are forecast in northern ontario and quebec. reports from syria say 17 people have been killed in air strikes on a besieged rebel—held stronghold close to the capital, damascus. aid workers said that over the past ten days, ten hospitals had been hit by air strikes in both this area and the rebel—held northern province of idlib. tributes have been paid to longest—serving american astronautjohn young, who has died at the age of 87. he first went into space in 1965. later, he become one ofjust 12 people to walk on the moon and then commanded the first space shuttle mission. nasa said the world had lost a pioneer. now on bbc news, it's time for dateline london. hello and a very warm

welcome to dateline london, i'm jane hill. this week, we are looking at the situation in iran after protests in many cities and we'll be asking is president trump damaged at all by his former chief strategist‘s allegations of treason, among other things? my guests around the table with me this week: bronwen maddox from the think—tank the institute for government, formerly with the times and the economist. the irish writer and broadcaster, brian o'connell. the american writer and broadcaster michael goldfarb, who also brings us the regular podcast frdh — first rough draft of history. and the iranian journalist and editor of kayhan london, nazenin ansari. a warm welcome to you all. the united states, as we go to air,

has been rebuked by some other members of the united nations‘ security council for calling an emergency meeting to discuss the recent anti—government protests in iran. china and russia say the unrest isn't a threat to international security. russia accused the states of abusing its position. demonstrations and counter demonstrations have filled the streets for many days in numerous cities. more than 20 people have died and hundreds have been arrested. let's start by talking about those protests. nazenin, we've reflected here before, but from your assessment, to what extent do these protests, lots of different countries, different age groups, to what extent is this something we've seen before, what's your take on it? i think this protest, first of all, is based in the grassroots, and it's more widespread because there are certain strands of grievances and suffering that is all coalescing into one trend. and that is that the government and the system cannot actually

answer the aspirations and the hopes and the needs of the people. so we have seen these protests, this was nothing new, as far as the protest itself was concerned, we have seen this since 2013. and mr rouhani was elected with the promise of improving iran's standing in the world and improving the economic situation. but then they continued, the structural problems remained. the banking system, a lot of banks went bankrupt. the pension system broke in the meantime. teachers were not paid, labourers were not paid, factory workers were fired from theirjobs because factories have closed. so from an economic and financial perspective, yes, it's hurting the ordinary account holder and the ordinary pensioner. and 55% of the population of iran is working age, above 25. a very young population.

yes, it's a young population. but what's happened is that the government has not been able to really make things better. that's why they took off as they did. because specifically two events happened, prior to this, in the past month. number one, mr rouhani published his budget and this time, for the sake of accountability, and transparency, he publicised the amount of money allocated to religious institutions from the budget. these religious institutions and foundations already receive religious alms from the people. they already do not pay taxes, yet their allocation increased in this budget. at a time when people's standards of living is falling. basic foodstuffs expensive and so on. yes, and then at the same time,

he increased the budget of iogc, because iogc was becoming involved — islamic revolutionary guards corps. mr rouhani's forces are becoming more and more involved in yemen, in syria, with hezbollah. they're paying hezbollah daily. i mean, it's billions going out per month, from iranian budget to finance the war in syria, in lebanon, hezbollah‘s allocation. another event that also happened in the past month, two earthquakes in iran. over 700 in total quakes in iran in the past month. that's a lot. iran sits on a faultline, and the nuclear policy has not been, jcpoa, under questioning in iran within the streets, but they're asking "my god, why haven't any safety reports been issued 7

why can't we know where these nuclear reactors are?" so all of these have been given hand—to—hand to each other and we face the crisis now, which has international implications. bronwen, is it though the kind of international implications that should be discussed at the un security council? do you know, i think this is a mistake by the us? i think that there are things that the us has legitimately brought to the un, principally iran's nuclear programme, which is a matter of international security. and the security council, maybe reluctantly in a way, but has taken a lot of steps over the years about that, and i think that's an absolutely proper use of it. i think the us would be much better advised to sit and let this play out because it risks antagonising people who don't want to be associated with the us, but do want to see these changes. what you're looking at, as nazenin has very powerfully described, is people rising up and saying — look, just on economic grounds, on standards of living,

on just what it is like to live in iran, we are fed up with the way the regime is handling this. so all kinds of things that the us does have an interest in, like money going out to hezbollah, and so on, you've got people arguing from the most powerful possible position, which is that they don't want to live like this and they miss and they resent the money that's going out of the country. you've got people questioning it and i think the us should sit back and just let this gather some steam, which it probably will, i think. we might talk about that. michael? what is interesting is, the us, just briefly, i know we'll talk about it later, the us really has no idea, and this is before the trump administration. i think the us has had very, very bad understandings — going back to 1979, when the revolution first happened and american diplomats were taken hostage — of what the internal political dynamics are in iran. this is not the first time this has happened in iran, it happens almost every ten years.

nazenin will correct me if i've got the date wrong, but i think in 1999, there were major student uprisings at tehran university that were violently suppressed by some of the fathers of the people who are in the streets now, who were in the besieged militia then. then in 2009, after the election was nullified and a more liberal man had been elected mir—hossein mousavi... ..who is still under house arrest. what i see is a pattern that every time the regime realises it has to liberalise a bit, the problems with liberalising a bit, whether it's in iran or in any authoritarian state, is you get people's hopes up and then you can't deliver. i think some of what we're seeing now is what was going on in 1999 and in 2009, people thought, "well, we've signed the jcpoa, this is the iran nuclear deal, we will get some benefit now because all of our assets overseas are being unfrozen". there will be easier trade to carry

on, and it's not coming through, and after two years they're fed up and they come into the street. i think that's sort of what's driving it. and bronwen is absolutely right, america shouldn't be involved because what all these american administrations have forgotten, if they ever knew it, is that iranians are profoundly patriotic. not nationalistic, although they are that too, they are profoundly patriotic. they don't want a lot of intervention. they want to sort their own problems out and the less said from the outside, the better. that's interesting. brian, do you see it as an internal problem, a lot of it's economic, but more besides? yeah. it seems, looking at it from afar, that it is not like the 2009 incidents that centred around what was perceived as an unfair election process, and it's far more widespread and it's economically based, and the us can't win no matter what it does. back in 2009, i seem to remember,

barack 0bama tried to be very nuanced in what he said. he got criticised for not saying enough when it happened, and then too much when, a week or two later, the crackdown came. so they can't win. one thing, probably, that the united states could do is — and i think this would be very useful if donald trump decided to do it, although i won't be holding my breath — would be to lift the ban on travel from iran. to lift his ban that he initiated over several muslim—majority countries, that would help. it would back up what he says in his tweets about we want freedom—loving people and help people get their own freedom, and so on. i don't think it's going to happen but either way, it's not going to get on the security council agenda and the us cannot win on this one.

if i may, i think there's a few differences between 1999, 2009 and now. in 1999, it was only students and it was freedom of expression. you can actually chart, you know, a rise of the movement itself from 1999 to now what you see. in 2009, again, it was a single issue and it was within the government. this time, it is not so anymore, it is very widespread. but one thing that we understand that they're asking from their tweets, the activists, are asking for open lines of communication because the first thing that the regime did was close down social media, telegram, snapchat, controlling the internet... because that's a way for people to organise. ..because that's how they breathe. that's one thing they did. the next thing is they started

beating them up, cracking down, and then they started their own demonstrations. now we'll bring our own people out. it's like entering into a football stadium with one team playing. so at the moment, what the united states can do, and has expressed that it will do, is open these lines of communication, provide access to internet. and the demonstrations we've seen thus far, despite the number of arrests and so on. bronwen and nazenin is your best guess that this will have any impact at all on the country's approach to syria ? you mentioned hezbollah, does it change anything? i don't think it will not pull iran back from involvement in those conflicts, where it is very invested — notjust in the scraps of the moment, but in trying to build its zone of influence right across the region, what's been called a co—shia crescent, if you like.

this is a dangerous game for the us to play because it risks inflaming the sunni—shia, saudi versus iran conflict that's been going on. it's been called the new cold war, it isn't very cold at all. the us doesn't want to find itself on one side of that. but you asked, is this going to change a lot? not dramatically in terms of iran's foreign policy, but i think it can't help but to have some effect on the regime. nazenin. definitely. it will not change... i mean, the raison d'etre of the islamic republic is to defeat the united states, to defeat israel. the islamic republic doesn't even want to acknowledge that israel has a right to existence. will it change from these red lines? obviously not. do the people realise it, that this is the way it's going to be? it is not for the international community to acknowledge that this will be the same. don't expect any change from the islamic republic, specifically not in the international sphere. so that's why it's an international issue. interesting, we will see where it goes, whether there may

be further protests. we may be discussing this again. let's talk specifically about the united states as well today. there's been a swirl of claim and counter—claim around the white house this week. you're probably aware there's a new book by the us journalist michael wolff. it suggests numerous staffers working for president trump believe he never wanted the top job, and isn't up to it. his former chief strategist, steve bannon, is reported as telling michael wolff that meetings between trump's son and russian diplomats was treason. michael, donald trump did try to get this book banned, he tried certainly to get its publication delayed. does that tell us anything? is this a storm in a teacup? i don't think it's a storm in a teacup. the book is quite remarkable. you sort of expect these kinds of books six weeks after the end of the trump administration, for however it ends, whether it's through impeachment or he serves the full eight years, it doesn't matter. this is the tell—all we've all been waiting for except we didn't

have to wait! much of the book, from the extracts i've read, it's already been reported elsewhere, it'sjust names have been put to anonymous sources, and it's all organised in a titillating and very amusing way. i think what the book does show is that the war for trump's ear is never—ending. he's one of these bosses whose decision is — the last person in the office, whatever he said, that's my decision. so bannon was trying to get his ear, the republican party in congress was trying to get his ear, and his children were trying to get his ear. initially, steve bannon had his ear and then he lost his ear. and i think that the dynamic is that steve bannon has allowed this book to go forward, to go public, have his name attached to these quotes. i mean, so say that the president's son, donjr, is going to be cracked like an egg on national television by robert mueller, the special prosecutor looking into the russian matter. i mean, that's burning your bridges with a flame—thrower! but what's interesting to me

is the way the republicans have dealt with this so far. their initial response was to demand the justice department look into the clinton foundation. they are backing their man. one of the interesting quotes in the book is, i think it comes from mitch mcconnell, you can correct me if i'm wrong, "trump will sign anything i put in front of him." that's crucial. they got the most important thing they wanted, which was this extraordinary tax reform bill, which cuts corporate taxes, which will not necessarily mean higher wages for people, it'll mean bigger dividends for shareholders. it cuts taxes on the most wealthy in american society with tiny amounts coming to the kind of people who backed trump all the way. i think the republicans think, we've won him, we've pulled him into ourcamp. bannon thought he was going to pull him into his camp, the nationalist — i'll get in trouble for this — white supremacist camp. you know, where blood and soil nationalism is the new way forward for america, making

america great again. and i think the republicans think they've won him over now and they have a sense of control. but the other thing the book tells us is that the guy really can't be controlled because he has no impulse control himself. and i think that that's probably the most important thing of the book, is that it does reveal how the guy's mind, such as it is, works. and i think we should all be paying attention to that. in this era of fake news — he coined the phrase — i mean, michael wolff himself, bronwen, is quite a colourful character. i was interviewing a trump supporter yesterday who said — well, if you were at the bbc you have to second—source everything.

most of these quotes in the book, they don't have two sources, it's not accurate, therefore you can't rely on it. what is the average reader of this book meant to take away from it? how much can they trust it? i think they can trust the overall picture a lot because it stands together as a picture and a narrative, of how the white house is working. and as michael says, of a portrait of this extraordinary president. whether you can trust any individual scene is a question. there are real questions about michael wolff's technique generally, which is to write it as if he were there, even in some cases when he wasn't. and so to take things that he's done from interviewing with people, maybe second or third hand, and write it as if he was there. that's been a question right the way through. but i think what he's had, first place, he has had some of the key people, to who quotes were attributed, like steve bannon, standing up and essentially not withdrawing them. right. the only significant kind of protest we've had is tony blair saying,

"look, i didn't say that about the brits spying on trump." no one else has rushed out to say... disowning this quote. i'm disowning that. yes. we haven't had that. the picture hangs together. what really hangs there is the portrait of donald trump, as michael is saying, of the man so paranoid he will eat only mcdonald's because he doesn't want to be poisoned. the very odd mistrust between him and his family members, of the distance between him and his wife. 0f advisers both clamouring to be close to him, to impress their views on his mind and being contemptuous of him. that hangs there, but there are also stings in there which have some life. one, to me, is the allegations of money—laundering against members of the trump coterie. that has some legs, i think. the other one is the allegations about his mental health, questions about whether he's beginning to suffer from dementia because of the repetitions he goes in for and just this instability of decision—making. those have some legs. but to his core base, again, they will say, this is the establishment out to attack someone that they don't like. his core base...

apparently, this book is selling very well in those areas as well, but it's not going to change their minds. it confirms, as you have said, more or less what we already know, that the white house is dysfunctional. all the comments about president trump's mental health have been said by, whether on or off the record, by rex tillerson, by rupert murdoch, by hr mcmaster... a couple of others as well. these people have all said this already, we know this. it's confirmation of something that should be quite worrying i suppose, yes, but i don't think there's anything new in it, but it'll sell a lot of books. when you come to talk about amendment 25 and the removal of a president, or you're talking about impeachment, i think you're into a completely different thing. it takes a long time, it is primarily a political process because it involves a vote of congress and so on. i don't think we're anywhere near there at the moment. but it's interesting to have the confirmation of something that we've been discussing on this programme for quite a long time.

but does it have any long—term impact? he has got things through that he promised to. the tax cuts have already been mentioned, that was a promise. the paris climate accord, that was a promise, and his supporters will say, he is delivering on what he promised on the campaign trail. yes. i mean, the tax bill you refer to, that's a plus for achieving something, despite having a white house that the president cannot focus on details, at least this bill was passed, it's the biggest tax success for an administration. you've had the fightback against isis in syria and iraq. the us has increased its influence in iraq. iraq is not right now, with iran, at all points. so, there are positives that have happened, but the potential for other positives to happen i think has decreased,

in the sense that, let's take the iran case, again. if donald trump had a better stature amongst the international community, amongst the electorate, whatever he would say would be basically, at this time, when he asks for support, people would come, like mr 0bama. just take trump out and put 0bama there, with his positive approach. if mr 0bama had pronounced his support for this policy of supporting the protesters, everybody would accept it. but instead what you've got, you've got this family dynamic going on. in the middle east, it works. 0ur old colleague told me once, they're going to love trump in saudi arabia and the gulf because they've been telling american presidents for years, have your children do it, and his children do it. and you have this very dangerous situation where you've got a guy

like jared kushner, he inherited a position in his father's real estate business and married trump's daughter. and he goes off to riyad and he spends days with mohammad bin salman, the crown prince, and out of it comes this new axis against iran. so that when donald trump says, or nikki haley, the un ambassador, says, we think we should have a un security council meeting, it's all part of this new axis of pressure on the regime, except that they don't have anything to back it up with. the regime, the iranian regime is stronger. that's i think a danger to the way the world works because, let's face it, russia and china have vested interests in maintaining that regime. if anything, when you say iran is stronger at the moment, it is not, in the sense that financially, because it is at the stage that it is at now, it cannot maintain its power... economically, maybe not, but militarily...

until now they have been sending afghan militias. that's why, if you add the amount of money that's been spent, it goes upwards of 10 billion. now, this is not a point of strength for iran, and they know it as well, that's why there is dissatisfaction within. do you think that this pressure being brought by trump through his son—in—law and via the saudi is actually strong foreign policy? i'm not saying that for saudi, no, i'm talking about iran, it's two different things. i agree with michael. it's a very shallowly— based policy. to me, the significance of this book is whether it tilts mood in several minds. i absolutely take the points that have been made, that trump's base is sticking with him. but the question is whether the republicans now think they've got what they want out of him, which is the big tax deal, and have reason then to distance

themselves from him? we have the midterm elections coming later this year, which congress is going to watch very, very closely, as to what that says about whether trump's base is really sticking with him. we still have this big crisis of north korea hanging there. the big question about whether donald trump... you know, he keeps flirting on twitter, "my nuclear button." there is no constitutional check on trump pressing that button. he could still get up tomorrow morning and he'll tweet — north korea is talking to south korea... the dow is going through the roof... the markets are on a roll... no, all this. the economy is it going great! this book may give the generals and others licence to pull back a bit and possibly not carry out the orders of president trump. the economy is doing well and that's what people will think about in november, to some extent? well, maybe, maybe not. the economy does well for some

people and doesn't do well for others. the jobs report came out yesterday and there weren't as manyjobs created as had been forecast and so on. i'm not sure about that. the bigger question is — donald trump is donald trump. how he got there is, is what people who watch this programme should really focus on, which is. the republican party is no longer a political party as we come to think of them in democratic societies. it is a faction. when it wins, it governs as if there is no opposition. when it's in opposition, it ruins everything possible so that it gets re—elected. it doesn't acknowledge that there's a separate thing. i think that we're all right here. i mean, it's a transactional relationship. they got the main thing they wanted, the tax cuts. but if they see other benefits in supporting trump, they will. come june, when they look at the public opinion polling on individual house races, in 2018, they may reconsider their judgements. my basic view on all washington senior politicians is, they don't like to be humiliated,

and they have long memories. and trump has humiliated paul ryan. he has humiliated from time to time mitch mcconnell. they swallowed their pride, they got their tax bill. there will come a time, i'm certain, when they will want to extract their price for that. michael, thank you very much for drawing that to a close. thank you. thanks very much indeed for being with us. plenty more to discuss next week — same time, same place. thanks for watching dateline london. bye bye. hello there. sunday morning starts onato hello there. sunday morning starts on a to leigh colbert with hello there. sunday morning starts on a to leigh colbert with sharp frost across all parts of the country and ice around as well,

particularly in eastern england. through the day, once the mist and frost clears away, lots of sunshine. a bit ofa frost clears away, lots of sunshine. a bit of a breeze in southern england taking the edge of those temperatures, but with highs ofjust zero to six degrees it will be a chilly one. sunday night, very cold, with a blue hue returning to the map. cloudy across parts of southern england, temperatures not falling as low here, but most places well below the thing once again in the countryside, with a chance of some ice first thing on monday. monday itself looks like another glorious day across scotland, northern ireland and northern england. wintry sunshine here. the south across country, more cloud. top temperatures on monday, around 2— six degrees. goodbye for now. welcome to bbc news, broadcasting to viewers

in north america and around the globe. my name is duncan golestani. our top stories: in the next few hours, 30 american cities are expecting the coldest temperatures they've ever recorded. reports from syria say government and russian air strikes have hit ten hospitals in the past ten days. he walked on the moon and flew the first space shuttle mission. astronaut john young has died at the age of 87. hello.

the east coast of north america is shivering in a record—breaking freeze.