PELLEY: Can you accept the Russian-Syrian proposal?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we don't know the details of it yet. But I think that it is a potentially positive development. I don't think that we would have gotten to the point where they even put something out there publicly had it not been and if it doesn't continue to be a credible military threat from the United States and those who support serious responses to what happened inside of Syria.
But my central goal throughout this process has not been to embroil ourselves in a civil war in Syria. I have shown great restraint, I think, over the last two years, despite the heartbreak that's happened there. But what I have said is that the ban on chemical weapon use is something that is of U.S. national interest. It protects our troops so that they don't have to wear gas masks whenever they're in theater.
The weapons, by definition, are indiscriminate and don't differentiate between somebody in uniform and a child. And when we see images of 400-plus children being slaughtered without a mark on their body through these weapons, I think it is important for the international community and the United States to stand up and say this cannot happen.
Now, the good news is I think that Assad's allies, both Russia and Iran, recognize that this was -- this was a breach, that this was a problem. And for them to potentially put pressure on Assad to say let's figure out a way that the international community gets control of these weapons in a verifiable, enforceable way, I think, is something that we will run to ground.
So John Kerry will be talking to his counterparts in Russia. We will contact the U.N. Security Council members, as well as the secretary general of the U.N., and let's see what happens over the next several days to see if, in fact, what they're talking about is realistic.
PELLEY: What do you need to see in a diplomatic deal?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I said, the key is, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, that we don't just trust, but we also verify. And so the importance is to make sure that the international community has confidence that these chemical weapons are under control, that they are not being used, that potentially they are removed from Syria and that they are destroyed.
And there are a lot of stockpiles inside of Syria. It's one of the largest in the world. Let's see if they're serious. But we have to make sure that we can verify it and enforce it. And if, in fact, we're able to achieve that kind of agreement that has Russia's agreement and the Security Council's agreement, then my central concern in this whole episode is resolved.
It doesn't resolve the underlying terrible conflict in Syria. And that, I've always said, is not amenable to a military solution. We're going to have to get the parties to arrive at some sort of settlement. But this may be a first step in what potentially could be an end to terrible bloodshed and millions of refugees throughout the region that is of deep concern to us and our allies.
PELLEY: Is the only agreement you would accept one in which we can be assured that all of Syria's chemical weapons are destroyed?
THE PRESIDENT: You know, I think it's premature for me to start drafting language. I think I want to see what exactly is being proposed. And in the interim, it is very important for Congress and the American people to recognize that we would not be getting even ticklers like this if it weren't for the fact that we were serious about potentially taking action in the absence of some sort of movement.
And so we need to keep the pressure on. And tomorrow I'll have the opportunity to explain to the American people just why it is that this chemical weapons ban is so important. It's in part humanitarian. Any parent who sees those videos of those children being gassed, I think, understands what a human tragedy it is.
But I want people to understand that this ban, that almost every country in the world has signed onto and has been observed even in hot conflicts around the world, is something that helps protect our people, our troops. You know, it means that there's less production of chemical weapons, which means it's less likely to fall into the hands of terrorists, who would have no compunction about using it in the United States of America.
And that norm is worth protecting, particularly if we can do it in a limited, surgical way that does not involve troops on the ground or a long air campaign that would be both costly and could draw us into this long-term conflict.
PELLEY: What could Syria do right now to show its good faith?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you know, I think the first thing that we're going to want to see is both the Russians and the Syrians putting a serious proposal on the table. And let's take a look and see what it says.
PELLEY: Assad essentially put you on notice today. In the interview with Charlie Rose, he said of the United States, if you strike somewhere, you have to expect the repercussion somewhere else in a different form, in a way that you don't expect.
THE PRESIDENT: Mm-hmm.
PELLEY: He brought up 9/11 as an example of the kind of thing America did not expect.
THE PRESIDENT: Yeah.
PELLEY: Do you take that as a threat?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I mean, I think it was intended as a threat. I don't take it as a credible threat in the sense that Mr. Assad doesn't have the capacity to strike us in a significant way. Some of his allies, like Iran and Hezbollah, do have the capacity to engage in asymmetrical strikes against us. Our intelligence, I think, is very clear that they would not try to escalate a war with us over limited strikes to deal with this chemical weapon issue.
Keep in mind, Iran was subjected to chemical weapons use by Saddam Hussein, so the Iranian population thinks chemical weapons are terrible and probably consider what Assad did to be a grave mistake. So I don't think they would start a war with us over that.
But what is true is that, you know, our embassies in the region, U.S. personnel in the region, they're always potentially vulnerable to asymmetrical attacks. But the truth of the matter is, those threats already exist from a whole range of groups. And we understand what those threats are and take those precautions very seriously.
PELLEY: Mr. President, the administration has described evidence to the American people and the world, but it hasn't shown evidence.
And I wonder, at this point, what are you willing to show? What are we going to see in terms of the evidence that you say we have?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, keep in mind, what we've done is we have provided unclassified evidence, but members of Congress are getting a whole slew of classified briefings. And they're seeing very directly exactly what we have.
Keep in mind, Scott, that this is not a problem that I'm looking for. I'm not looking for an excuse to engage in military action. And I understand deeply how the American people, after a decade of war, are not interested in any kind of military action that they don't believe involves our direct national security interests. I get that. And members of Congress, I think, understand that.
But in this situation, where there's clear evidence that nobody credibly around the world disputes that chemical weapons were used, that over a thousand people were killed, that the way that these weapons were delivered makes it almost certain that Assad's forces used them, when even Iran has acknowledged that chemical weapons were used inside of Syria, in that situation I think the issue is not the evidence.
Most people around the world are not questioning that chemical weapons were used. I think the question now is, how does the international community respond? And I think it is important for us to run to ground every diplomatic channel that we can.
There's a reason why I went to Congress, in part to allow further deliberation, not just here domestically, but also internationally. But I think it's very important for us to make sure that we understand this is important. And if the American people are not prepared to stand up for what is a really important international norm, then I think a lot of people around the world will take that signal that this norm is not important.
PELLEY: The people aren't with you.
THE PRESIDENT: Yeah -- well, not yet. And as I said, I understand that. So I'll have a chance to talk to the American people directly tomorrow. I don't expect that it's going to suddenly swing the polls wildly in the direction of another military engagement.
If you ask the average person, including my household, do we need another military engagement, I think the answer generally is going to be no. But what I'm going to try to propose is that we have a very specific objective, a very narrow military option, and one that will not lead into some large-scale invasion of Syria or involvement or boots on the ground; nothing like that. This isn't like Iraq. It's not like Afghanistan. It's not even like Libya. Then hopefully people will recognize why I think this is so important.
And we should all be haunted by those images of those children that were killed. But more importantly, we should understand that when we start saying it's OK to -- or at least that there's no response to the gassing of children, that's the kind of slippery slope that leads eventually to these chemical weapons being used more broadly around the world. That's not the kind of world that we want to leave to our children.
Barack Obama, Interview with Scott Pelley of CBS "Evening News" Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/309867