president trump has stressed that he is willing to target iranian cultural sites, in retaliation for any future killing of americans by tehran. the iranian government has vowed retaliation following the us assassination of general qasem soleimani. rockets exploded near the us embassy in baghdad on sunday night. australia's prime minister has warned that the bushfires in the south—east of the country could last for many months. the overall death toll has climbed to 2a and hundreds more properties have been destroyed. light rain and lower temperatures made little difference in the two worst—affected states. golden globes awards ceremony taking place in hollywood. olivia colman has won the prize for the crown.

now on bbc news, dateline london. hello and welcome to dateline london, the programme that brings together some of the uk's leading columnists with foreign correspondents who file their stories for the folks back home with the dateline ‘london'. 2019 ended with two events that underline the folly of prediction — bushfires raging out of control across parts of australia forced the government to acknowledge some link between the claims of scientists and the humanitarian and environmental disaster unfolding around it, just nine months after winning re—election on a climate sceptic ticket. the other was the assassination by the united states of qasem soleimani, arguably the second most powerful man in iran — an act that rewrites the rules of middle east conflict—by—proxy,

or the knee—jerk response of a thin—skinned leader with unwelcome consequences? certainly, it was a decision that had not been predicted. undeterred, our dateline panel predicting 2020 — abdel bari atwan, who writes on arab affairs, the us journalist stryker mcguire from bloomberg, stefanie bolzen from germany's die welt and polly toynbee, columnist for the uk's the guardian. welcome to all of you. good to have you with us. it's been a week of tit—for—tat which escalated dramatically in the early hours of friday morning. the previous friday, a us civilian working in iraq was killed in an attack which washington believed was the work of an iranian—backed militia. it struck back with airstrikes in iraq. the government in baghdad grumbled about "a breach of sovereignty," protestors tried to storm the us embassy there and ayatollah khamenei appeared on television to waggle his finger at president trump. then on friday, with the explicit authority of the president, qasem soleimani was killed. the united states‘ president, who wanted out of foreign engagements,

preferring "maximum pressure" using economic sanctions to achieve either regime change, or at least a change of policy, is now sending thousands more troops to the middle east — this in the year he seeks re—election. abdul bari atwan, what is your prediction of what iran will do next? it could be a war. this is a declaration of war. after 2003, when president bush told us "job accomplished," now the american are back to the crime theatre. bush, sorry, donald trump now is sending 3,500 troops and we are waiting for the iranian retaliation. how it is going to be? are they going to actually bomb the american military bases inside iraq? or the military bases in the gulf? or they are going to hit the israelis? we don't know yet.

and who will do this retaliation? their proxy, for example — the military arms in yemen and lebanon and iraq — it is actually a huge mishap. the most important thing is what will happen after the retaliation, the iranian retaliation. the americans going to bomb iran, for example? and there is much bigger things, i believe. the iranians could surprise us by saying that, "we are pulling out completely from the nuclear deal. ok, if you are going to bomb us, we will go for a nuclear deterrent." i spoke to a former obama official in the state department who was involved in counterterrorism in the middle east who said — this, to be fair, was before the assassination — he said iran has kept pushing and kept pushing and kept pushing and at some point, there had to be a response. the us couldn'tjust keep allowing, what, 11 attacks on us bases

in a matter of months. at some point, something had to give, didn't it? something had to give, maybe. but what gave was something, i can't think of anything outside of actual war, where you assassinate somebody who is believed to be the second most powerful person in the country, outside of his country, in the capital of one of your allies. this is amazing. i think that iran, yes, it was pushing, pushing, pushing, but i cannot believe that iran ever would have targeted somebody of this level within the united states. i mean, it is such an escalation, that is why it is so dangerous. but why the americans go back to that? that is what bothers me. this is the mafia way of thinking. you are the leader of the free world.

this soleimani, he was a partner, united states partner fighting isis. he did very well here. but he didn't do that through any affection forthe us, did he? he did that because iran viewed isis as a threat. but shaun, america lost more than $6 trillion in iraq and about 3,000, 4,000 americans were killed. 33,000 were injured. and iraq was under their control — full control. so why they are going to spoil everything and go back to the square one, for what? to avenge what? this is the problem. i believe president trump now is walking in a minefield in the middle east. middle east, the most unpredictable area in the world. you can start a war, you can succeed in assassinating somebody, but what will happen after? the morning after. this is the big question. the most astonishing thing is that the one possible positive of president trump's arrival, his election campaign, was he was going to be out of middle east. he was not interested in foreign adventures.

he wasn't going to score his great successes abroad with astonishing acts of derring—do. and that's all gone now. he has now committed, as you say, an assassination that has never happened outside of a war zone under war rules. this reminds us he is entirely unpredictable. he's a man who never thinks of the next step. he gets an idea, he's sitting on holiday in mar—a—lago and he just decides "i know what, let's kill the guy". well, they had the opportunity to do that. bush could have done it. obama could have done it. plenty of times, they have known where he was and they could have knocked him out. diplomacy by assassination has never been the way of western democracies or any democracy. stefanie, the american argument is they had intelligence that he was about to coordinate or order a series of attacks that would have led to deaths of american personnel, never mind a threat

to their own soldiers. isn't that enough cause from their perspective? well, so far, we have seen very little reaction by the western allies. they have been very reserved. i think there has been almost as much shock as to anybody else at what decision donald trump has taken. but at the same time, this exposes how weak the west — what we used to call the west — is. the europeans don't know what to expect from trump. it is not really a channel of communication anymore. they do still have the channel of communication with iran. of course, that is why they are now between a rock and a hard place. but how they use that? what are they going to do? i thought your argument was very interesting — what happens if iran unilaterally pulls out of the nuclear deal?

in a way that will solve the european dilemma. of course, this was an achievement, worked for quite some time. where do you go from here? and on top of facing the problem, that there is a big gap now between the us european allies. the official european reaction in itself is very interesting because, i mean, it is tepid—to—cool. the british response was clearly not by any means sanctioning what happened. broadly, this was a bad idea and we want to restrain on all sides. and then you have people like the former chief of defence staff, the former head of the secret services in this country, in the uk, condemning this and saying that this is incredibly reckless. i mean, i think it is just remarkable. of course, we haven't heard from our prime minister yet — who is extraordinarily on holiday in his own luxury island

in the caribbean, which is the most unsuitable place to be. so it may be that when he comes back he starts to think, "listen, i'm going to need a trade deal." it might be that the very cautious response has just been a holding position. i wouldn't trust johnson not to end up being forced to back trump a little bit more than he is doing at the moment. i believe, you know, trump, he is going to use it in order to divert attention from his personal problems you mean impeachment? i think he has shot himself in the foot, to be honest, because this is a hornet‘s nest in the middle east. it is really, really boiling because of this. let's just pick up your point about a hornet‘s nest and potential blowback — to use that rather crude phrase domestically. this is an election year.

donald trump won the election. although he didn't win the popular vote — but he won because of the electoral college. he got the right combination of states. i have spoken to people who say he is more likely to be elected rather than not because of the economy holding up. you may dispute that. but the impact of this on his election prospects. it can't be good. really, it can't be good, because his core supporters do not want this. they want him to stay at mar—a—lago, they want him to tweet all the crazy things that he tweets. they want him to build the wall he's not building. they want him to improve their income tax situation, which he is not doing because his policies have, in fact, benefited the rich. but they wanted him doing that. they didn't want him involving the united states in another conflict. and that is where we are. i mean, it's hard to imagine, there is no good outcome but even the least worst outcome is,

i think, not in his favour. and to be sending all these more troops, 3,500 troops into the zone of most danger at the point where the americans in iraq are presumably going to be the first target of many targets. who knows, iran's reach around the world is enormous. and what are the implications for iraq? because, as i mentioned, of the concerns about sovereignty that were raised. iraq is a fragile country anyway. where does it put iraq, this happening in iraq? i think this will dismantle it. this will create a fake state in iraq and this will be very dangerous to the international community, and also to the middle east itself. tomorrow, the iraqi parliament will meet and they will abrogate all the treaties with the united states and they will ask for 6,000 american troops to be

kicked out of iraq officially. so it means all the american efforts in iraq, all the money that went into iraq, completely disappeared. if the americans refuse this, they have to go and occupy iraq again. and it's an occupation. yes, they will go back to an occupation again. as i said, the morning after is the most dangerous thing. we cannot predict what will happen, but definitely the worst is coming. this is the danger here. so we have to remember all this started because trump pulled out from the nuclear deal. if he didn't withdraw from the nuclear deal, we wouldn't go through all this trouble. and we have troubles in lebanon, yemen, iraq now. we have troubles in palestine or arab—israeli... where are we going? you have to remember that 18 million barrels of oil exported from that part of the world.

so if there is insecurity, the oil prices jumps $3. and if there is a retaliation, it will be $10. so who will pay the price for this in this economic situation hitting the world? let's see the dilemma the europeans are faced with, because what if there is intelligence that proves there was a concrete attack — whatever trump now claims? but then again, are they going to go down that route where the president doesn't have a plan? so how can you follow someone who does erratic things? and you don't know where it is going to lead you. you made the point already that the eu and uk broadly find themselves on the same place on this issue — at this moment, at least. even though polly said who knows what borisjohnson will do when he returns to the uk. but in terms of the relationship, we are entering a really important year now. brexit will happen on 31 january — i think even in brussels, people will accept that.

but what is next? that is a very big question. i mean, the timetable is clear. by the end of 2020, the transition period ends and by then, you have to find a new relationship. whether it is trade, security, police cooperation, data sharing — all that. it is impossible to settle these big issues within 11 months — or even less, because maybe by mid march, the negotiations will start. so by june, actually... they're not even starting until the middle of march? no, no, because i don't even have a mandate. the commission is now working on a mandate that will be presented to the council maybe at the end ofjanuary, and then they have to decide on the mandate and then they will slowly start. by june, actually, boris johnson already has to apply for an extension of the transition period, which he has said he will not do. and if he doesn't? cliff edge. if he doesn't, well, there is another car crash possible at the end of 2020. we are back to square one anyway.

he has the power and influence if he wants to extend that deadline. he also has the votes in the house of commons to do what he wants. he will be hoping that by leaving, leaving at the end of this month, that is us, job done. got brexit done, we're out, let's not talk about anymore. let's hope that all these negotiations go on behind closed doors. and if, byjune, it suddenly looks too difficult, well, if he says "look, we're out anyway, but it is going to take us a bit longer to get that trade deal," will that really be a political dynamite ? i think possibly not. he might get away with it. i'm just wondering, stefanie, if there is no mandate yet for negotations yet agreed? what was the point of the political declaration? the political declaration isjust a couple of pages that are just the scoping ground on which you are going to negotiate on. but already in there are a lot of big hurdles. and one of the biggest ones is the completely different vision what the relationship should be like.

so the uk wants to be this thriving independent country with a 2.0 new market economy — not the social market economy which is the principle of the europeans. and the french, the germans and many other countries are very keen to keep the british close and not have a very low tax, low—regulation country next door. it is a big country, the uk is a big economy, and they will not allow the uk... it may change boris's positions. he now has all these ex—labour seats, working class seats, people will care very much about worker's rights, about all of the social protections that the eu has given them. frictionless trade. you know, they may have ignored those in voting for brexit, but they were assured that they would keep those. and i think if he now tries to throw them away, he is going to find his own party split between the wild mavericks who want london to beat singapore on thames and those northern seats that he needs to hold. isn't he instinctively a pragmatist? it is hard to know what he is

instinctively. he is somebody who just wants power. but he is also erratic, a little bit like trump. you never quite know where he's going tojump next. it is hard to know. but in the end, you feel that holding onto being popular — he hates it, he hates it if he he thinks people are not liking him. there you go, another example. we have had three or four already today, it is hard to predict, we don't know. and that of course is always the truth. the united states, the uk, the united states and europe — the old world perhaps — this is a big, ever—evolving world, made smaller for sure by technology, migration and travel. this is an opportunity for the dateline panel to draw my attention and yours to some of the people, places and themes which didn't make headlines in 2019, but which may come to matter in the year ahead. abdul, tell me about the place want to talk about? libya. you know, again, ten years ago, more than 1,000 european and american journalists were in libya celebrating the collapse of the gaddafi regime.

the wicked man of the middle east. the dictator. the man who abused his own people. after ten years now, we are going again to the war in libya. arms are pouring into libya. half of the libyan population actually ran away from the country because it is a failed state, it is unsafe. they went to tunisia, they went to egypt, some of them tried to come here. now we have two governments and two parliaments and about 20 militia running libya there. so how can we actually get out of this mess in that part of the world? i can see there will be a war in libya. now, you have egypt, the united arab emirates, saudi arabia, france, italy, cyprus, they are in one camp. and on the other camp, you have turkey, qatar... turkey is just approving an intervention of its own. yes. i think, you know, we could have,

again, a proxy war. now we have a proxy war in libya, but we can have also a third war in libya. libya are the closest to the mediterranean. libya are the closest to europe. so if there is a war that a match in the immigration from libya to europe because it will be a very, very dirty war there. the turkish president erdogan has already said he will send troops, tanks, warplanes. and i will actually protect the government, which is recognised by the united nations. recognised by the international community. is he allowed to do so? the russians on the other side, russian mercenaries are now fighting, sudanese, egyptian, whoever is there. so it is a huge mess. i believe libya will be, you know, the headlines in most of the coming months of this year. maybe into the next year. so what will happen? the americans may be say "we are against intervention" but you started this mess.

the europeans... the british and the french did, really. stefanie, what is the thing you most want to draw attention to? well, it was in the headlines, but i think it is going to be even more powerful is the citizen. so we have been seeing in the last year protests — and they continue — whether it is india, romania, the whole of south america is constantly protesting on the streets. we have it in britain on climate change. we have it in france constantly. so what is the power of the citizen? it is everywhere in the headline but then again, there is this — what doesn't quite match — especially if you look at the young people — they are now really motivated, they're going out, they want to really say "you have betrayed us" but then again, they don't vote. why did they not go and understand that actually democracy only works if you use your right to go and vote? so what is the impact going to be and the disparity between social media impact and what it

does really change? and how do politicians react to that? how do they kind of engage that? how do they engage and how they fail to engage as well. it is a massive problem in germany, which will be very interesting in the next year when we are going out into an election phase. the kind of sunset of angela merkel. yes, and the old parties do not manage to grab the young people and ta ke manage to grab the young people and take them with them. libya, nato intervened in libya. why are they not intervening now to bring peace and stability back to libya? a question we won't answer for now but it is very important one to post. polly. climate. always the danger that when there are crises — and goodness knows we now seeing crisis with goodness knows what can happen with the middle east and america. it always gets pushed to the back. australia, fires burning — which you mentioned at the beginning. that might really start to begin things, it might really be that australia becomes a beacon

of what happens if you do nothing. but there is always the danger that something more pressing, more immediate, keeps pushing climate actions of the back burner. this year is a big deal that was put off at the meeting in december and is supposed to be tackled in the uk in glasgow. yes, glasgow. cop 25. absolutely. we should be out there leading it. does anybody think boris johnson is really going to be the great green saviour? i don't think so, which is a shame but we need champions. and maybe australia will end up being one of those. stryker? my two countries, the us and the uk. bringing us back to the old world! exactly — that's all! that's all that matters! also libya! we go on and on and on about the special relationship but really what these two countries have in common are the fact that they have each lost their way. they are both lost their way entirely. the us thought for a while it

would rule by example. if that shining beacon or... and if that didn't work, it would be weapons, by force. now it has turned in on itself. and despite what happened with soleimani, the country remains turned in on itself. and that, i don't think, is going to change. the uk tried, having lost its empire, thought, well, actually it is still thinking. it doesn't really know. it has been half a century more and it doesn't really know. it tried the 51st state strategy, and then iraq came along. then it thought, "ah, we will be a bridge between the us and europe". and then the uk left europe. so where is the uk? i don't think anybody really knows the answer to that question. what it thinks its role is in the world. least of all, boris johnson. but uk, you know, betting that the middle east will strengthen

the economy of this country but if you have a war in the middle east, which is expected, if you have a war in libya, where can the british government go to get contracts or a replacement for european union, for example? and if we have war, the prices of oil will go to more or $200 and so what will happen to the economy of this country? the economy of europe? the economy of the united states? and, stefanie, if the special relationship between the uk and eu, wasn't what it was in both countries have lost their way, is there any sign of any real leadership in europe? as we said, angela merkel is on her way out. preisdent macron would like to lead but seems to be quite tied up with domestic problems of his own. it is good to be very interesting to see. as you say, angela merkel is a leader who is leading the world stage — er, leaving — and the french president is weaker, but i wouldn't underestimate his power. and rosalynn fonda line is far more

on president micron's side than she is on the german, say, more cautious side of not putting too much money into things and rather saving, what are the germans are very famous for! and also, she is a very ambitious politician. she has the dream job of her life. and she doesn't see it as a kind of swansong to her career. no, absolutely not. this is what she a lwa ys no, absolutely not. this is what she always wanted to be. this is where she always saw herself and she will seize the moment. and she likes the uk, i wouldn't underestimate how much she loves the uk and she will try to find a balance outcome is where she always saw herself and she will seize the moment. and she likes the uk, i wouldn't underestimate how much she loves the uk and she will try to find a balance outcomes flat.

good morning. a spell of wet and windy weather's set to sweep across the uk through the day on monday, but the day begins on a fairly benign note, plenty of rain, the odd spot of light rain or drizzle for the early morning commute. but not too chilly out there. however through the morning rush hour, northern ireland turning increasingly wet and windy, gales in places. that heavy rain goes from mid—morning onwards across scotland, heavy to the west, not too much to the east. for wales and western england, from lunchtime onwards we will see the wettest and windiest conditions, although the worst of the wind and rain not arriving in east anglia and the south—east until the evening rush hour. that means western areas brighten up, but it's in the north and west we'll see gales in places, the odd 50 mile—per—hour gust if not more. and temperatures may peak at around nine or 10 degrees, dropping in the west later. clearer skies then to take us into monday evening after that rain sweeps through the south—east and east anglia during the evening rush hour.

temperatures initially dropping and then lifting to an exceptionally mild day on tuesday, but potentially a disruptive one with widespread gales, maybe even severe gales in the north and the west. we'll keep you updated.

this is bbc news — welcome if you're watching here in the uk or around the globe. i'm maryam moshiri. our top stories: president trump arrives back in washington and says he's willing to target iranian cultural sites, if americans are killed by tehran. in australia, the worst weekend of bushfires yet destroys hundreds of homes. and the prime minister warns the fires could burn for months. masked attackers roam the campus of one of india's most prestigious universities — targeting students opposing the government's new citizenship law. and the golden globes is taking place in hollywood. sam mendes wins best director for the first world war film 1917.