i'll pick on saudi arabia. but it is amazing. i mean, the story of syria is a story of hypocrisy in so many ways. but, no, he's obviously responding to a pressing need and, of course, the other thing is if you're the american president and you want to tell everybody you want to the tell people what to do and people are coming to america for advice, you have to put up a little bit here. but this goes back to the hard question about the obama administration's early decisions on syria. >> rose: will history look at them as a failed opportunity? >> we'll say. you know, if the story of the bush administration is one of tragic overreaction, you know, the obama administration doesn't
want to be remembered as a story on the question of syria and other questions as a story of tragic underreaction. >> rose: so in terms of the arab spring which simply should have said we hope you have a lot of success, but we're not going to get involved in trying to get out of power or in power, it's your decision, we applaud democracy wherever you see it, go to it, keep us out of it. >> let me give you the formula. >> rose: is that it? yeah. >> rose: didn't end up good. nothing does in the near term. simple formia, obama looks at the middle east and says in the last 12 years, we've tried an experiment and full-on intervention in iraq and it didn't work. we've tried an experiment in partial intervention in libya and didn't work. we've tried non-intervention in syria and didn't work. so can't we just please pivot to asia? can't i just please deal with asia? because this is just management
of bad situations keeping them from getting worse than they are. >> rose: the argument is twofold -- who won the iraqi war, the iranians, you know. >> the iranians are good at winning. >> rose: didn't have a whole lot of skin in the game at that time. >> no, they didn't. >> rose: secondly, some will argue that because the middle east has kept the united states preoccupied, china's had to do a lot of things in africa and other places. would have been better if we had been more alert to the changes in asia and the velocity of change there. >> i believe people in the administration are very frustrated by the fact that the middle east takes up so much time and band width and the united states is still put on the hook for everything that goes wrong. >> rose: is hillary clinton one of them? >> would she like to pivot? there is nobody serious in wanted who doesn't think asia
isn't the future. >> rose: right. so, clearly, yes. she's also a more activist foreign policy maker, i think, and looks like a policy like libya and instead of what shouldn't we do, she says what should we do. >> rose: take u.s. relationship with a variety of places -- china -- is it better now than it was because of obama or less good? how do you measure the u.s.-china relationship? >> i don't know the answer to that question. >> rose: cyber espionage is a huge issue, or cyber warwear or hacking or whatever you want to call sit a big issue that divides them. >> it should be bigger. >> rose: it's the conversation when they get together, probably. what's going on in their region. i'm asking this bigger question -- where do you look at places and say, because of the present stewardship of foreign policy, we're in a much better place? cuba may be one.
>> cuba's a highly symbolic but -- >> rose: that's what i was going to say. >> well, it is important. it removed a stone from the shoe, if you will, of american's relationship with latin america. it removed a problem. it's not something latin americans can now say look at your hypocrisy in cuba or something. again, the proof of the pudden is in the eating. will cuba be freer than it was f it's not, then we just sort of had open relations with cuba for no moral purpose. but going back to china, i always think i was approached -- i always approach the china issue from the periphery, from the countries that ring it, and here i would say that the obama administration has been fairly active, not as active as people would want, but fairly active in buttressing the small but potent countries that ring china and live in fear of china. >> rose: vietnam? vietnam, philippines,
south korea and so on. and building the network of countries that can do the containment of china. on the other hand, china is quite aggressive. they're building islands to claim more sea for themselves and we don't push back very hard on that. so again this will be another question that comes up in the debate. >> rose: is one of this themes of this magnus opus you're writing, what's its title? >> it doesn't have a title. >> rose: all books have to answer a question. >> one of the things that's interested for me for years -- i don't know if this is the only question i'll try to answer -- one of the things that's interested me for years is why the middle east undoes american presidents? it's unsolvable. >> carter, reagan, bush, bush two, and this one who was hoping it wouldn't. >> rose: jeffrey goldberg from "the atlantic." back in a moment. we turn to apple which had a
huge demonstration of products on wednesday led by c.e.o. tim cook. josh tyrangiel saw these products. i was also there. it's an interesting story, this company. tim cook's apple has become the most viable company in history and got there by making the most desirable and easy to use consumer products ever. but making things easy to use, turns out, is not easy. josh is editor of bloomberg blog businessweek. he got a look inside the design studio as it prepared to launch the latest versions of the iphones. here's the cover of bloomberg businessweek and the touch of touch me heart. what's the headline of this whole laying out of the newest version of apple's products? >> sure. the products themselves, sort of straight business headline is that correct once again, apple thahas taken the most profitable and successful consumer product in the world, the iphone, and
found a way to separate from its competitors. the key is they've got a 3-d touch, they've literally added a third dimension to the phone where if you create pressure, you can dive in. if you press your phone button and press a little harder, it will show you who you want to call without going back and forth between different apps and using the home button. it's an amazing bit of technology and feat of engineering and pushes the experience a little more forward. apple invented this multi-touch experience in 2007 they revealed the first iphone and suddenly you could swipe and touch it. this takes it to a completely different level, so you can do those things. but now with these amazing microscopic readings with pliable glass, you can go anywhere in the phone and introduces all the short cuts. that's pretty impressive. what i learned aside from that is actually how this happens, so there is a method to the way apple operates that is very
unique. it is faith-based is the best way you can call it. i saw how the method produced amazing technology. >> rose: what do you mean by faith based. >> they place more trust in their designers than people previously knew. we all know apple is a design first company. the key notes are scheduled very long in advance. kwr5 *7le has its september events and four months out they begin to plan it. what goes into the key note is up to the designers. they don't make features for a date. they're making features. they don't push anything till its ready, don't hold back and the designer constantly works on things. as johnny said to me it's sort of amazing in this country of metrics and absolutes and financials that there is so much faith in designers because what we make sometimes just doesn't work. so it really is faith that their method of combining designers and engineers with a lot of
resources, it is the richest company in the world, it has $200 billion in cash on hand will produce advances in innovations. but they don't legislate it -- >> rose: on deadline? not on deadline. >> rose: and some they will look at and say, well, we've got a problem here, will turn away and then new technology will come along and they will go back to it. >> that's right. and now that they have a pretty broad integrated series of products, they can take one technology and move it from place to place. so this 3-d touch, it first debuted on something called force touch on the apple watch. this is a more limited application where you press it and get a different application. here it's much smoother. if that's abexperiencey you nifty pressure, this is like waltzing with your phone. it's impressive. they have touch screens on ipads and touch pads on imacs. when they produce it, they see
how people use it on one product and it speeds. so they have great ability to produce great efficiencies which people in business care about efficiencies. in the same time, in order to get there, they sit back and trust the method. it's not a lot of people. a couple dozen people working on the projects that they will sit in the studio and make magic together. >> rose: johnny isaacs runs the studio and nobody is allowed in without invitation and if you go in they put it under grey cover for things they don't want you to see. >> i walk in and you're expecting the magic kingdom. it's a design studio. it has concrete floors. but there is a curtain in the studio and behind the curtain is stuff people in the regular studio don't even get to see. >> rose: the interesting thing is what they're doing with photographs. it's stunning. >> yeah. >> rose: it's not a conversation about let's praise apple. it's a conversation about technology and where apple has
taken it. >> and it's pretty competitive out there and they realize this. what's interesting about the smartphone business is it is a commodity. more and more people are in it and fewer and fewer are making money off it because technology is commoditized. you can go to china and get a cheaper version of the ierch but it doesn't work as well. samsung's margins on its phones have gone down. apple have been successful at charging people more for the best possible experience. with cameras in particular, the old iphones had an 8 megapixel, the 6 and 6s plus have 12 and the pictures are mind boggling. >> rose: the ipad pro, the watch and then tv. so we talk about all those
things. some people say they have a lot of good stuff.jz3 pocket with the phone is remarkable. the ability to keep ahead in that space is amazing. so the iphone said, oh, my god, look what you can do. i think what they have been capable doing with the smaller releases, if they make purchasing a phone an unthinking decision, it's very competitive. but for most people when they're done, when they need a new phone, when it cracks, when they lose it, they don't think about
what to get. they think the iphone will be there, will have new features and i'll use them. >> rose: what's stunning, they have a lot of eggs in the basket which is more than 50% of the revenue, the iphone. >> it's a huge amount. this is the ultimate rich man's problem. >> rose: it is. what a curse to have the most profitable and successful consumer product in the world. >> rose: some will raise questions about saturation. >> sure, and i think that's legit until the next generation comes out and, once again, they put more space between themselves and the competitor. well, they're diversified but as we said so much of the iphone technology is spreading to ipads and macs and everywhere else, but this device invented in 2007 and started to be sold then has changed more behavior than most devices in the history of mankind and it sounds crazy. >> rose: and we're just beginning to appreciate what you can do with it. >> i think it's essentially an
infinite device. >> rose: the other interesting thing is in photography, which i love, is you can now -- and i think they call it apple live or -- >> live photos. >> rose: take a picture just like any photo, still photo, but they have a mechanism in there now where you can see what was happening with the subject for a second before, a second and a half, and so sometimes you don't capture the quite moment, you can see it. >> i have a young daughter, and i can tell you from experience that the photo is always the worst moment because she's either rolling her eyes or wishing it was over and they've managed to get a second and a half on either side of the frame. so what you get is really fascinating. it's cleeseer to a sni snippet f memory. it's an interesting new invention. while no one will say i must have the iphone for that, a lot of people will say, well, obviously they have stuff nobody else has, i need to get it.
that piece of it is pretty remarkable. i learned a fair amount about the way they do photography at apple in the same way they have a team dedicated to 3-d touch and a breakthrough there, they have a stream, about 12 employees shooting the worst possible pictures they can imagine at all times and the reason is they want to mimic the user behavior. so the team of 12 people goes out. they shot 100,000 pictures in bathrooms, bars, low light, high light, and their philosophy is lots of people can offer you filters and effect. apple's photo philosophy is we'll give you truth in. your picture, you may not look as good as you would in one of our competitors' phones, but what you will look is honest. so it's a really interesting strategy. they think, you can go to instagram and get a filter and make yourself look good. they took me back and showed me the comparisons between their photos on this new camera and their competitors and they showed me that when you enlarge
on some of the competitors, in order to make the center focal point look good and clean without any sort of variation in skin tone, in the back, you can actually see regular pixilation of images and with their images they're much smoother. they're obviously -- i mean, 12 megapixels is a lot of pixels to have in your pocket, but this is much smoother. this is alg algorithmic and it's fascinating engineering. >> rose: you can see this on the ipad pro. >> yes. >> rose: which is 13 inches, about like this. it's bigger than this magazine. >> when they presented it to me, i was, like, i could bake cookies on this. it's big. >> rose: that's what it looks like. >> yeah. >> rose: and just when the ipad market is declining, they come in with a new product. >> gliew brilliant pictures. you can multi-task, you can see whatever you want to see, which
is your incoming signal, and do something over here. >> well, they're in this unique position where they can afford to experiment in ways no other company can. remember that they produce add bigger ipad. what they wouldn't say directly but what i think is clear is this is a device for students, college students, certainly tore graphic design professionals. but this is as close as you're going to get to replacing a laptop because you have all the functionality. there is a keyboard. >> rose: a good keyboard. a doesn't keyboard. maybe it's me but my experience wasn't as smooth as i first expected but the style is incredible. you can paint with it. if it doesn't work, they will be just fine, but they can at least see if there is a segment of the market that will pay a premium price for a product nobody else could make and put some muscle behind. >> rose: i mean, it's just great. if you're on a plane and want to
watch movies, pull it out of your briefcase and you're there. >> yeah. >> rose: after the watch and the ipad pro-and the high iphone 6 and 6s and 6 plus s, there is tv. people have been waiting for them to do something about tv. this is not something people have been waiting for them to do. what this is is simple an improvement in apple tv as we know it. >> right. and i think there is an easy thing for them that they could do and have hinted that they've actually done which is make a beautiful television set and monitor one could touch. >> rose: if they can do all that genius, they can certainly do it. >> they can certainly do it. but the tv monitor business is a disaster. it's a race to the bottom. the technology, much like the phone technology, is commodified now. and there are people who can make more.
they don't want to get into that business. what they did was make you able to order your options and do it through siri and voice command and say i want to see clooney movies. hopefully it presents you with the better clooney movies. >> rose: you can say i want to see clooney movies in the last two years. >> and it gets it. as opposed to your cable system or roku, playing with the letter is a terrible experience and ultimately you end up watching something that's on tv. so i think this will help. what i wrote is they've always done the same thing. they take something ugly and hard and they make it pretty and easy. with tv we're still not all the way there, where you have this experience of sitting back and really having infinity. >> rose: and also, in this case, they're not just limited to the movies of a particular company. for example, in apple -- on
amazon, for example, you get what amazon has in its catalog. >> and here netflix is available, itunes is available. apple has so many eyeballs you have to play ball nu but there is the question many people raise as well, amazon is in original content. >> yeah. >> rose: netflix is in original content. >> right. >> rose: and as you suggested, apple has $200 billion cash or near cash sitting around. >> i think they're too smart to get into it. i say that as a person in original content. original content is very risky. >> rose: is technology more important than devices. >> i'm not sure that's right. >> rose: but you're the ople are in the advertising or
subscription business. >> rose: in the business of creating content. >> well, they are. apple's in a business where they sell hardware at a very, very high price, a very, very high price, and they get people hooked into the systems of offerings delivered through their pipe. what they've said to me historically is when anyone says apple is interested in x, the truth is, sure, they have to be, they have to know what's going on and be strategic about it, but interest has varying levels and my sense is when it comes to original content, the market is flooded, it's not a core competency to them. to get into it would take time as we've seen with all the other networks. i think they're pretty happy in the businesses they're in now. doesn't mean they would shut it down. behind that curtain, there's a lot of stuff in development, and a lot of it never works out. so, you know, johnny ives said, yes, we've explored so many things and we either couldn't make it prettier or easier or
the business was terrible and i think they would have to get over a lot of hurdles for apple to get into ringle content. those three things are tough. >> rose: this is written by josh tyrangiel, who was there and knows this company better than anyone. when tim cook decided to do a story and talk about his life and apple, josh is the guy he went to. thank you for joining us. see you next time. for more about this program and earlier episodes, visit us online at pbs.org and charlierose.com. captioning sponsored by rose communications
man: it's like holy mother of comfort food.ion. kastner: throw it down. it's noodle crack. patel: you have to be ready for the heart attack on a platter. crowell: okay, i'm the bacon guy. man: oh, i just did a jig every time i dipped into it. man #2: it just completely blew my mind. woman: it felt like i had a mouthful of raw vegetables and dry dough. sbrocco: oh, please. i want the dessert first! [ laughs ] i told him he had to wait.