ajit pai is chair of the us federal communications commission — which is leading the inquiry into the alert. he says hawaii did not have reasonable safeguards in place. the palestinian president, mahmoud abbas, has hit out at president trump in a speech to a meeting of the palestinian leadership, which is discussing its response to the white house's decision to shift the american embassy to jerusalem. mr abbas described the move as the "slap of the century". two of the world's leading fashion photographers have been suspended from working for vogue and other magazines owned by the publishing house, conde nast. mario testino and bruce weber both deny claims published in the new york times newspaper that they sexually harassed young male models. now on bbc news, dateline london. hello and a very warm welcome to dateline london.

i'm jane hill. this week we are discussing the future of the iranian nuclear deal as president trump says he will tolerate it for a few more months. what impact will that have inside the country where so many are still in prison? and as two key british ministers promote brexit in germany, was anyone listening? my guests, agnes from a french magazine, geoffrey, the broadcaster who was foreign correspondent for us television. an iranian writer and journalist and a british political commentator and journalist. a very warm welcome to all of you. trump has declared he will extend

reliefjust one more time, giving european countries a last chance to fix terrible flaws in the 2015 deal. for example, the white house wants permanent restrictions on the iranian uranium enrichment program. the administration also announced 14 new targeted sanctions against individuals and entities. so all the other signatories to this deal say it has worked, it is working, it is the best plan there is. what does this stance from president trump mean? president trump is trying to link the nuclear deal to two other issues, one is the missile programme which is mentioned in the un resolution but not in the deal. don't forget that the deal isjust a verbal deal, nobody signed it, and nobody

is legally committed. it's just a political move. the second thing is he wants to connect it to human rights. this is why, for example, the chiefjustice has been sanctioned under a new decision by president trump. he has made some headway with the french president, who has also mentioned these two issues. the idea is to force the iranians into negotiations for a new package so the nuclear issue is not treated in isolation. the idea is you cannot have a regime behaving differently, to be very nice on nuclear issues, but bad on human rights and missile issues. holding 36 western hostages, for example, most of them them without charge. there is a package of problems

and i think donald trump, if he succeeds, he will bring iran to solve the whole of its problems. it's a country that many problems with the outside world and the wisest thing is to tackle them all together. 0k. there is lots to talk about there. geoffrey, is trump saying because of all of the factors highlighted, or is itjust a visceral reaction to a deal signed under president obama? it is very clear it is the latter. what he talks about are incredibly complex issues that take a lot of study. we know he is not a man who likes to study. these are gut reactions. they are bad, obama liked them, therefore i do not. there is no chess here, this is checkers. but the advisers around donald trump agree. this is one foreign policy area where he and his advisers are in agreement. there is a general consensus that iran has been allowed to get away with a lot, that there has a lot

of kowtowing to try to accommodate. i think there is a sense that iran needs to be held to account. that's why there is some support. the complexity of this... and when you add in the demonstrations that we have seen in iran over the last few months in iran that come in conservative areas, they add a layer of complexity that make it far more difficult to navigate. and when iran says it will respond forcefully to any attempts to get it to negotiate something new, what does that mean? what is your take on that? it does not mean anything. it isjust bragging and sabre rattling because iran is in a weak position at the moment. the trick that the americans are playing... let's not do trump bashing.

bashing trump is not going to help, he does not understand the issue but the american administration, the government, the superpower, it is making a comeback, regardless of donald trump. the fact is that here is america acting unilaterally. all european powers are horrified by what is going on. you cannot hope to be the leader of the western world if you behave in the way that america is doing. i think the bigger picture outside of this, quite apart from the missile deal and what have you, is the situation in the middle east. of course, i can understand why both europeans and americans are worried by iran's role in syria and iran's role in yemen. i mean there is a whole series of... but the way to approach it is surely not an incredibly blunt an aggressive way, ignoring all his allies. i am worried by your soft approach to trump here. i don't want to participate in trump bashing. i don't care about trump.

he has nothing to do with me. what i'm saying is that he has not acted unilaterally. he has renewed the suspension of sanctions. he has given 120 days, yes. he's free to suggest, he is suggesting to bring a package of issues that we have with iran instead of setting them on one side, let's face them. it's good for iran too because iran has not benefited from this deal at all, contrary to what people think. so what. .. with this 120 day deadline trump talks about, what do the european signatories do now? what is their response? first of all, they think there is no better alternative. if trump and the american administration was so authentic and genuine about

making it better... because the issues, as you very well said, are complex and there are other questions to be debated, it should be done behind closed doors as it had been done. it is a question for diplomacy. and the 25 countries that participated. it took ten or 15 years to get to the point with iran that we reached and then suddenly there is all this bragging which is so counter—productive, especially when you are dealing with iran. if you want to take it further, why not? but he has not done anything. he hasjust... he has given us an ultimatum. he has not given an ultimatum because an ultimatum is a diplomatic term that must the done through diplomatic channels. "this may be the last time i sign it" is what he said. it did not sound like an ultimatum?

you have got to have a backup plan. and now i am the defendant of trump... it's not our intention. we want your analysis of what it means. i'm not american. i'm iranian. it has nothing to do with donald trump or iranians or americans. what i'm saying is that he suggesting, he says that iran is the cause of many problems. we do not deny that. to that point, what could change? as i said, macron is already agreed. the british are out because they are obsessed with brexit. the italians have no government, the germans have no government. there is nobody. so he is saying, let's bring iran to the negotiating table about the middle east, the intervention in other arab countries, their support for terrorism, the holding

of western hostages, all these things. it will be good for iran as well because once this underbrush is cleared, then they can really lift sanctions on iran. sanctions are not lifted on iran. the iranian embassy in london cannot open a bank account in london. it is forced to pay its staff cash. do you realise that? this is what donald trump say. listen... i think what would be interesting... he is a sexual predator. and that is not what we are here to do discuss. will the ordinary iranians be helped ? we have spoken about the protest about the economy. ceveral thousand people still in prison, perhaps more. to your point then, what could change? what could benefit? a young population who do not have a job. those fundamentals of life, how could that change? if the problem is truly solved... iran as a nationstate, iran has a problem. this schizophrenia.

one day iran must decide to join the nations and not be a vehicle for exporting revolution. in that case, iran has no problem with anybody. it's the only country in the middle east with defined borders, the only one in the middle east that has not been at war with anybody for 400 years except the iraqi invasion in the 1990s. so, we have no problem with anybody. the problem we have is because we want to make the rest of the middle east communist. what problems do we have with the us? none at all. we do not share a border, we do not compete over market or access to raw material. we have no problem. we have 2 million iranians living in the united states. we have good relations with them and we have become the number one enemy of the united states because of the revolutionary side.

israel has been our friends for ever, in since we freed thejewish people from babylonian slavery 2500 years ago, and i never, you know, heard anybody say anything bad aboutjewish people in iran. there is no anti—semitism in iran. and now we are anti—israeli? if iran can come back as a nation with its culture and its history, its population, it will be fantastic for everybody. i know, i can sense there will be enormous twitter debate around this but thank you. we will be returning in weeks to come for sure to discuss this and we will see where this goes. there is more to discuss this week, i'm afraid we must move on. you mentioned brexit and it cannot be ignored this week because two british cabinet ministers, those who stayed in place

after the cabinet reshuffle, headed to germany to make separate pleas about brexit. chancellor philip hammond and david davis urged their respective audiences to remember the importance of london's financial services sector. they told a german newspaper it makes no sense to put unnecessary barriers to trade into place. they certainly give the sence that britain may want a bespoke deal. was anybody listening in germany? they were pretty busy there this week. i don't know why they chose that particular week to go. it was supposed to be a three—day charm offensive, that was a hell of a three—day charm offensive because they ended up telling die welt, the german newspaper, that the eu leaders should not want to punish the eu, that they were paranoid

and backward looking. they said remember the financial crisis, effectively. we do not want another financial crisis, therefore it behoves all european countries to remain as so in terms of financial services. philip hammond at least said something new, though it was bewildering, saying that it is for europe to make an offer. to tell us what you can bring to the table. it's not necessary for britain to tell you, europe, what we want. but then it's what we call a conversation between deaf and mute people, because the german business leaders in berlin said hang on, we don't know what britain wants. one day it is one sort of agreement and then the next it is a different trade agreement with financial services. i think they would say they did go into germany knowing what they wanted —

which is about stability and financial services. 0k. you are talking about financial services, which is key to the british economy. but then for the moment, though the eu has said that this city of london and the banks operating there will lose their passporting rights, so that line has not changed. so now it is a question for the british government, really. and therefore the conservative party need to come together and decide what they want in order to have a single line to go to brussels with and say you've the kind of agreement... it is a mess. a total and utter mess. we now seem to be willing to pay to secure additional rights for a financial services. we would have to pay a financial penalty. whether this will be sellable to the british parliament or to the british people, i have no idea. but it is a fantastic mess.

and what i find interesting is that day by day, reality begins to intrude into these negotiations. the french are only too keen to take over our financial services. i can see emmanuel macron rubbing his hands at this moment. the fact is, this country... it is not mad, in my view, and never has been. the conservative party, in theory, should represent the interests of business. that is what it has traditionally been about. the business will not put up with the sort of lying that the conservative party is destined for. so either party will will need to start adjusting and along with the parliament and the prime minister or we will go in for a fantastic dustup. —— bust up. what will they do? what can they do? they will say we need clarity. we cannot plan x years

ahead without clarity. there is no clarity because there is no unity in the government, in the conservative party. until they can reach an agreed view, it is impossible to put forward a british position. we are in a mess. i can understand the irritability and indeed impatience by european partners, former european partners, with the british position. it is caused by a political crisis within the government. and a political crisis so easy to muddle up, the conservative party and the nation, but they are a different thing. this is the problem we face. the tory party has to sort itself out, and it has to actually begin to realise what it is about and what can actually unify us, otherwise we are in a total mess. you know what, sometimes i have that pessimism.

sometimes i think it is this organised chaos of the political process. sometimes when we see, when we are in the midst of these storms, you think, it has gone to hell in a handbasket. but this is how politics works. it takes brinksmanship and bargaining to get to a solution. the concern is we have just over a year to resolve this. and i would add... less than that. october. then we have a six—month process. two other interesting things of note came out, the pound went to its highest level since the referendum, a $1.37 us? that was partly in response to parent statements, indications, from france and holland... spain. ..spain, rather, pardon me, that they would be open to a soft brexit.

that gave business a sense there may be a way out. and then this unexpected comment from nigel farage saying we should have a second referendum, which is extraordinary, the idea the man who really initiated this whole momentum now wants to go back to the people, potentially, for another one. he thinks it has more to do with him than brexit now now that his own friend in the white house, steve bannon, has been brushed aside. he needs a new role in life. i think there are so many currents now that it becomes incredibly difficult to wonder whether this will lead to something stable, or whether we are going to count these days down and be talking something this disorganised. i wanted to pick up on something you were saying about the divide. we had a cabinet reshuffle this week that was quite extraordinary, and you talk to people at westminster all the time. for international viewers who did not follow it, we had a health secretary who was apparently going to be given anotherjob, and to get an extra

title added to his currentjob. another minister who was told to go somewhere else dug her heels in. three hours this went on. what does that tell us about the authority of theresa may? it has been an extraordinary week. shambolic is the only description you can make of the ministry reshuffle. normally it is the time of the utmost prime ministerial power. i don't know, really. she is badly served by people around her. there appears to be no proper preparation. the idea somehow... jeremy hunt has been a close colleague of hers, the health secretary, for five years. and for longer than that. she must have known exactly where he is position was, or she should have done.

the idea that on the day he suddenly says i am digging in, just a total lack of preparation. so you feel it is unprofessional, you feel that she does not have the skills to manage her party, you feel that she is very, very, very weak indeed. and she is only propped up because they cannot agree between themselves, the tory party, at the moment, because they are in such a crisis, on who should be her successor. i take your point from before, that politics seems to be a fractional affair and in the end it all resolves itself. i would just suggest to him that actually we are going through a period of politics in this country which is really, really unusual. and, yes, there may be a resolution at the end of the day, but my goodness it will be difficult to get to. if you are a friend of britain, you just feel sadness. this reshuffle, it sounds

like we should send a rescue mission to downing street. a political prisoner is trapped by her own troops. send in the sas, you know, do something. it is sad in the end. we can laugh, but as a result, britain is in a state of paralysis. we did not want to close this week's programme without as well talking about the massive offence donald trump caused during a bipartisan oval office meeting. donald trump himself denies using the offensive word starting with ","s but he said it was tough language. the united nations said it was racist. are you putting me in a position to use a word on the bbc... entirely your choice. i think we have to say it.

i never thought i would repeat this word on air as a journalist. that is what united nations did. he called the country "shitholes." that came out of his mouth according to witnesses. it is deeply offensive. whatever you think of the man, it is unthinkable that you could defend that kind of talk from a world leader. and, you know, i think it is also offensive when you think of the tradition of america, you know, "give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses." let's be honest, most of america was settled at the time by people from places he might use that word to describe. ireland in the 19th century, china, all of these places by donald trump's admission he says are the same. it is mindnumbing to respond to it.

we're used to a year of bellicose from donald trump. we are used to his extraordinary use of social media in the small hours of the morning. should we be surprised? is there something more worrying about it? first of all, donald trump denies having said that. we have to... that is the precise word, he said he used "tough language." but multiple people were in the room. we have to give him the benefit of the doubt. i think not. the democratic senator was there. it did take him some time before he said a possible "maybe i said that." this "s word" is part of the routine vocabulary of americans, but forforeigners, the secretary general of the un,

it sounds terrible. but the french have so many words like this, so do the germans. except the president does not say that word. it is part of the language of daily life, american literature is full of "f words," "s words," and so on. we should not make too much of it. the trouble is he has form in this area, describing the racists in south carolina, saying, there was fault on both sides. this man does not come with a virgin record. i do not want to defend donald trump. it is none of my business. i hate things that are fashionable. but we have to put things in context. some ideas become fashionable.

the fashionable idea is to hate trump, so i am against it. it is not fashion, it is fact. the president of the free world is indignity personified. we should stop talking about him until he is removed from power by the americans... ..in a peaceful and democratic way. i don't think that it's fair to dismiss this as fashionable. hold on. what he did was dismissed... he used that "5 word" against el salvador, haiti, and south africa, saying we need more norwegians. that is by definition a white supremacist agenda, we need more scandinavian—looking people, and fewer of those others. when you reduce it to what he really means, that is what he was saying. thank you for the largely civilised discussion. we will see you all again. a much more passionate debate this time next week, if you canjoin us. thank you for watching. goodbye.

hello. the week is set to start on a wet and windy note, especially across the south—eastern quarter but once the weather front will have spent its time tumbling across. following on behind, some sunshine, especially across sheltered eastern spots. not overly called across the south but there will be plenty of showers which turned through the evening and overnight and into tuesday, increasingly wintry and to lower levels of scotland and northern

ireland, the high ground of northern england, the high ground of areas that pick up their fair share of showers. they will be sunny spells around but the major story is that things turn much more wintry. look at the temperatures and when i add in the strength of the wind, it feels much, much colder. that went really is here to stay. notjust through tuesday at on into wednesday andindeed through tuesday at on into wednesday and indeed the first part of thursday. welcome to bbc news, broadcasting to viewers in north america and around the globe. i'm reged ahmad. our top stories: hawaii's false missile alert is described as "absolutely unacceptable", as some continue to criticise the white house's response to the error. the palestinian president calls donald trump's middle east peace efforts "a slap in the face". a senior diplomat advising on the rohingya crisis tells the bbc aung san suu kyi must do more to speak out against hate. and man overboard. why the latest leg of a prestigious round the world yacht race took a dramatic turn.