britain has no intention of walking away. instead, we will cooperate with the other parties to ensure that while iran continues to restrict its nuclear programme, then its people will benefit from sanctions relief in accordance with the central bargain of the deal. but how realistic is that? the us now says it will reimpose sanctions as well as pina lies companies around the world that do business with tehran. —— penalise. the business community will weigh their options and their risks, and they will see that the us market is much larger than the iranians market and much less risk, and the choice will be rather obvious. no publicly traded company can choose iran over the united states. it would be a disastrous decision. so we can expect international companies to withdraw their business in certain sectors, including oil. the sanctions will likely force countries to reduce their purchase

of iranian oil, hurting the economy further. so what might tehran‘s response be? so far, the iranian president has said that the deal remains in place if the goals of the deal remain in place, i.e. that iran continues to get economic benefit. but it's not likely that the european nations will be able to do much to mitigate the effects of sanctions on iran. in the iranian parliament today, hardline mps burnt a copy of the nuclear agreement. the hands of those who would like to restart a iran's nuclear programme have been strengthened. so what are their options? they can resume uranium enrichment or production of centrifuges. they could limit access for international inspectors. if it looks like iran is moving back towards a place where it could produce a nuclear weapon, even the european nations and russia and china will find it hard to stay on board. europe has to keep the door open

because they are currently the only bridge between washington and tehran. europe and iran will be playing for time, hoping that president trump might not be re—elected in two years. meanwhile, britain finds itself in an unusual position, siding with the european union, which its busy leaving, which it's busy leaving, against its staunchest ally and partner in special relationships. as long as donald trump remains president, we must get used to a world without american leadership, a world where efforts to secure peace and progress on the greatest challenges facing the planet must be made notjust without american cooperation but often in the face of this administration's active opposition.

this is about america first, and this is a president that is all about making sure he keeps his campaign promises and demonstrates to the american people that he can be accountable. could nevertheless be effective? anything can happen. this is a massive gamble. best case scenario, a stronger iran deal is built out of the ruins of the old one. worst case scenario, iran starts building the bomb, and it's war. gabriel gatehouse there. interestingly, europe has in the past clashed with the us on cuban sanctions. for example, 11 years ago, an austrian bank was being taken over by an american company.

the austruan bank dropped some cuban clients. the bank said its new owner could not allow it to keep cubans as customers. the austrian government threatened to fine the bank for breaking an eu regulation not to respect us sanctions it deemed extra—territorial. in that case, the us gave a licence to the american buyer to keep the cuban clients so no fine was needed. well, i'm joined now by bill burns, former deputy secretary of state under president obama, a key architect of the iran deal, who went for quiet talks with iran before the negotiations became public. a very good evening to you. thank you forjoining us. the great dilemma for europe, ambassador burns, is do you yield to trump when you profoundly disagree with what he is doing, or you do you try to keep the deal alive and potentially threaten an argument with the us about being a sanctions buster for american policy to keep sanctions up? i think the risk is obviously that this could be the biggest rift in relations within the transatlantic alliance

since 2003 and the war in iraq 15 years ago. i have no doubt that our european allies who played such a crucial role in producing the comprehensive nuclear agreement with iran will do everything they can to persuade the iranians government to continue to live up to its obligations under the agreement. and our european allies have also gone a long way towards addressing legitimate concerns that we share about iranians behaviour across the middle east. but i think the dilemma is going to come when the trump administration follows through in its determination to apply secondary sanctions to discourage european businesses from operating in iran, trading and investing, which will then produce an atrophy of the kind of economic benefits that the iranians government looks for as part of the iranians nuclear agreement. -- iranian.

and in that kind of circumstance, i think it becomes very, very difficult to sustain the agreement. so while i admire the effort that our european allies are obviously continuing to make, i think it is going to be very hard to hold the agreement together in the face of that kind of economic pressure. so if airbus wants to sell planes to the iranians and airbus is told you'll be sanctioned by the united states if you do, effectively europe just has to give in and yield to what president trump wants? it is a pretty stark choice. or european governments engage in what in effect would be a kind of trade war with the us in which there are only losers, i think. i don't doubt that the determination of our european allies to try to preserve the agreement, but... so you are pessimistic that the europeans can hold the agreement together and thus pessimistic for carrying on? yes, i'm afraid, i don't mean this as an american centric view of this, but i think the american role

was essential in helping to produce this agreement, and i think as we pull out of the agreement, it's going to be very difficult to hold it together, and i think that is deeply foolish. how does that make you feel personally? this agreement come alive and watching you invested a lot of your diplomatic career into making this this agreement come alive and watching it die in 2a hours from your country's president, what does that make you feel as a career diplomat? it is personally very disappointing, as it is for the dozens and dozens of other people from a lot of other countries who worked very hard to help producers agreement, but much more important than that personal disappointment is the broader disappointment in a situation where here for once ha rd—nosed diplomacy produced an outcome, preventing iran from producing nuclear weapons, produced a coalition of countries that worked very hard together

to achieve that, and at a moment when diplomacy matters more than ever on the international landscape, we are rapidly eroding it, and united states i'm afraid is haemorrhaging trust right now after pulling out of the paris climate accord, the transpacific trade partnership, and now the iran nuclear agreement, we are squandering what ought to be one of the biggest assets of the united states, our alliances, our ability to mobilise alliances of countries, and i'm afraid we are rapidly squandering that. we should point out that a lot on the trump side is working, three american prisoners in north korea released, they say that the tough talk, the slightly bombastic style that we are all getting used to seems to deliver results, would you put any credence in that? it is certainly a very welcome step that the trump administration has produced the return of three americans unfairly detained in north korea, that is a welcome step.

i hope very much that the president's upcoming summit meeting with kim jong—un is also a success, although i think there's a pretty wide gap in what the two sides define as denuclearisation right now, but i think that exercising diplomacy is imported. but what we are seeing on the iranians nuclear agreement is notjust bombast or rhetoric, it is the physical act of withdrawing from the agreement, which i think is unfortunately going to produce a fatal blow to what was a real diplomatic achievement, which we share with our european allies allies. ambassador burns, thank you very much. thank you. nowjoining me from tehran is seyed mohammad marandi, a professor in north american studies at the university of tehran. i think there is an appalling delay on the line. professor, can i ask you, can iran stay in a deal with five nations rather than six? and we've just heard that probably

the europeans are not going to be able to maintain all the trade they would like with iran. well, it's possible, but i think it's highly unlikely, as your previous guest pointed out, iran would be demanding solid commitments by the european union that they will resist any attempts by the americans to intimidate european business people and european businesses, banks and other financial institutions, insurance companies, oil companies, and so on. from what we see so far, the europeans seem very weak. when we saw the french president go to the united states, the iranians felt that despite his pleading and his appeasement, trump humiliated him. the dandruff incident for example, or when the german chancellor went to the united states,

she too came back empty—handed, so when the iranians see that, they feel that the europeans are not in a very strong position, and that they are not of great consequence. that's important, what you've said. let's focus inside iran, there are different coalitions jostling for position, who does this strengthen inside iran, the hardliners, conservative hardliners? or the more liberal side? well that's difficult to say. obviously it doesn't help president rouhani but i don't think it really hurts him all that much either. i think all the different sides have won something here. the conservatives, the hardliners, whatever they call them in the west,

they feel vindicated because they said from the beginning that the united states is dishonest and we cannot trust them and they will not abide by their commitments. and the united states really has not abided by its commitments even from day one. under obama they passed laws which violated articles 26—29 and behind the scenes, the us government put pressure on banks and insurance companies do not do business with iran again, that was a violation. under trump it got worse. so they felt vindicated. on the other hand those who were in support of dialogue and the negotiations felt that we give it a chance, we should the international community that the united states was not being honest and we were the side who fulfilled our site of the bargain. i also think what pompeo just said a few weeks ago when he was still head of the cia, he went

to the senate foreign relations committee and he admitted that even before the nuclear deal the iranians were not pursuing a nuclear weapon. he said this basically to tell people in congress don't worry... i am so sorry to interrupt, with such a big delay on the line, but i have to put a question to you. the americans don't trust iran and it's notjust donald trump, a lot of americans don't trust iran, and they are right not to. you never admitted the nuclear programme, you stand in parliament burning flags and saying, "death to america." you are operating throughout the region. ijust wonder if iran somehow is complicit in the bad image it has in the united states? i disagree. what i was trying to say was that pompeo basically admitted before the nuclear deal iran was not pursuing a nuclear weapon. on the other hand, you have to look at the history. our national government in 1953 was overthrown, the us supported saddam hussein and getting chemical weapons to use

extensively, so did the europeans. i personally survived two chemical attacks including sarin gas and mustard gas. hundreds of thousands of iran aims did the war the west supported. they imposed enormous sanctions. iran always abided by international law in regards to its nuclear programme. i am so sorry we are out of time, thank you so much, thank you forjoining us, sorry for the delay on the line. the unelected house of lords. there's a simple rule. when it agrees with you, it has an important role in the constitution as a check on the power of the executive. when the lords disagree with you, how dare they interfere in the decisions of the democratically elected commons? right now, the lords are interfering with the elected government — having voted for some really fundamental amendments to the eu withdrawal bill — 14 in total. and that has led to some indignation on the brexit side.

so are the lords overreaching themselves? my lords, there have voted contents, 245, not contents, 218, so the contents have it. here were the lords voting to keep britain in the european economic area yesterday. key points the commons will ultimately decide, but the lords have now forced the commons to vote on the eea option. is that the effective working of democracy or the thwarting of the people's will? some of the papers have taken a clear view. but constitutionally, those peers have the power they do because we've opted to leave it with them. last night, george osborne pointed out in a tweet the rebellion against the tory plan for elected peers in 2012 was led byjacob rees—mogg, supported by david davis. lords reform is hard, because an elected upper house would potentially rival the commons' authority in the way the lords don't now. but for those currently

defending the lords, there is one awkward principle. enter lord salisbury, a i9th—century peer with a constitutional convention in his name. it was later developed by his grandson in the 1940s, and in modern form, it broadly says the lords don't obstruct government on policies set out in an election winning manifesto. some argue this doesn't apply for governments that didn't win a commons majority, but today's argument is less about constitutional niceties and more a new front in the long—running brexit battle. i am nowjoined by the doyen of euroscepticsm sir bill cash, he chairs the european scrutiny committee in the commons. also baroness ros altmann, she was a pensions ministers under david cameron and has proposed a number of amendments to the eu withdrawal bill in the lords. of a kind i think bill cash would not approve of.

what is your thinking about the headlines, being called wreckers and all these things? i am sad to see them because as far as i am concerned what we are doing in the lords is exactly what our parliamentary democracy requires of us. we are scrutinising legislation and sending it back to the commons to ask them to think again. we are not making the final decision, we are not driving brexit or thwarting brexit. the daily mail headline tomorrow, timed to pull the plug on the lords. you don't believe in pulling the plug do you? i am concerned about the manner in which what i regard as a flagrant abuse of the procedures at the moment in the lords is going to cause an enormous out of trouble. what is the abuse, they are voting how they feel? at the beginning you mentioned the salisbury convention and that also refers to wrecking amendments. some of these amendments are wrecking amendments and in fact the lords are even suggesting that they are. basically there is another side

to it which is about democracy, the whole of the european union in its democratic system, so—called, is done behind closed doors. it's done through... you talked about democracy at the beginning... the salisbury convention point, you're not meant to do things if it's in a manifesto. what we are doing is scrutinising legislation and sending it back for the commons to think again. indeed, a number of members of the house of commons have asked us to send this back to them because they want the debate again, circumstances have changed. that is the truth and that is what is happening. but it's not. there are a number if they have enough people and they do what they are threatening to do, receiving amendments from the house of lords, we know of discussions going on between them, what the lords is doing is

magnifying the lack of democracy... i'm puzzled, you're talking about collective people doing the dirty work, all they are doing is... no, that's not how the system works, what is happening is the elected lords are coming up with a number of wrecking amendments, there are a lot more... they are not wrecking. what is your fear? if the mps don't vote for them, what damage can they do? the house of commons as these mps in it who themselves... they are elected! wait a minute, they have already voted for the referendum act... we are respecting the referendum. no... are you respecting it? absolutely. the referendum requires us

to negotiate exit from the eu, we have triggered article 50 respecting the referendum, we are in negotiations respecting the referendum of the referendum did not give us a direction of travel. they did not say hard brexit, soft brexit, leave the single market or not. yes it did. it's up to parliament to find the best way forward. that is the nub of the argument isn't it? on the customs and single market... there is a disagreement about what the interpretation of the people's will is and the elected members will in the end make that, because you will give up if elected members insist on pulling out... we are not making the final decision, i am clear on that, our role is to send it back to think again, it's up to the elected house to make the decision. simply the fact is the referendum itself said leave remain and that included in the leaving the customs union, the single market and what's happening is now there is a movement coming from the house of lords

into the house of commons and then you will find there will be a breach of the manifesto by the people who vote for the customs union, the single market, in the commons by virtue of the amendments passed in the lords. and on the eea amendment roz was talking about yesterday in the house of lords the fact is that amendment is itself inconsistent with our position on the eu as a result of the referendum. parliamentary democracy and parliament is. . .. i'm so sorry... very undemocratic way to go about it... such a fascinating discussion, thank you both very much indeed. iraq has a general election this weekend — it's first since the defeat of isis in the country, and its fifth since saddam hussein was toppled. hitherto, democracy has been something of a struggle in the country — identity has mattered more than issues: the shia—sunni—kurd divide has defined the outcomes of elections in previous years.

given the complex divisions within the different groups, as well as between them, it has been a struggle to create coalitions and select a prime minister in the past. tonight, 15 years on from the us led invasion, we examine perhaps the most important influence on iraqi democracy at the moment: the country in the news today, their shi'ite neighbour, iran. reporter ayman oghanna, producer warwick harrington, and cameramanjack garland have been on a road trip across the country, to find out what's at stake in the election — and iran's role in its neighbour's affairs. apparently there was an incident recently just ahead. .. just ahead of our position now? where you're heading to. injalula? on the road, yes. we are outsidejalula in eastern iraq. islamic state activity is on the increase. we can only travel safely

with shia militias. they control the roads. they are suspicious ofjournalists but offer us shelter for the night. the commanderjust told me there was an attack close to here tonight and some local security forces were killed in an is coordinated attack. we are holding our positions very tight all over the area and the enemy is in hiding. it's not a good idea to get out of this place tonight. it's not a good idea to leave this place tonight? the shia militia are funded and armed by the shia neighbour iran. and as they've retaken territory from is, the militias have gained control over much of iraq. then, without warning or explanation, we are told to leave. we've been ordered out of the province entirely so we're

speeding through the night on our way back to baghdad. it's not very safe to be driving in this area at this time of night, the streets are empty, some of the checkpoints are deserted and is still has a presence in this area. after losing territory, is is regrouping, launching guerrilla attacks on checkpoints. the militias do give us an armed escort although it's probably to make sure we leave. it's not a very promising start to our election road trip. iraq is in the middle of crucial election campaign which will decide how much influence iran has over iraq. so we are taking a trip across the country from the iranian border to the syrian desert to see much tehran dominates its neighbour. our next destination is karbala

in the shia heartland. i'm half iraqi myself but like more and more people here i try to avoid defining myself in sectarian terms. i've lived here on and offer many years. but mustafa, our driver, thinks i stand out like sore thumb. iraq's shia are the vast majority of the country's population. kurds and sunni the minority. shia paramilitaries are not allowed to take part in the election, so they set up their own political party. fatah, meaning liberation. and they take their election campaigning seriously. the party leader fought

on the iranian side of the iran—iraq war. he could be the next prime minister. fatah‘s chief spokesman used to be the spokesman for the militias. he rails against corruption and damns the traditional shia parties. if you listen to the words he's saying he's speaking the language of islamic revolution. interspersed with standard campaign promises. it's a very smart strategy. if fatah do well at the ballot box, iraq will be even more closely tied to iran. karbala is a holy place.

thousands of iranian shias cross the border every week to pay homage at the city ‘s shrines. and it's notjust pilgrims. across iraq it's iranian goods you see in the shops, iranian music on the radio. even the cabs are made in iran. to me, there is a feeling of cultural and economic dominance. but there is also a grander, more strategic game being played. shia muslims live across the middle east, but many are concentrated in iran, iraq, syria and lebanon. we call it the shia crescent, some shia call it the arc of resistance. and control of baghdad is crucial for iran in maintaining its military support for hizbollah in lebanon,

and assad's regime in syria. so baghdad is our next stop. with iraq shia being in the majority, the choice of next prime minister is to some extent between degrees of iranian influence. apart from fatah, there is previous prime minister nouri al—maliki, who is also pro—iranian. current leader haider al—abadi is seen as more open to washington. but groups openly sympathetic to the united states have all but disappeared. 15 years after the us invaded iraq i think most americans would be surprised today atjust how little influence the us has in the country. all the american forces are isolated on their bases, their embassy is in the green zone cut off from the rest of the city. there is no visible signs of american culture or influence on the streets. unlike iran whose influence and tentacles can be seen everywhere in iraq.

but there is a growing bloc opposed to iranian influence. this woman is a liberal, a campaigner for women's rights and leads one of iraq's centrist, secular parties. campaigning is in full swing. she thinks younger voters are beginning to resist the siren calls of sectarianism. their ambition is not to fight each other but to be able to be educated and get a job, start a family. have somewhere to live, etc. and this is the main concerns of the younger generation. iraq's weakness post 2003 has made tehrans‘s dominance possible. but there is also a growing sense of iraqi nationalism. iran is very influential, but iraq is a very hard country to swallow altogether. iran cannot dictate politics to iraq. nor turkey or any other country. iraqis have to be able to determine their future by themselves. and what about the sunni

parties in this election? iraq's sunni minority is still recovering from is. it grew in their communities like a cancer. it was partly as a reaction to shia dominance. today the sunni population after is is totally disenfranchised and trampled upon. that's a really dangerous warning sign because the reason is came in the first place was because of sunni marginalisation in the country. so this election is going to be key to see whether the sunni's can be empowered in any way to have a stake in the new iraq. —— sunnis. at least 1.5 half million sunni iraqis are living in camps. millions of lost their homes, their jobs and their stake in iraqi society. their lives destroyed by islamic state or the fight against them. countless sunnis won't be voting because they've lost documents or because they've fled many miles from where they are registered to vote. ahmed and wife anmar are from mosul.

he ran a trucking business there. as the fighting to liberate the city intensified, their entire extended family took shelter in their home. then it was hit by an air strike. they don't know if it was an american, an iraqi or an rafjet which targeted them. perhaps it doesn't matter now. but they worry that the plight of the sunnis could prompt a return to violence. you think it's possible that is might come back? in previous elections,

tehran has effectively held a veto over the government by telling shia parties who to support in parliament. but some shia parties are now also opposing iran. that's muqtada al—sadr in the middle. he's a shia folk hero, the son of an ayatollah who led the shia resistance against the americans. awad al—awadi from al—sadr‘s party, tells us they are now allied with sunnis, communists and secularists against iran. mr al—awadi believes many candidates receive iranians funding.

the last leg of ourjourney will take us through anbar province and up to qaim on the syrian border, where the battle against islamic state continues. once again, we need to be escorted by shia militias. they control the roads in anbar as well.

the thing i like least about iraq is all the checkpoints and permissions and bureaucracy you need. just driving on this road, we've been on the strip so far, we've seen just the number of checkpoints we've gone through, i mean, it's really staggering just how much that slows you down. controlled by different groups, controlled by different ministries, controlled by different army brigades. it's a real pain. our route takes us through the historic centre of sunni resistance. first under al-qaeda against the americans, and then under islamic state against the iraqi government. people from these cities have suffered 15 years of conflict, and tens of thousands of deaths. we pass mile after mile of civilian trucks, but no iranian military vehicles. they move their supplies on hidden route to the north of us. we told an entire new stretch of road is being built in salahaddin province so that tehran can ship

supplies to hezbollah and syria more swiftly. downed power lines and bombed bridges show how is tried to isolate the territory they held. we arrive in qaim at dusk. fires indicate fighting over the border. in the morning, the local militia commander addresses his men before they go on patrol. holding qaim is crucial. it was through here that is moved troops and supplies when they overran anbar. the commander tells us thatjust a few provinces from here, across the border, is one of the last major holdouts of islamic state. —— few kilometres. the militias patrol the frontier,

intercepting is as they go back and forth. we cross the euphrates river, heading out to a border post. the militia tell us they are reinstating basic services like water and power, reopening schools and hospitals. they're keen to tell us they are trying to keep the locals onside. this was the last is stronghold to fall to government forces in iraq. many of the buildings have graffiti that still say property of the islamic state. but even so, the reaction to the forces here seems fairly positive. children have been coming out to wave at the soldiers, flash victory signs, say hello. there are some right here. the reaction has been pretty

encouraging, even though this is a shia force in a sunni heartland. this position overlooking the syrian desert marks the end of ourjourney. almost all the players in the middle east are just over this border and fighting each other. assad's iranian—supported syrian army, the us—supported syrian democratic forces, kurdish forces and, of course, islamic state. we can hear american and iraqi air force jets flying overhead. as a sign of how closely they work alongside the assad army, he says they've even bought the syrian sim cards to coordinate more effectively. this is the arc of resistance, the shia presence in action. —— shia crescent.

so our election road trip ends with volleyball in a desert town. shia militias have fought hard in the battle against is. they've gained military control of much of the country. but will that translate into political control of the election? will iran maintain its dominance? 15 years after the invasion, multi—party politics has taken root in iraq, but the path to stability is unclear. that's just about it for tonight. i'll be back tomorrow but we leave you with the first ever artist in residence with the royal philharmonic orchestra. esther yoo will be playing a series of concertos with the orchestra over the coming year. and here she is, performing bach's partita for solo violin no. 3 in e major. goodnight.

time for your latest live update from bbc weather. fair skies coming back for many tomorrow but fraud today we have seen some rain out there, not all of us have had it yet but those eastern areas that have stayed dry will get something as the night goes on and here's the past few hours of the rainfall as it's been slowly pushing its way east in a hurry and it will hang around for a hurry and it will hang around for a little in the morning in easternmost parts of england before pulling away. a few showers following for northern ireland and scotland, a few even as the night goes on. into tomorrow, what we're going to find is a fair amount of sunshine behind the weather system but that chance of a shower, especially into scotland. this is how things shape up at the end of the night, some patchy rain re— reaching into eastern england, not amounting to much, mid single figures and showers into northern ireland and scotland. in scotland tomorrow it could be heavy, maybe with some thunder, some will push into northern england, maybe the west of the pennines and clipping

north wales but many places will stay dry. in eastern england, brightening up as the rain pushes away, the same boat with sunny spells and the chance of a shower and temperatures are pretty close to average for the time of year, coming down a few degrees in east anglia and the south—east england compared to today. a survey of things as we go into the evening, a sharp shower affecting north—east scotland but the showers where they've developed have faded away and increasing sunshine to end thursday. it makes for quite a chilly night, thursday into friday morning. underneath this ridge of high pressure, low single figures in places. as this weather system figures in places. as this weather syste m co m es figures in places. as this weather system comes oui’ figures in places. as this weather system comes our way on friday, notice the wind is picking up and notice the wind is picking up and not everyone will notice the rain. a strengthening southerly wind across the uk especially with the cloud and rain, rising into northern ireland and feeding into western scotland, parts of wales and south—east england but much of the uk will be dry with cloud increasing, sunny spells the further east you are and

thames pretty similar compared to thursday. —— temperatures. this is the start of the weekend, the rain pushes east on friday night and saturday clings to north—east scotla nd saturday clings to north—east scotland for a time, a few showers could affect eastern england and some coming into south—east wales, northern ireland and northern england and some could be heavy and thundery. elsewhere sunny spells but if anything on the weekend it looks like temperatures could come down a few degrees and further showers around even into sunday. more as ever online. that's your forecast. i'm maura fogarty in singapore. the headlines: an extraordinary political comeback: malaysia's former prime minister, 92—year—old mahathir mohamad, wins the election and promises to get back to business. but there will be no holiday for the winners. that's the trouble with

winning, we have to work. us secretary of state mike pompeo, flies home three citizens detained in north korea ahead of historic talks between donald trump and kim jong—un. i'm kasis madera in london. also in the programme: from yorkshire to yangon. leeds united play in myanmar, in a tour criticised by human rights groups.