president trump warns russia to ‘get ready‘ for missile strikes against syria. it follows a suspected chemical attack on civilians. mr trump called the syrian president a "gas killing animal". britain's theresa may has summoned her cabinet for a special meeting to discuss uk participation alongside the us. more than 250 people have been killed in a military plane crash in algeria. most of the dead are military personnel and their family members. and the boss of facebook tells us lawmakers that his own personal data was compromised in the cambridge analytica breach. mr zuckerberg had earlier apologised for having failed to check in 2015 that cambridge analytica had deleted information gathered about millions of facebook users. that's all from me now. stay with bbc world news. now on bbc news it's time for hardtalk. welcome to hardtalk. us military

action against president al—assad's forces in syria seems imminent. president trump told the russians that assad's military backers um to get ready by way of a tweet. a spiral of events which began with an alleged chemical weapons attack by the syrian army is heading towards a dangerous confrontation between washington and moscow. my guest may have a feeling of deja vu. philip gordon was the senior adviser on the middle east to barack obama in 2013 when assad's use of chemical weapons came close to prompting the us military ‘s response. did hesitation then sow the seeds for the crisis today? philip gordon in washington,

dc. welcome to hardtalk. thank you. nice to be here. given your experience in the obama white house at that crucial time i referred to in 2013, does everything that is happening today seem trimly familiar? —— grim and familiar? happening today seem trimly familiar? -- grim and familiar? sure it does. but there is one core similarity, that the asada regime seems to have used chemical weapons asa seems to have used chemical weapons as a way to kill a lot of civilians and the united states, mainly the united states, has to choose how to

respond. as you pointed out at the time, president obama threatened and prepared a military ‘s trike which i thought was the right thing to do, and he thought was the right thing to do. ultimately concluded that the united states and should only if it got congressional support and legitimacy and, of course, we did not, and we know how that laid out with a diplomatic deal and not using force. i do have some sympathy for those in the white house today trying to decide how to handle this matter because there is no simple solution. there are huge risks in acting and huge risks and costs in not acting. i want to hear more about your assessment of those risks. i am about your assessment of those risks. iam rather taken about your assessment of those risks. i am rather taken with your somewhat tactful rehearsal of what happened in 2013. obama spoke of red lines and actions the would have followed but he did not back those words with actions. donald trump is

different because when he speaks of red lines, he does seem absolutely determined to back words with actions. we will find out. donald trump has hardly been consistent on this issue or, frankly, any other issue. but this and it is relevant to what we speak of, if you recall, in 2013 individual businessmen trump was a wildly tweety how the united states should not act in syria and he spoke about the president being foolish if he struck syria and that we should stay out and he said was essential that the congress agreed to military action. we need to be careful in thinking that he thinks... i am not saying that he is a deeply consistent individual. i am merely saying that as president he has put out this idea that when assad uses chemical weapons that the

us must respond with force, we have a reason to take him seriously when he says that because not even a year ago he responded thusly to a chemical weapons attack in syria. 0n this, his record appears to be clear. we will see. the jury is still out. it is true that the chemical weapon attack last year was responded to by the americans. it was a response that was telegraphed in advance and the russians had time to get their people off the base. it was a targeted strike on one airfield and had no follow—up. we know that therefore president trump is prepared to use force. we find out now, in a different context, where more force would likely that the required to deter the regime, you would probably have to kill russians and iranians as part of using that. this time, the russians

have threatened to, at a minimum, shoot down an american missiles and possibly even the launch sites, an aircraft carrier. risk is higher in this case but, as i say, we will find out soon whether this president is prepared to put his money where his mouth is on the issue. do you think you should? do you think they are right now you would be lending and we would lend our support to a us military response? and we would lend our support to a us military response ?|i and we would lend our support to a us military response? i do. ifi we re us military response? i do. ifi were in the white house now my view would be the same, which is that especially once the president of the united states has been clear that we will not tolerate chemical weapons use, if those weapons are venues i think we have to follow up and make sure that there is a high price to pay for doing so. i think there is a strong case for military action now. my strong case for military action now. my concern is that such action would have to be very focused and clearly

articulated and as part of the strategy, in my view, which would be focused on deterring illegal weapons use and not trying to change the course of the civil war in syria or engage the russians or other potential goals. so my concern, and this is why bring out the inconsistency of the current president and his questionable reliability on this sort of issue, is that we'll get and disciplined and disciplined and carefully delineated and conduct it, or will be part of an emotional response to get caught up in sorts of things. we have already seen the president tweet in a machismo context that he worries about where this could lead. i think there is a strong case for action but i worry about implementation. i would like to explore those worries shortly. i am so intrigued to have come on hardtalk, a guy who was in the room

with a 0bama hardtalk, a guy who was in the room with a obama in 2013 when these decisions around whether to strike after the chemical weapons attack in 2013, when those decisions were made. you were there. you have made it clear, already in the course of our conversation, that you regret, actually, what you think was a mistake with obama ultimately deciding to not undertake military action. did you tell president obama to his face that you felt he was wrong? i did not tell him to his face. i told wrong? i did not tell him to his face. itold him wrong? i did not tell him to his face. i told him of my view at the time which was his view as well. let me give you the context, it is releva nt. me give you the context, it is relevant. for many months, president 0bama relevant. for many months, president obama spoke about a red line in august 2012. and said that if the syrians start moving a bunch of chemical weapons around or moving them, that would change as calculus. 0ver them, that would change as calculus. over the course of the following spring there were reported incidents, suspect that incident is

that they did not use chemical weapons. the following summer, in august, august 20 one, the regime killed a thousand people in the suburbs. resident 0bama killed a thousand people in the suburbs. resident obama said that thatis suburbs. resident obama said that that is what i meant. i did not mean suspicions of possible use, i meant using chemical weapons. he was the one who said we must respond and he was the one who told his military to prepare a significant strikes. was the one who told his military to prepare a significant strikesli was the one who told his military to prepare a significant strikes. i and others around him agreed with that. he put his own credibility on the line and he is the one who then backed away. i just line and he is the one who then backed away. ijust wonder let line and he is the one who then backed away. i just wonder let and hindsight is a wonderful thing and it is easy to sit here so many years later and second—guess it all. i just wonder whether you would accept that what happened then sowed the seeds for the crisis that we see today? it clearly undermined a 0bama's credibility for many people. inside the united states, across the world, particularly in syria and moscow. a sense it also gave so much

power to the russians because in an agreement about the so—called elimination of chemical weapons, the russians were nominated as the guarantors of syria's good behaviour. all that, today, looks like a mistake. would you agree?” do think there was a cost for not acting. i have been clear about there. i also fully understand and understood why the president did not wa nt to understood why the president did not want to go out on the slim and use military force without congressional backing. his concern was that if he did that, he would be called on to do again and it would be yet another president using force without legitimacy. i happen to think that that was not the right move but i understood it. i don't think... and i think there was a cost, just as you said. i don't think that that is the reason we are in this situation today. barack the reason we are in this situation today. ba rack 0bama the reason we are in this situation today. barack obama is not president. and when you have somebody like assad deciding whether

to use chemical weapons in 2018 is not doing so because of his questions about the previous president's credibility. he is doing it in their seven stands and as you pointed out at the top of the discussion, president trump used force last spring in the way that many people think president obama should have in 2013. it is a lot to suggest that somehow assad is acting now based on the lack of us credibility five years ago when one year ago the us president did exactly what people are saying would have resolved the situation in 2013. i think assad makes as calculus today based on what he thinks the current president will do. and it is single night of airstrikes and chris muscles won't cut of any more, how about this? the words of a well—known hawk in the united states, not always a great trend of donald trump, senator lindsey graham who takes a great interest in military affairs. he said yesterday,

i would now go for all of the infrastructure around assad's air capability. i would infrastructure around assad's air capability. iwould hit infrastructure around assad's air capability. i would hit intelligence services complicit in this war crimes and i would make assad a target because he is a war criminal. how far do you think it would be right to down that track? not that far. that is one of the concerns i have here. that what would start as a very specific response to chemical weapons use would suddenly be an american intervention in a civil war that has gone on for far too long and againsta that has gone on for far too long and against a regime that is backed by iran and russia. i don't think thatis by iran and russia. i don't think that is something that the united states should want to take on at the moment. i think... states should want to take on at the moment. ithink... i states should want to take on at the moment. i think... i think lindsey graham is right, that the response will need to be more than just an telegraph cruise missile strikes on an empty airfield this time and i think it is legitimate to start thinking about aircraft used for

delivery and helicopters and assets that the regime holds dear. but i would worry about pivoting from this. this was one of the concerns that president obama had come that you start down a slope and next thing you know you are going after the regime and you have revived the hopes of the opposition that it can violently hopes of the opposition that it can viole ntly overthrow hopes of the opposition that it can violently overthrow the regime and russia and iran respond in kind. and if you do not want to lose even more credibility by backing down... if we doa credibility by backing down... if we do a strike like that and the russians and the iranians then respond by counter escalating, you better not back down then all you will look worse than if you had not done it in the first place. that is what i mean about discipline and focus and i don't know that this president has this quality. focus and i don't know that this president has this qualitym focus and i don't know that this president has this quality. it is about the president and his advisers of course and now we know thatjohn bolton is his key national security adviser. if you were still, as you used to be, a very senior national

security adviser inside the white house would you be taking seriously the threat from russia that if the us missiles fired at syrian targets that the russians will retaliate by firing directly not just that the russians will retaliate by firing directly notjust that that the russians will retaliate by firing directly not just that the missiles themselves to bring them down but also at the platforms from which those missiles came and presumably including warships, aircraft and possibly airbases as well? of course. of cossie would ta ke well? of course. of cossie would take that seriously and it would be irresponsible not to. i don't think you would want to let backed pa ralyse you would want to let backed paralyse your action. and encourage them to threaten all sorts of things if you do what you think is necessary to do. you must prepare for it. sorry to interrupt. sorry to interrupt but you would run the risk of direct military confrontation with moscow right now, would you

come over syria? with moscow right now, would you come over syria ? it with moscow right now, would you come over syria? it is worth it, given the stakes? yes, i described the stakes earlier as not wanting to give the green light to the free production and use of chemical weapons in syria, in days and weeks and months and years to come, and frankly anywhere else in the region. and if you paralyse yourself any time... and this was i think the russian ambassador to lebanon, so it is not exactly from president putin himself, but if you pa ralyse president putin himself, but if you paralyse yourself because one russian ambassador says that there will be cataclysmic consequences if you do what you need to do, then i think you are asking for trouble and really limiting your ability to undertake any military action under any circumstances. of course you have to take it seriously, but again, that is why i think for this to be done right you would make it very clear to moscow what your aims are and what your aims are not, and that you are prepared to defend

yourself if the russians should carry out such threats. and then they would have to be the ones who ta ke they would have to be the ones who take that into account. but look, what you are getting at is the real risks of this situation, and it is the most dangerous situation president trump has faced. everyone has been saying he hasn't faced an international crisis yet. this is that international crisis. and you mentioned advisers and you mentioned iran, that is another concern i have here, not just with iran, that is another concern i have here, notjust with the advisers likejohn bolton, here, notjust with the advisers like john bolton, who here, notjust with the advisers likejohn bolton, who doesn't seem to be concerned about getting into these wars, but this is his first week on thejob. these wars, but this is his first week on the job. he just fired the homeland security adviser, we don't have a secretary of state, he hasn't even been confirmed yet, so the chief of staff seems to be exhausted. this is hard to do under the best of circumstances, and these are, to say the least, not the best of circumstances. you wrote a report recently for the council on foreign relations, or co—wrote it, and it

was all about russia and its strategic ambition, and what the us should do to respond. and your conclusions seemed to be that there is now a meaningful second cold war with russia. now, does that carry with russia. now, does that carry with it the implication that you and everybody else in senior positions in the obama white house got russia wrong? because yes, you impose some sanctions on them after they invaded crimea and conducted their military operations in east ukraine, but at the same time you were clearly determined to reach out and work with russia on a whole series of issues, including syria, wherejohn kerry desperately wanted to have the russians help him make peace, but also on the iran nuclear deal, as well. you to be inactive, positive partner. did you get russia wrong?” think president obama was right in 2009, coming into office, to explore

whether we couldn't co—operate more effectively with the russians without sacrificing our other interest. and you know what? we did. we got new start agreement, which i think was in our mutual interests, we got the russians to allow us to transit even armed forces and equipment to conduct the war in afghanistan. we got tough sanctions that russia participated in, in iran. but we are talking about vladimir putin, who is crowing about his new nuclear missiles that can destroy america. he has got an amazing array of new weaponry, which he says makes russia once again a global superpower capable of challenging the on all sorts of arenas. russia and the united states arenas. russia and the united states are hostile, if not contemplating direct confrontation, and you are telling me, oh yes, all the stuff we used to do with vladimir putin was a good thing. i am struggling to see how it has worked out in anything

like a positive way. well, let me finish my point. i said i thought it was right to all potential coup operation. i thought for several yea rs operation. i thought for several years while the russian president was medvedev putin was prime minister, we got some practical things done that were in our interest, and therefore it was right pursue them. putin comes back in 2012, in his paranoid, ex— kgb way, and starts reversing all the progress we have made. and it required the united states to respond in a forceful manner itself. and what i think, and what i wrote with my co—author, bob blackwater, a former republican national security official, was that point, that we have been tough enough in responding. so we explored it. russia for its own reasons chose to go in the different direction, send military forces in the crimea, occupied parts of ukraine, has

backed the assad regime in syria, and then arguably even more seriously intervened in notjust our election, which was bad enough, but our society, and to this day continues to use social media and do what it can to fan the flames of the divisions among americans, which is one of the greatest threat that we face. now, those divisions have two more with america than an outside power, but it doesn't help that russia is doing everything it can to deepen those divides, and that threatens us as much as any national security crisis, and that is why we call for tougher measures against russia. so are we right, would you, asa russia. so are we right, would you, as a guy who served 0bama russia. so are we right, would you, as a guy who served obama and is 1 million miles away from donald trump ideologically, would you say that we are now in a new era of what i think defence secretary mattis has called great power competition, where the us faces growing threats from revisionist powers as different as china and russia, but basically

nations that seeks to create a world consistent with their authoritarian models, and that the us needs to shift its strategic doctrine to accommodate that, perhaps shift away from its fixation on terror that it has had the last decade and start facing up to the reality of grey power hostility with russia and maybe china as well? yes, i think that analysis is mostly right. you know, unfortunately you don't get to pick and choose. as it doesn't mean that issues like terrorism more stability in the middle east is less important, cyber attacks. indeed, they start to come together when the russian threat is notjust a missile, nuclear, geopolitical threat but also a social threat, cyber threats. so you don't get to downgrade the priority of other things when you are in a dangerous world. but absolutely, we are in an area of great power competition. it doesn't inevitably had to end with a clash. it requires strength, but also diplomacy and a willingness to explore and find common interest,

and it has to be managed. i think with russia right now, it requires strength. we do have to demonstrate that there is a cost to russia for intervening in our society, in our election, and challenging us geopolitically, and that means tougher sanctions than we have seen tougher sanctions than we have seen to date. it means not shying away when there might be a case when we need to use military force. but it also means leaving the door open for common interests, or at least a modus vivendi when it is in our interest to do so. so we have to stand up to the russians but i hope that once we see that we are not just going to let them have free rein, cooler heads can prevail. and a final thought, and it brings me back to trump. and i know, and you have made it plain in this interview, that you are no supporter of his. what is there not a case of saying that all the confusion is around donald trump, and the controversies, that in the end his

co re controversies, that in the end his core message, which is that he is going to rely on america's strength by making america, quote unquote, great again, and by projecting america's strength on its own, not in collaboration with partners or dodgy deals around the world, but america projecting its own strength on its own, that may be the best way to cope with the problems that we see emerging in the twitter century, whether it be putin's russia, north korea, and iran deal which he says isa korea, and iran deal which he says is a terrible deal. maybe trump is something. there is always a case for being strong, and making sure your adversary knows that you are going to fight for your positions. but you also have to do it in a way that doesn't lead to an explosion. and that is what we will find out with president trump. if this is just good bargaining and tough talk, and that leads the other side to cut and that leads the other side to cut a deal that is in your interest,

then i will be the first to applaud and say more power to him. and i think there are scenarios where you can see that happening. but if it is chaotic and emotional and undisciplined, then, you know, what is designed to be negotiating from strength leads to an uncontrollable and costly conflict, and unintended consequences. and that is what we have to worry about here. and then there is another problem, obviously, with russia, which seems to be the exception to trump's attitude towards so many other issues. now, this may be changing with the tough tweets about britain this week. for the first time in his presidency he seems to be willing genuinely to stand up to the russian leader. heretofore, you have had this really odd thing the dollar trump takes a super hard line towards every other country and individual in the world, but just keep country and individual in the world, butjust keep saying why don't we get along with russia? and i think that may have contributed to this

problem itself, that rather than standing up to the russians, we have given them the impression they can do whatever they want, because the president of the united states is just that zest with cooperating with them. so i welcome it if trump is now prepared to take a tougher line against russia. i think that is the right thing to do. phil gordon, we have two ended there. but thank you very much forjoining me on hardtalk. thanks for having me. hello. there is a change on the way, something brighter and significantly warmer in ourforecasts. but that change will be slow, will be gradual. so on thursday, for many, it's going to be another cloudy day. mostly dry, though. you can see from the satellite picture what's going on. we've got an area of low pressure

down here to the south, areas of cloud being flung around it, and this little area of slightly thicker cloud here has been producing some outbreaks of patchy rain and drizzle, which will continue to drift northwards and westwards during thursday morning. generally we start the day with a lot of cloud, some mist, and murk, and drizzle, some hill fog, and most places will stay disappointingly grey as the day goes on. but there will be exceptions. here's a closer look at thursday afternoon. the north—west of scotland should do very nicely for sunshine. could well get to 12 degrees there in stornoway. more cloud lapping onto the coast of aberdeenshire and down into north—east england, with some spots of rain and drizzle. northern ireland likely to stay quite cloudy, as will much of north—west england, the midlands and wales. but, for the south—west of wales, certainly the south—west of england, should see something a bit brighter. and things may brighten up a little bit towards the south—east, as well, later in the day. and then, during thursday evening,

some showers are likely to trundle in towards the south—east of england. could be the odd rumble of thunder with these. they will then edge northwards as we go through the night into the early hours of friday, with all that cloud around, and the misty, murky, drizzly conditions. it is not going to get cold — 5—9 degrees the overnight lows. now, friday's weather setup is essentially the same one that we've had for much of this week — high pressure and cold across scandinavia, low pressure to the south, throwing this frontal system northwards. so we're going to see some showery rain across northern england and scotland during friday. something drierfollowing on from the south, albeit generally quite cloudy, although if the skies do brighten across southern england and south wales later in the day, that could just spark off the odd hefty shower later on. those temperatures, if anything, beginning to climb a little bit. could get to 15 degrees there in london, and not quite as chilly by this stage along those north sea coasts, and that trend of things getting slowly but surely warmer continues through the weekend. it won't be wall—to—wall sunshine, but i think there will be some brighter spells.

equally, a little bit of showery rain at times. so, for the weekend, then, warming up slowly but surely. some sunshine, equally the chance for some showers, but let me show you what happens next week. because we develop this southerly wind, and that is expected to waft some really warm air in our direction. we could well get into the low to possibly mid—20s. that will feel like spring. welcome to newsday. i'm sharanjit leyl in singapore. the headlines: president trump warns russia to get ready for missile strikes against syria, in retaliation for a suspected chemical attack on civilians. an algerian military plane crashes near the capital, killing 257 people on board. i'm babita sharma in london. also in the programme: the boss of facebook admits to us lawmakers that his own personal data was compromised in the cambridge analytica breach. and despite strict new rules, it's still happening. we report on the illegal trade of blood in china.