against iranian—backed targets in iraq and syria, hitting 85 in total. the white house says manned and unmanned aircraft struck three targets in iraq and four in syria. president biden issued a statement on the strikes, saying "this afternoon, at my direction, us military the strikes are in retaliation for the drone attack injordan on sunday that killed three us soldiers and injured dozens. iran denies involvement, calling the accusations "baseless" and saying it was "not involved

in the decision—making of resistance groups". the us says it did inform the iraqi government about the strikes before they happened. but an iraqi spokesman has responded to the strikes saying, "these air strikes constitute a violation of iraqi "sovereignty, undermine the efforts of the iraqi "government, and pose a threat that could lead iraq "and the region into dire consequences. he added that the outcomes will have severe implications on the security and stability in the region. nafiseh kohnavard, has more on the view from baghdad at this hour. i heard from other iraqi officials here in baghdad that prime minister sue danni also has asked tehran to contain and put more pressure on groups that following irg gc and following attacks on us bases.

managing to iran that these attacks are jeopardising the iraqi government's efforts to reduce the number of american forces in this country is part of the coalition forces and also it even finished a mandate because the war against isis has finished and this is what iraqi militia also emphasising that they want the us leave, the us forces, or us combat forces, as they say, leave iraqi, and despite that the us says they do not have combat forces here but it is still complicated. that is why these iraqi militia repeatedly attacked us bases, not only after, before war in gaza, but also intensified their attacks after the war in gaza. with me to discuss is nathan sales, former ambassador—at—large

and coordinator for counterterrorism and former undersecretary of state for civilian security, democracy and human rights. looking at the first part of the responses. do you think this is a blow to those they were targeting?— were targeting? tribal targeting- _ were targeting? tribal targeting. what - were targeting? tribal targeting. what we i were targeting? tribal i targeting. what we know were targeting? tribal - targeting. what we know as it took an awful lot of provocation from iran before the dr biden administration took the steps it took today. this is probably the most assertive use of force we've seen from the dr biden administration against iran. it is important to see the context of how we got his document since the october seven terrorist attacks in on israel, we have seen attacks by iran backed militia. some designated terrorist groups against us forces. it goes back further than that. since the start of the dr biden administration, there were 83 or more attack. we're looking at about 252 and the last three years. typically

how the administration has responded to these is a strike on a camp in the middle of the night, blowing up an empty warehouse. this was the first time we have seen a response of this magnitude. and what is the point? the point is to restore deterrence. to signal to the iranian regime, we hold you responsible for the death of our soldiers, responsible for the death of oursoldiers, not responsible for the death of our soldiers, not the proxy groups, we know they are acting on your behalf. to hold tehran itself responsible and to try to restore deterrence. john kirb at to restore deterrence. john kirby at the _ to restore deterrence. john kirby at the white - to restore deterrence. john kirby at the white house i to restore deterrence. john kirby at the white house has said this is not about sending a signal or a message, said this is not about sending a signal ora message, is said this is not about sending a signal or a message, is about degrading capabilities. to think that will have been done? again, time will tell. will have to see what the battle damage assessment show, what targets were hit, make no mistake iran is flush with cash. they have been selling billions of dollars of oil over the last couple of years and have been able to funnel enormous profits into their military proxy. the islamic

revolutionary guard corps is really pulling a lot of strings throughout the region. they are the connective tissue that connects to a run to their terror proxy such as hezbollah in lebanon are, the houthis in yemen and elsewhere. we have designated the ir gc as a terrorist organisation because of the attacks at it and its proxies are committed against notjust american soldiers but iraqi civilians and others, lebanese civilian. so what kind of capabilities the irg has? they are actually quite extensive. the resources they have a quite extensive. will have a quite extensive. will have to see what was taken off the table in order to know whether it was effective. the administration _ whether it was effective. the administration is _ whether it was effective. the administration is saying a lot of careful identification went to the identification of targets, some in iraqi and some in syria. would you expect to see civilian casualties from this and also from the militia targeted?— this and also from the militia tarueted? ~ ., , ~ targeted? wanted the striking thins targeted? wanted the striking things about _ targeted? wanted the striking things about the _ targeted? wanted the striking things about the strike - targeted? wanted the striking things about the strike was i targeted? wanted the striking things about the strike was a l things about the strike was a long lead up to it. the attacks on american soldiers have been

to last sunday, it is almost a week later. during that week, the white house is telegraph this punch. everybody in the new world knew was coming. in fact there was not report on american newspaper today where you had an official saying the attack will be on fabric third and fourth. this was the worst kept secret in the middle east. it hasn't been on the third and fourth, it has been on the second. fourth, it has been on the second-— fourth, it has been on the second. , . ., , second. the second here but the third in the _ second. the second here but the third in the region. _ second. the second here but the third in the region. so, - second. the second here but the third in the region. so, what- third in the region. so, what is iran third in the region. so, what is iran going _ third in the region. so, what is iran going to _ third in the region. so, what is iran going to do _ third in the region. so, what is iran going to do in - third in the region. so, what. is iran going to do in response to us showing our cards? than? is iran going to do in response to us showing our cards? any of the hiuh to us showing our cards? any of the high value _ to us showing our cards? any of the high value targets _ to us showing our cards? any of the high value targets might - to us showing our cards? any of the high value targets might be| the high value targets might be been they are going to head for the hill. they might also move some equipment to prevent it from being destroyed. i would not expect there to be a large casualty count. certainly, the administration will take great pains to ensures in events, it incent civilians are not caught up incent civilians are not caught up in the conflict. if incent civilians are not caught up in the conflict.— up in the conflict. if you look at the knock-on _ up in the conflict. if you look at the knock-on effect - up in the conflict. if you look at the knock-on effect in - up in the conflict. if you look at the knock-on effect in the at the knock—on effect in the region, obviouslyjordan there is a strong ally of the us. there does not seem to have

been any mention at this point any way from the administration that other countries were involved here?— that other countries were involved here? yes, that is important _ involved here? yes, that is important to _ involved here? yes, that is important to get _ involved here? yes, that is important to get other - important to get other countries involved. the bases that were attacked by the uranium proxies were notjust us bases. the american soldiers are there as part of the defeat isis coalition. of course isis no longer controls territory like it did four, five, six years ago but there are still voters moving weapons, money and trying to read constitute. if iran is attacking the isis coalition personnel, it is not just an attack against america it is an attack against this much broader enterprise that still has a mission to fulfil of continuing to apply pressure. it is good to see the jordanians are getting involved. it is an assault against the sovereignty. one targett was injordan. it is good to have the backing of our allies. make no mistake, this is notjust iran versus the united states. this is iran taking a shot through its proxies at the isis coalition. in this instance the us has not

hit within a roe v wade, it is said in iraq and syria. do you think there is no risk to the us as a result of what it has done? ~ , us as a result of what it has done? ~' , , ., , ., done? the key question is going to be did done? the key question is going to he did the _ done? the key question is going to be did the administration - to be did the administration inflict enough pain on tehran, that to say say all right, we're done. that are restore deterrence. peace through strength. if you take out a couple of low level militia members, they are not even iranian, plus a couple of you know air defence systems, that is probably not a sufficient cost to cause the decision—makers of the iranian regime to say it is too rich for a blood. ones regime to say it is too rich fora blood. ones again, we will look at battle damage assessment as they covered over the next day or so. the targets, the more damage, the greater the likelihood that iran will say we do not want to play this game anymore. if united states is seen as having pulled as budgets, that might be an invitation to iran to turnit be an invitation to iran to turn it up again. we be an invitation to iran to turn it up again.- be an invitation to iran to turn it up again. we will wait to see what _ turn it up again. we will wait to see what happens - turn it up again. we will wait

to see what happens next. i turn it up again. we will wait - to see what happens next. thank youindeed to see what happens next. thank you indeed forjoining us. we are getting some reaction from us politicians. the speaker of the house, republican mikejohnson, released a statement, he says: and democratic senator jack reed, who chairs the senate armed forces committee said:

joining me live is aaron david miller, seniorfellow at the carnegie endowment for international peace, focusing on us foreign policy. thank you indeed forjoining us. is this an adequate response that has a significant blow been dealt? it is response that has a significant blow been dealt?— blow been dealt? it is not a proportional— blow been dealt? it is not a proportional response - blow been dealt? it is not a proportional response nor l proportional response nor should it be. this was a set of comprehensive strikes which were carefully planned and orchestrated. based on the battle damage assessment and the intel, i suspect there may be a second, third or maybe fourth round. bus they will likely be a response in iran that we do not see. i would not be surprised if there are cyber attacks planned as well. we should be under no illusions

here about our capacity to fundamentally solve the arabian problem. we have a strategic problem. we have a strategic problem with iran, both over the nuclear issue and also on the nuclear issue and also on theissue the nuclear issue and also on the issue of their... working directly through proxies of us influence in an effort to drive the us out of the middle east. it is a heavily ideological regime and at best is probably a necessary stop but flush with cash and driven by ideology and a profound antagonism for the united states and by implication is well. iran because's is playing the long game. they will regroup. they will regroup. perhaps they will wait for another opportunity. that remains to be seen. but i think dr biden administration had no choice he. they could have relied on the traditional tit—for—tat, what options. they could have chosen to strike iran directly, which i think would have been in politics and uncalled for. that's given the

prospects for escalation on the part of rat but because of the vulnerability of american targets and the broader ambitions the us has in the region, flowing from an unresolved israeli palestinian conflict and the desire somehow to create some stability by pursuing an israeli saudi globalisation agreement with the palestinian issue as a centrepiece. there are a lot of equities here. basically, based on what i think we know, the choice he was not between good and bad, it was between bad and worse, and i think the administration under the circumstances came up with the best possible approach to the plight. to best possible approach to the ”liht. ., , plight. to “ump in there, strikin: plight. to jump in there, striking these _ plight. to jump in there, striking these targets . plight. tojump in there, i striking these targets which the us says as you have outlined there, controlled by a run back, funded by iran, and iran, how much control does iran, how much control does iran have over them in reality in terms of potential response

that may come now? , let's forget control for the moment. let's focus on capacity capability. iran two, without iranian support money, training, technology, supply of weaponry, propaganda, these groups would hardly represent a threat beyond their borders. so threat beyond their borders. sr whether iraq micromanagers this, in case of the houthis, i think the houthis have become fellow travellers basically. they are not remote iran. these are major objectives which may coincide with iranian interests and they may not. these are militia groups in iraq, given the iranians literally control just put it this way, the malicious control the iranian state and that is a core interest for iran. i do not think it is a matter of control. ok. rat may decide to

pick another place and time to retaliate and respond for this but... , , retaliate and respond for this but," , , ., retaliate and respond for this but... , , but... sorry, 'ust to break it down a bit. — but... sorry, 'ust to break it down a bit, i — but... sorry, just to break it down a bit, i mean - but... sorry, just to break it down a bit, i mean all- but... sorry, just to break it down a bit, i mean all of. but... sorry, just to break it| down a bit, i mean all of this there we have heard from the us since october seven, since those horrific mass make attacks, since the response from israel that the us is working to avoid contagion in the region to avoid the conflict spreading. how we now gone beyond that point given what seeing and what you have described there. i what seeing and what you have described there.— described there. i don't think we are anywhere _ described there. i don't think we are anywhere near- described there. i don't think we are anywhere near that. l described there. i don't think l we are anywhere near that. we don't have right now regional war. a regional war would be a major escalation between israel and hezbollah. with hezbollah relying on high trajectory, trajectory weapons. respond against the infrastructure, in 2000 six 1200... added again, be told in lebanese deaths will be told in lebanese deaths will be judged will exponentially rise. hundreds of israelis will

die as well. under those circumstances, iran embellishes would strike and the us would probably get involved in by the end of this what we would see our american strikes and perhaps even israeli strikes against iran proper, with a run back responding against the gulf and israel in american assets with ballistic missile. that is a regional war. that is a war the region has never seen and that is what we need to avoid. the americans, the american response was an escalation in response, a necessary escalation, hopefully an effort to produce deescalation on the part of rat and its proxies, but again as you suggested, this is what we will have to wait and see. we will have to wait and see. we will have _ will have to wait and see. we will have to _ will have to wait and see. we will have to wait _ will have to wait and see. we will have to wait and see. we will have to wait and see, indeed. as you have said, all sides say they are eager to avoid that situation you have described there. thank you for joining us with your thoughts on bbc news.— now — we were just discussing

iran's involvement in this conflict, and although iran has denied any direct involvement in that drone attack, we know there are a number of pro—iranian militias based in iraq, syria, lebanon, the palestinian territories and as far south as yemen. all are opposed to israel and the united states. the bbc�*s analysis editor, ros atkins, takes a closer look now at what we know about iran's alliances, and the so—called "axis of resistance". as the crisis in the middle east escalates, there's one country the us references all the time. we do not want this war to widen. but if iran or its proxies attack us personnel anywhere, make no mistake — we will defend our people, we will defend our security, swiftly and decisively. last weekend, three us soldiers were killed in a drone attack. the location was north—eastern jordan. the target was a us military base, called tower 22. the group claiming responsibility

is the islamic resistance in iraq. but the us is clear on where blame really lies. our teams here are continuing to do the analysis, but we know that iran is behind it, and certainly, as as we've said before here in this in this briefing room, iran continues to arm and equip these groups to launch these attacks. iran calls these claims "baseless accusations". but iran does have a network of allies across the region. it has a name for it, the "axis of resistance" — united, it says, in its opposition to israel and the us. this axis includes the group behind the tower 22 attack. iran has taken advantage, frankly, of the current moment of conflict to do what iran has been doing for many, many years, which is to disrupt, to target the us and partners in a variety of ways, mostly through the efforts

of its proxy militias. and since hamas's attack on october 7th, and israel's response to it, this disruption has taken many forms. for example, houthi rebels in yemen have repeatedly attacked shipping in the red sea. the us says there have been over 160 attacks by militia on its military positions in iraq and syria. but how does this network of allies work, how close is their relationship with iran, and what is iran trying to achieve? if we go back to 1979, there was an uprising in iran against the monarchy — iran became an islamic republic. eversince, it's sought to spread its influence in the region. in recent years, that's involved support for the assad regime in syria, where iranian forces have been deployed, support for large militant groups such as hezbollah in lebanon and the houthis in yemen, and support for smaller groups, including in iraq. we have a whole range of iraqi shia militias, which have been formed in lots of different ways and have very different connections with iran.

and, in fact, they're in an umbrella movement that has non—shia militias included as well, so it's very complicated to navigate the types of links within that part of the axis of resistance. and iran's support for its network comes in severalforms. first, money. in 2020, the us estimated that iran gave hezbollah $700 million a year, as well as $100 million a year to palestinian groups, including hamas, and it estimates the houthis have received hundreds of millions of dollars, too. iran doesn't acknowledge this funding. but as well as money, iran is supplying weapons, too. recently, two us military personnel died in an operation to intercept a boat in the red sea. the us released this image. it says the boat was transporting iranian—made weapons to the houthis. or there's hezbollah. one estimate put his arsenal at 130,000 rockets and missiles. it's believed many of them come from iran. and if iran is supplying money

and weapons, is it also coordinating the actions of its allies? after october 7th, the us acknowledged, "we have not yet seen evidence that iran directed or was behind this particular attack." more broadly, iran's allies appear to operate with a significant degree of independence. but that needs placing in context. iran does not necessarily exert day—to—day operational control over each and every one of its proxies. but, that being said, when you provide strategic direction, when you provide significant material, and you provide significant training, you cannot avoid culpability. and given this level of support from iran, inevitably, many are asking, what does it want? well, to understand this, we again need to look at iran's history — not least the iran—iraq war of the 1980s, which began

when iraq invaded. iran doesn't necessarily see itself as an aggressive actor. it sees itself as deeply vulnerable. in particular, memories of the iran—iraq war, when it was very vulnerable to iraqi missiles, and many people died, are absolutely key in iran's political conception of where it sits in the region. so its whole policy is built on never again allowing itself to be encircled or isolated, to be encircled or isolated. and to meet that goal, the axis of resistance is crucial. it is not looking for a massive escalation and a war outright with the us or israel. what it's interested in, however, is maintaining the kind of equilibrium and violence groups that it has across the region. in a statement this week, iran's revolutionary guard said, "we do not seek war, but we are not afraid of war." iran's motivations and ambitions are a fiercely contested subject. but as the us calibrates its response to the tower 22 attack, there's no

debate that the axis of resistance is crucial to iran's efforts to position itself in the region and to challenge israel and america. with me is to discuss the impending us response is barbara starr, usc annenberg centre senior fellow and veteran pentagon correspondent. barbara, we have had a lot tonight from the white house about their tactics in this attack, where they struck another type of equipment that is involved, but what about the strategy? what was the gohere? rafa so far, as we know, the goal has to retaliate against the strike last sunday, but is there a broader strategy? are they really trying to put these militias on the back foot, visibly trying to degrade them and reconstitute and get a fresh round of iranian weapons very easily or are they trying to destroy them, which is a

much longer and more difficult prospect? we don't know but what we do know is that tonight defence secretary lloyd austin here in the united states has said there will be more to come, and we are already at first light in the region. there will be a look to see how much damage was really inflicted by this first round of strikes and where it really all stance.— all stance. has been much criticism — all stance. has been much criticism of _ all stance. has been much criticism of the _ all stance. has been much| criticism of the telegraphic all stance. has been much i criticism of the telegraphic of this first part, talking about it for almost a week nearly at this point, but again, they are telegraphing there will be more to come. , ., �* , telegraphing there will be more to come. , ., �*, ., telegraphing there will be more to come. , ., 2 ., ., to come. they are. there's a of messaging _ to come. they are. there's a of messaging going _ to come. they are. there's a of messaging going on, _ to come. they are. there's a of messaging going on, add i to come. they are. there's a of messaging going on, add a i messaging going on, add a couple of things, the strikes were clearly delayed because of poor weather. they wanted to make sure they didn't inadvertently hit civilians in bad weather where they couldn't see. that said, they were messaging that the strikes were about to happen, and clearly a message to iran. there will be retaliation. we are going to do this, but we are not looking for an all—out war with you,

and we assume you are not looking for one with us. how does all of — looking for one with us. how does all of this _ looking for one with us. how does all of this feedback i looking for one with us. how does all of this feedback into where it all began, which is is october seven attacks and israel's response to it and then the houthi is getting involved in the red sea? there are peace talks still under way amidst all this going on. that's right. we have this very slight glimmer of the possibility of another agreement on hostage releases from hamas in gaza, and that is a big priority. no one wants to see that go by the wayside. so we are going to have to see how that all fits in. the us secretary of state antony blinken travelling to the region. you will be hearing from allies about all of this. thank you forjoining us on bbc news. you can get the very latest from our correspondents and analysts around the world on our website at bbc.com/news and we'll also continue to bring you up—to—date details and analysis right here on the bbc news channel. and on ourapp and on our app and various

social media platforms. thanks for watching. social media platforms. thanks forwatching. i social media platforms. thanks for watching. i am caitriona perry. we will be back with you shortly. do stay with us here on bbc news. thank you. hello. some very mild conditions around at the moment. plenty of cloud, but also some sunshine at times, such as here in aberdeenshire on friday. a blustery day of weather but temperatures lifted 15 degrees. 15.5 degrees in the south—east of northern ireland, but towards western coast a very different story. still mild but grey, drizzly, lots of low cloud, mist and grey, drizzly, lots of low cloud, mistand murk grey, drizzly, lots of low cloud, mist and murk and not a lot is set to change through the weekend. it certainly stays mild and it will be blustery too, with brisk south—westerly wind is blowing. on saturday, high pressure remains to the south, we keep the strength of the wind, this cold frontjust thinking a little further southwards but not making too many inroads at all into the south of england and wales,

where again, a very mild start on saturday morning. temperatures in double figures, clear spells through the night. further north, here a chilly start to the day but again temperatures well above the average, but it's across northern england, northern england, northern ireland and eastern scotland where we see the best of the day's sunshine. still strong, gusty winds to the east of the pennines, showers piling into western scotland, and where we have this cold front across wales and stretching into east anglia, some outbreaks of rain on and off, but it is grey, drizzly, mild for the south of the front, 13 or 1a celsius. even in cardiff, temperatures all the way up to 11 degrees as we go through the afternoon, for the six nations rugby, there will be a brisk, westerly, south—westerly wind blowing as well. on sunday, a few changes. now, this is a warm front. it will be dragging that very mild air further northwards as we had throughout the day, so we will see some rain to start the day in northern ireland, that rain pushing into western scotland, where it will turn really quite heavy, particularly as we go into the evening. again, very mild feeling conditions, eight

to 14 mild feeling conditions, eight to 1a celsius, there is temperatures picking up in northern scotland late in the night. some particularly heavy downpours across western scotland as we have three sunday night and again until monday, summer spots across western brasstown into argyll could see as much as 150 to 170 millimetres of rainfall. elsewhere across the rest of the uk on monday, largely dry, again, if you are spots of dried to the west, the rest of the brightness will be towards the brightness will be towards the east but temperatures once again for many 12 to 1a celsius. there will be some brightness around on monday. on tuesday, we start to see perhaps a little bit more in the way of rain, and a northerly wind developing could bring us colder conditions into wednesday.

voice—over: this is bbc news. we'll have the headlines and all the main news stories for you at the top of the hour, straight after this programme. 30 seconds to on air! 0k, and you are just here. couldn't i sit farther back? sir anthony hopkins playing an ordinary man with an extraordinary story. sir nicholas winton was just 29 in 1938 when he embarked on a campaign to bring hundreds of refugee children from prague to london. for 50 years, he didn't talk about his efforts until they were revealed by the bbc tv programme that's life. if they hadn't been rescued and brought over to england, these children would have been

killed by the nazis. i'm the bbc�*s culture editor, katie razzall, and for this edition of the arts interviews, i interrupted sir anthony's busy filming schedule to talk to him about his role in one life. is everybody happy? are you happy, sir anthony? yes. tony. i think this whole story has affected me and has actually stayed with me throughout the whole of my life, really. i also speak to the younger nicky winton actor, johnny flynn... the experience of making it will never leave me. ..and 90—year—old renate collins, whose life was saved by nicholas winton. i'm assuming that's you. that's me. if it's not faith that drives you, what is it? ethics. this is sir nicholas winton

being interviewed on the bbc�*s hardtalk program in 2014 when he was 105.