the pope condemns as unjustifiable use of ‘instruments of extermination‘ reports of at least 70 people being killed in syria in what appears to be a chemical attack. washington says russia "ultimately bears responsibility" for the alleged attacks. the home secretary is denying that falling police numbers are to blame for the recent surge in violent crime in london. amber rudd said evidence did not back up claims that cuts to resources were the cause of increased crime. the foreign secretary borisjohnson describes jeremy corbyn as "the kremlin‘s useful idiot" — the labour leader hits back saying mrjohnson has "made a fool of himself" over russia. now on bbc news — dateline london with shaun ley. hello, i'm shaun ley and this is dateline london — the programme where journalists

from abroad who report on events here for the folks back home, debate the big stories of the moment with their peers from the uk. this week, things get murkier, not clearer, on the poisoning of the skripals in salisbury. 15 years after the invasion of iraq, how fares the middle east? and strike up the band — donald trump goes into battle armed with tariffs, but china stands ready to strike back. to discuss all that, the dateline chorus line: abdel barri atwan is in and out of the middle east, as a commentator on arab affairs. steve richards is a long—standing commentator on british politics. stephanie baker is an american, and writes from london for bloomberg news. and stefanie bolzen is a journalist for germany's die welt. welcome. it's just over a month since sergei skripal and his daughter, yulia, fell victims to a nerve agent attack on the streets of one of britain's quieter cities, salisbury. this week, the propaganda war began in earnest. first, the man who runs britain's military science laboratories confirmed the substance was novichok, developed

by the russians. when he couldn't confirm the source, moscow accused the british government of exaggerating the evidence. then a phone conversation, purporting to involve yulia was played on russian television, in which she said of her father, in exile after spying for the west, "he is resting now, sleeping. everyone‘s health is ok". on friday, it was announced that sergei skripal, who for weeks the british had described as in a critical condition, was "improving rapidly". steve, britain has assembled a formidable coalition of allies to support its position that the russian state was responsible for this intervention. this nerve agent attack. this week, the propaganda war seems to have pushed the british onto the back foot, what has gone wrong? i remember tweeting on the day of theresa may's first or second statement on this when everyone was saying what a remarkable consensus, parliament at its best, onlyjeremy corbyn outrageously raising questions.

this is reviving theresa may's reputation, this is improving borisjohnson‘s reputation. i remember tweeting, "i am conditioned to see trouble ahead when consensus forms over any british foreign policy". you never know what form the trouble will take, but you know those cheering for theresa may say this will make her premiership. but they will turn on her, at some point, if it starts to go wrong. it is only starting to go wrong in the sense, as you say, is that it has become murkier. it is not quite so clear cut because of this issue of the source. because the victims are recovering. but even so, it seems to me the hysteria that greets every british foreign policy initiative in the context, in inverted commas, of war, this one metaphorically speaking, is deeply dangerous. that's not to say that theresa may was not right at first,

but it needs to be scrutinised more carefully and cautiously than a, sort of, celebration of british greatness. which always accompanies the early stages of british foreign policy, before it starts to go wrong. i was struck by an intervention from one centre—right politician in germany who, following these stories of russia's process, said it's a bit worried, now, about the evidence britain has for blaming russia. yeah. it was interesting that was the current prime minister of a very important region. he is from angela merkel's party. he is from the cdu. you would expect the social democrats, politicians on the left, coming out and expressing criticism, but not so much the cdu itself. there is a wider context. obviously, what do we know, really?

we would assume that our governments know more, because otherwise they wouldn't have agreed to go along with the brits. from a german perspective, this is very difficult, because it has its own information war at home with russia. this seems to jump on the british wagon and to share whatever that is, that is a domestic problem. what about the view that, in fact, a lot of this is inevitably, kind of, murky, because it suits russia for it to be murky? it suits russia to challenge every claim. in a sense, the russian story has not been consistent. now it seems to be settling on, "we are being wrongly accused", but there have been various explanations. there was mocking about the poisoning, originally. it seems as if the russians hadn't quite got their message focused until comparatively late on. in the middle east,

we are a great believer of conspiracy theories, to be honest. it reminds me of the iraq war, the weapon of mass destruction. about the intelligence. exactly. it reminds me of david kelly, the scientist who committed suicide, you know what happened. what is next after that? i am not looking at that controversy, i am looking at what the aim of this is. i believe we are in the middle of a new cold war. i believe britain, actually, asked to present more evidence tojustify this kind of dangerous thing. 150 russian diplomats were kicked out, 150 other diplomats from 22 countries were also kicked out. what is happening? why is that? what is the american role, here? why did the americansjump the gun and kick out 60 russian diplomats immediately,

before any proper investigation is taking place? we need international investigation, because this could lead to a war. the weapons of mass destruction saga drowned us in a lot of instability, wars, death, killing, destruction. what is the aim of this? why is britain taking the leading role in this kind of problematic subject, which could cause a lot of problems between the two superpowers of the west and the east, again? barry was talking about the americans jumping in and effectively they went much further with their own sanctions this weekend with very targeted sanctions against president putin's circle. some might wonder why it has taken so long for sanctions to focus on some of the very wealthiest people who are so close to president putin. there are questions being raised about why britain also doesn't take action along the same lines.

are those questions being raised in washington? you now have effectively two us foreign policies. trump's rhetoric, which is treating putin with kid gloves... ring him up, congratulating him. ..against the advice of his advisers, on his re—election and invited him to the white house. and then the administration, which is hitting back harder than obama ever hit back on russia. these latest sanctions will bite, hitting associates very close to putin. the sons of various oligarchs... some people refer to this as a cold war 2.0. i actually think right now we are at the worst relations have been between moscow and the west since probably the early 1980s. since the early invasion of afghanistan in ‘79. i think it will get worse,

it has not bottomed out. the russian contacts i talk to say they fear that putin has now given up on rapprochement with the west. with his re—election, he will engage in more foreign adventurism. and now with this skripal case, the foreign office has handled this very badly. clumsy language, a tweet that it had to pull out, creating hostages of fortune for russia to attack. it still remains the case it is highly likely this was russia, russian security services, either with the explicit backing of putin or freelancing. i am not sure what is worse, actually. putin will be backed into a corner and will play this game of disinformation, trying to exploit cracks in the western alliance. he has been genuinely shocked and surprised at the unified

response from europe and the us, particularly given brexit, trump's rhetoric and he will have to lash out again. steve, that might explain why the propaganda war by the russians has become much more active this week. the russian ambassador in london doing a very big news conference. we have seen the phone call, which was played out on russian television, happened to be recorded and therefore available, this conversation between yulia skripal and her cousin back in moscow. picking up on stephanie's point, don't the british have to explain why they haven't had targeted sanctions until now? people like the big oligarchs who are very close to vladimir putin. they won't put it like this, but we know the answer, russian money has flooded into this country, the economy is about to shrink with brexit and they are worried about sanctions, which could lead to a lot of russian money leaving the united kingdom.

again, i like the fact that may doesn't hold press conferences every ten seconds and turns it into political theatre, as tony blair and david cameron would have done. but the problem she has got herself into with this so called tit—for—tat business is, i am sure you are right, putin will now escalate the idea that rapprochement is out of the window, from his perspective. and from the west's perspective, too. at some point, they will have to contemplate sanctions. and on it will go. what is the endgame when you begin something like this? all the media cheers now, strong british government, strong this, strong that, but where does it end and how? it's interesting that so far those financial sanctions have been imposed. i don't remember the context, but when george osborne was chancellor, he was under pressure to do it, i can't remember

what the background was. but he didn't, because of the money. and because he was famously a guest on a russian yacht. of course. there was a row between him and peter mandelson. at the time, there was a sense that british politicians had very good relations with russia. famously, germany, putin was very good at co—opting politicians, gerhard schroder, the former chancellor. very enthusiastic pro—russian in his outlook when he left office. there are still a lot of close ties with former german politicians. the former lord chancellor now being paid by a big russian company. talking about sanctions, there are still sanctions in place because of the ukrainian context. there is a growing discontentment with the eu to keep the sanctions going.

even in the german government, there was a lot of controversy how long they should last. they are damaging the german economy. they are suggesting that britain had made the case more aggressively than the intelligence would back up. they had oversold it. that is a big problem, how can you keep sanctions in place and have more and stronger sanctions on the basis for that is very... not very stable ? they are playing this game, exploiting those differences, playing it masterfully. despite the unified european response, president macron of france is going to the saint petersburg forum next month, which is russian‘s answer to davos. which some people said western leaders should boycott. he will be sharing a stage with putin, watch this space. indeed. and watch this programme. on april 9th 2003, baghdad fell to the forces of the us—led coalition. a giant iron statue of saddam hussein was pulled down, a symbol of the end of his despotic regime. the british never signed up for regime change, joining the the invasion to contain

the potential threat from his weapons of mass destruction. as barry mentioned. unfortunately, the intelligence on which the case was made was flawed, and no such weapons were found. the invasion was quick and effective. what followed was anything but. 15 years on, what is your assessment of the iraq that has emerged from that? when you look at that endgame, steve mentioned what happened after 15 years of the iraq invasion, how is the middle east? this invasion is supposed to have gotten rid of a brutal dictator and bring peace and stability to the middle east. do we have peace and stability in the middle east, after 15 years of this invasion? the answer is a big no. look at the situation now, look at iraq. iraq is dismembered, divided. sectarian... you know, fights between the people, there. it is not a united country, as it used to be. there was sectarianism

under saddam hussein? no. whether we like him or not, he was a secular leader. definitely, he had shortcomings and was brutal, no question, but iraq was, you know, a stone of stability in the middle east, whether we like it or not. secondly, what we witnessed, we witnessed islamic state and isis emerging, there. now the crisis in syria. now we are having the russians coming to the region. iran reaps the benefit of that war, iraq in particular, iran has the upper hand. we had a very serious summit taking place in ankara just a few days ago. russia, turkey and iran are working together and i believe there is a nucleus of a new alliance taking place in that part. the middle east is completely dangerous.

there is no stability at all. that is the problem. the people who were behind, and supported this war in iraq, are they saying, "ok, let us look at this situation, are we going to repeat this experience in the middle east? what will happen in syria?" the west is losing the battle in syria and iraq for the benefit of russia and iran. the president was suggesting he wanted to get troops out as quickly as possible, that is slightly muted now, but that was his initial instinct. you had this confused and conflicting us policy, what trump says doesn't necessarily match his advisers and what his administration is pushing. trump says he wants to get out of the iran nuclear deal, as a way of curtailing iran's ambitions in the region. and a result of mistakes us made in the war. at the same time he wants

to withdraw troops fighting isis in syria, which would effectively concede territory to iran and russia. this meeting this week in ankara between putin and the leaders of turkey and iran is very significant. the us was not there in a crucial discussion about the future of syria. it remains to be seen, given a new secretary of state in the us, mike pompeo and john bolton as national security adviser, two hawks, how the us will proceed. whether it comes from trump's rhetoric and his tweets or whether they will have the upper hand. steve, very strong criticism from barry about the consequences of what tony blair used to call liberal interventionism. in a sense, we intervened, we solved the immediate problem, but created new problems and perhaps a vacuum in which problems flourished.

does that mean that european politicians to say to the middle east, "forget it, we're not getting involved"? it depends what you mean by getting involved, they have no choice but to get involved. there is no question that military action, which was anyway limited, remember germany and france opposed military action in iraq within the european union context, though not all european union members opposed it. but it is one of the reasons that i have become conditioned to be sceptical when a consensus forms. you were there, i think, when the parliamentary debate happened. backing tony blair. full support. from the leader of the opposition. almost all conservatives, but not all. ken clarke, and others, opposed. and this very weekend, when saddam fell, there was a forgotten phrase in british politics. number ten hoped for what they called a "baghdad bounce", that there would be a huge rise in the opinion polls as a result of this.

at first, there was. an alternative political narrative has formed that tony blair did what he thought was right, although it was deeply unpopular. there was hope, partly realised, of a big rise in popularity when he fell. what hadn't been thought through, which is why, you know, everyone needs to focus on consequences, were what the consequences would be. he even admits that himself, tony blair, that he didn't realise the divisive nature of iraq and the degree to which, as barry was saying, it would generate all the turmoil that has followed. that has had consequences when we talk about syria because the british parliament wouldn't role in a military moulded intervention, scarred by the experience in iraq. there is always a danger reading from one experience to another. it has an effect on the western european countries in this context. it is important to say that

of course europe will be involved somehow but as we have seen with this summit in ankara, the west, especially the european union is now a spectator. they are just watching what is going on without any means and any power... no real leverage. of course, in terms of refugees and reconstructing europe, europe will have to do the job. in self interest, that is why europeans should care. yes. you could see why they don't feel directly affected by it. it is not only dangerous in the middle east, in the region, of course it is physically but politically in europe this is very dangerous. we are neighbours. the middle east and europe are neighbours. what happens in the middle east will definitely reflect negatively or positively in europe. this war cost us, donald trump said,

it cost us more than $7 billion. the war in syria cost the united states at least $70 billion. it is very costly. imagine this amount of money if it was spent to make the middle east prosperous, to make the middle east more stable. i think we would have completely different outcomes. this is what we are talking about, not the death ofi million people killed, i am not talking about whole cities destroyed completely because of this war. we have to look at it. i believe the british parliament was absolutely correct to say no, from day one, we shouldn't intervene in syria. also this anti—war campaign, demonstrating in the city of london, we shouldn't go to war in iraq, i believe they were absolutely right in this position. let's move on.

in the gershwin musical "strike up the band!", the president imposes a 50% tariff on imported cheese and ends up provoking a war with the swiss. there's something a little theatrical about donald trump's imposition of import duties on chinese goods and beijing's rhetoric in response — that it'll "pay any price" to ensure its economy doesn't suffer. we have had a lot of rhetoric from the president and the chinese over the last few weeks. in particular this week. does it amount to the basis of a trade war or do you have a sense that both sides really want to do what donald trump always talks about, the deal? this is always a difficult with trade wars. it is difficult to map out and how they will play out. it is clear the us, given the large trade deficit it has with china, has more to lose. that's if the us imposes 50 billion or now 100 billion, which is what is being considered, of tariffs on china and china responds in kind, the us will be hurt more. so far what you have seen from china is a very politically astute response. they are targeting industries and states that supported trump. soya bean farmers in

the united states are suffering from low prices as it is, they have targeted soya beans. how that will play out in the november mid—term elections, that is not good for trump, that is not good for the republican party. this will divide the republican base. looking at this, trump is obviously trying to use his rhetoric to extract concessions from the chinese. it is hard for either the chinese or trump to either back down in any face—saving way. china can play this game, they can play the long game and survive. but the us will suffer more. steve, i suppose tariffs can work. one thinks of the famous example of the american politicians, ronald reagan in the early ‘80s, when he actually got

the japanese to, very quickly, reduced the number of cars they were importing to the united states because of the threat of tariffs. but china is notjapan, the relationship is different and china is a much bigger player and can presumably hold out much longer. also, the threat is one thing. when you impose them, that is when the trouble begins because then you will get retaliation. i can understand why it starts. it is part of this whole global economy. individual leaders trying to do something about it. trump is a purist politician, he claims to be wholly anti—government. but he is the most active president they have had for decades, including imposing forms of protectionism. it is to some extent the same with the british government, proclaiming their commitment to free trade while leaving the european union where, in some form, tariffs might well be imposed. it looks as if the current crop of leaders are responding to the challenges of this global economy where you can get, say,

clothes coming in for 10p from a country paying peanuts to workers, is the imposition of tariffs. but it leads inevitably to retaliation. everybody loses from protectionism, that is a lesson. it was one of the ideas behind the european free market. but even within the european union, individual companies fought and resisted, the french over energy companies, they did not want to open them up to competition, there are historical reasons why countries feel very strongly that they can't quite allow this favoured industry of their own to be exposed to the full risks that might come from free trade. of course. at the end of the day, things come down to domestic interest. why we always talk about the european single market working so well, if you look at it, when i was based in brussels i once had a story about cross— border services. it is every country and every city trying

to protect its own businesses. if you blame the brits to leave and actually being very single—minded, every country... that is what everyone else does in different ways. how do they avoid the risk that this spirals into a trade war? that it doesn'tjust stop with tariffs and the threats and there is a deal? the us trade representative said if they target our farmers, we will be prepared to fight back and similarly the chinese said they will pay any price. if you create the rhetoric, you have to deliver on the action, don't you? the only saving grace is that he has just appointed a new economic adviser, larry kudlow, who has been against these tariffs. the last one resigned because he was against them. exactly! he has positioned... his words on this have been more conciliatory. even trump's words, frankly, during the campaign, he said, "this is going to be easy". his more recent statements realises

there will be some short—term pain if they want to change the rules of the game. there is a degree of consensus that china has abused wto rules. the world trade organisation is supposed to ensure that everybody operates in the same way. right. there is a degree of support and you have even seen some democratic senators and congressmen who have supported these actions. it divides the democratic party. the republican party has been the party of free trade, you would actually expect some sort of response to this, given particularly the potential economic damage it could do. we have already seen a massive drop in the stock market as a result of these moves. but you have a weakened republican party. it is now trump's party, he has the upper hand. thank you. we will have to leave it there. an interesting thought to end on, trump's party, whatever happens. that's it for dateline

london for this week — we're back next week at the same time. thank you very much to my guests. you can, of course, comment on the programme, tweet @bbcshaunley. until the same time next week, goodbye. we have mixed fortunes today across the uk. in northern and western parts it has died. this is the scene from cornwall, nice blue skies. it

is cloudier and wetter moving further north and west words, pushing into the midlands and east yorkshire. one or two showers for northern ireland which could be heavy and thundery. for most it is dry and bright. temperatures around 12 dry and bright. temperatures around i2 celsius, cooler than temperatures yesterday in the south east. overnight tonight, lots of cloud in south east england. some patches of mist and fog developing into the early hours of monday. during monday it will be similar to to say. northern and western parts there will be sunny spells after the fog and mist clears. darren into the south east of england there will be some rain. —— down into. this is bbc news.

i'm ben brown. the headlines at midday: an unjustifiable use of "instruments of extermination" — the pope speaks out after reports of at least 70 people being killed in syria in an alleged chemical attack. we have received many patients who have suffered from symptoms compatible with exposure to chlorine gas. america describes the reports as "horrifying," and says russia "ultimately bears responsibility" for the alleged attacks. the foreign office wants an urgent investigation. the home secretary, amber rudd, denies that falling police numbers are to blame for the recent surge in violent crime in london. the foreign secretary boris johnson describesjeremy corbyn as "the kremlin‘s useful idiot" — the labour leader hits back saying