american military intervention in syria. he says a strike in response to an alleged chemical attack could come very soon, or not so soon at all. meanwhile, france says it has evidence the assad regime definitely used chemical weapons. mike pompeo faces a grilling by us senators at his confirmation hearing, but trump's choice to be secretary of state denies he is a war hawk. he also warns north korea not to expect rewards for holding talks with america. the international chemical weapons watchdog confirms sergei skripal and his daughter were poisoned with a soviet—era nerve agent. the organisation for the prohibition of chemical weapons did not name the agent as novichok, but says it agreed with british findings so far. that's all from me now. stay with bbc world news. now on bbc news, it is time for hardtalk.

welcome to hardtalk. us military action against president al—assad's forces in syria seems imminent. president trump told the russians, assad's military backers, 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 ijust referred to, in 2013, does everything that is happening today seem grimly familiar? sure it does. there are differences, but there is one core similarity, which is that the assad regime seems to have used chemical weapons in a way to kill a lot of civilians and the united states, mainly the united states along with its allies has to choose how to respond. as you pointed out at the time, president obama threatened

and prepared a military strike which i thought was the right thing to do, and he thought was the right thing to do. but ultimately concluded that the united states should only proceed if it got congressional support and legitimacy and, of course, we did not, and we know how that played out with a diplomatic deal but 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 rather taken with your somewhat tactful rehearsal of what happened in 2013. obama spoke of red lines and of actions that would have followed syria crossing those red lines, 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 businessman trump was wildly tweeting 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 it 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, with an airstrike. on 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 limited, and i am not criticising it. 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 will find out now, in a different context, where more force would likely be 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 american missiles and possibly even the launch sites, which would be 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 he should? do you think right now you would be lending and we would lend our support to a us military response? i do. if i 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 then used, 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 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 chemical 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 i bring up the inconsistency of the current president and his questionable reliability on this sort of issue, is will it be focused and disciplined and carefully delineated and conducted, 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 with putin. i worry 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 on hardtalk, a guy who was in the room with 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 him of my view at the time which was his view as well. let me give you the context, it is 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 using them, that would change his calculus. over the course of the following spring there were reported incidents, suspected incidents, small incidents, but they did not use chemical weapons. the following summer, in august, august 21 2013, the regime killed a thousand people

in the suburbs of damascus. president 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. 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 wonder. . .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 barack 0bama's credibility for many people. inside the united states, across the world, particularly in syria and moscow. in 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? i do think there was a cost for not acting. i have been clear about that. i also fully understand and understood why the president did not want to go out on this limb 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 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 this circumstance 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 odd 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 his calculus today based on what he thinks the current president will do. and if single night of airstrikes and cruise missiles won't cut it any more, how about this? the words of a well—known hawk in the united states, not always a great friend 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 hit intelligence services complicit in these 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 go 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 against a regime that is backed by iran and russia and hezbollah. i don't think that is something that the united states should want to take on at the moment. ithink... i think lindsey graham is right, that the response will need to be more than just telegraphed 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, 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 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 do a strike like that and set up aims that go beyind deterring chemical weapons use, and the russians and the iranians then respond by counter escalating, you better not back down then or 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. 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 fires missiles at syrian targets that the russians will retaliate by firing directly not just at 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 course we would take that seriously and it would be irresponsible not to. i don't think you would want to let that paralyse your action and almost 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, over syria ? it is worth it, given the stakes? yeah, i described the stakes earlier as not wanting to give a 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 — you know, and this was i think the russian ambassador to lebanon, so it's not exactly from 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're asking for trouble, and really limiting your ability to undertake any military action under any circumstances. of course you'd have to take it seriously. but again, that's 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're prepared to defend yourself if the russians should carry out such threats, and then they would have to be the ones who take that into account. but look, what you're getting at is the real risks

of this situation. i think it's 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 one. that's another concern i have here, not just with the advisers likejohn bolton, who doesn't seem to be concerned about getting into 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, administratively. 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 it the implication that you and everybody else in senior positions in the obama white house got russia wrong? because, yes, you imposed 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, where john kerry desperately wanted to have the russians help him make peace, but also on the iran nuclear deal, as well. you wanted russia to be an active, positive partner. did you get russia wrong? so i 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 interests. 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, that brought them to the table. but we're talking about vladimir putin, who is crowing about his new nuclear missiles that can destroy america. he's got an amazing array of new weaponry, which he says makes russia once again a global superpower capable of challenging the united states on all sorts of arenas. russia and the united states are hostile, if not contemplating direct confrontation. and you're telling me, oh, yeah, all this stuff we used to do with vladimir putin was a good thing. i'm struggling to see how it's worked out in anything like a positive way. well, let me finish my point. i said i thought it was right to explore potential co—operation.

i thought for several years, while the russian president was medvedev and putin was prime minister, we got some practical and useful things done, that were in our interest, and therefore it was right to pursue them. putin comes back in 2012, in his paranoid, ex—kgb way, and starts reversing all of the progress we had 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 blackwill, a former republican national security official, in that report, is that we haven't been tough enough in responding. so no, you are right. we explored it. russia for its own reasons chose to go in a different direction — sent military forces into crimea, occupied parts of ukraine, has backed the assad

regime in syria, and then, you know, arguably even more seriously, intervened in not just 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 threats that we face. now, those divisions have to do more with america than any outside power. but it certainly 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's why we call for tougher measures against russia and putin. so are we right, would you, as a guy who served 0bama and is a million miles away from donald trump ideologically — would you say that we're 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 seek to create a world consistent with their authoritarian models, and that the us needs to shift its strategic doctrine to recognise that, perhaps get away

from the obsession with terror that we've seen for the last decade, and start facing up to the reality of grey power hostility with russia, and maybe china as well? yeah, i think that analysis is mostly right. you know, unfortunately you don't get to pick and choose, because it doesn't mean that issues like terrorism or stability in the middle east is less important, or cyber attacks. indeed, they start to come together when the russian threat is notjust a missile, nuclear, geopolitical threat, but also a social threat and a cyber threat. so you don't get to downgrade the priority of other things when you're in a dangerous world. but absolutely, we are in an area of great power competition. it doesn't inevitably have to end with a clash. it requires strength, but also diplomacy, and a willingness to explore and find common interests, 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've seen to date. it means not shying away when there might be a case we need to use military force. but it also means leaving the door open for common interests, or at least a modus vivendi, when that's in our interest to do so. so we have to stand up to the russians, but i hope that once they see that we're 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've made it plain in this interview, that you're no supporter of his. but is there not a case for saying that for all the confusions around donald trump, and the 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 21st century, whether it be putin's russia, north korea, an iran deal that he says is a terrible deal? maybe trump is onto something. there's always a case for being strong, and making sure your adversary knows that you're 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's what we'll find out with president trump. if this is just good bargaining and tough talk, that leads the other side to cut a deal that's in your interests, 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's what we have to worry about here. and then there's 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 putin this week. for the first time in his presidency, he seems to be willing genuinely to criticise and stand up to the russian leader. heretofore, you've had this really odd thing where trump takes a super hard line towards practically every other 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've given them the impression that they can do whatever they want, because the president

of the united states is just obsessed with cooperating with them. so i welcome it if trump is now prepared to take a tougher line against russia. i think that's the right thing to do. phil gordon, we have to end it there, but i thank you very much forjoining me on hardtalk. thanks for having me. well, thursday was a really disappointing day across so many parts of the country. five degrees, for example, in sheffield, really cloudy skies and we saw scenes like this, a picture from leicester, but beautiful weather too yesterday. lovely highland picture here of some flowers. let's have a look at the forecast for the early hours of friday then, still some rain and drizzle around low, grey cloud shrouding

the hilltops of the pennines, really unpleasant conditions out there through the course of the night. so clear in the far north of scotland and the temperatures wherever you are in the far north or south, not really that different, seven in plymouth, around six degrees expected in edinburgh. the forecast for friday itself, and we're expecting some of that grey, damp weather to eventually clear away, and for most of us it's a case of cloudy skies through much of the morning and much of the afternoon as well, but in the south it looks as though some of those clouds will be breaking up a little bit so i think there will be some sunshine on the way i think later in the day for london, cardiff, possibly for birmingham and norwich as well. 1a tomorrow in london, still chilly in the north, only seven in aberdeen and nine in the lowlands of scotland. that was friday, how about the weekend ? it looks as though things are going to be warming up, quite a bit of bright weather around but we are also expecting heavy showers to develop in one

or two areas, so not a completely dry weekend. let's look at saturday's weather forecast, starts really bright across most of the uk and the chances are there will be one or two showers breaking out across southern areas, so be prepared for the odd downpour. but for most of us across the country it's going to be a dry, bright day with temperatures up to 17 in the south. then saturday night into sunday, this low pressure swings in off the atlantic and increases the winds across western areas of the uk, really gusty conditions, and it's also going to bring some cloud and rain for south—western parts of england, for wales, northern ireland and western scotland. the east, think, on sunday,

should just about stay dry and in fact here those temperatures will start to rise and you'll particularly notice those temperatures rising on the north sea coast, look at that, 1a expected in newcastle. into early next week, into midweek, we'll start to see warm air coming out of the south, turning hot across france and potentially quite hot in the south of the uk and here's an outlook. say, for example, in london, i suspect some time next week temperatures could peak at around 2a, cardiff will be around 20 or so and even further north those temperatures will rise. i'm mariko 0i in singapore. the headlines:

tensions are mounting about possible us military action in syria. jets and warships are moved into place but president trump adopts a less bullish tone we're looking very, very seriously, very closely, at that whole situation. and we'll see what happens, folks, we'll see what happens. mike pompeo faces a grilling by us senators at his confirmation hearing. president trump's choice to be secretary of state denies he's a war hawk. i'm kasia madera in london. also in the programme: the chinese baby that's been born, despite its biological parents