you're watching beyond one hundred days. international forces are starting to leave iraq as nato says its taking precautionary measures. the uk is still urging de—escalation but the ministry of defence has moved non essential personnel out of baghdad. in washington the trump administration is urging iran not to retaliate — but warning that if it does, america will hit back. we are not looking to start a war with iran. but we are prepared to finish one. in iran more than 50 people are killed in a stampede as mourners turn out for the burial of the military commander. iran's foreign minister says america will pay for the assasination. the action by the united states has consequences.

the action by the united states has consequences. that will happen, and i believe it has already started. also on the programme..... chaotic scenes in venezuela. the opposition leaderjuan guaido and his supporters have forced their way into the national parliament, where he was re—elected as speaker. and the teenager convicted of lying about a gang rape in cyprus last summer is given a suspended sentence — her family say she was forced under police pressure — to change her statement. hello and welcome — i'm katty kay in washington and christian fraser is in london. the uk will pull its forces out of iraq, if that's what baghdad wants. the british defence minister ben wallace announced the decision as nato said it is already moving some of its personnel out of iraq, as are the canadians. the uncertainty over foreign troop deployments in the region reflects growing anxiety among us allies in the wake of the killing of iranian commander qassem soleimani. the funeral of mr soleimani was delayed a few hours after at least 32 people were killed

in a stampede in the huge crowd of mourners. -- 50 —— 50 people. although the general had his critics in iran — millions have turned out across the country to express their anger at the killing. the bbc‘s middle east editorjeremy bowen has the latest from the region. another enormous crowd turned out in kerman, qasem soleimani's hometown for his burial. the last stage of iran's long goodbye. millions have been on the streets to mourn, pray and shout their anger as his coffin has been taken round the country. but the passion of the people of kerman for a local hero was too much, they pressed forward, leading to the tragedy and many more deaths. this was an accident, but iranians will add the blame to the american account. iran's government says the us is not interested in stopping escalation, the slide to war. i don't think the united states has

chosen the path of the escalation. chosen the path of deescalation. talking about deescalation is different from choosing the path. the united states killed a number of people, important personalities, both iraqi officials as well as iranian officials in a foreign territory. that's an act of war. even before the crisis, baghdad was not a peaceful city. its centre is full of memorials to hundreds of demonstrators, who since october have been shot dead demanding reform and an end to foreign interference. this evening, the marchers‘ slogans were against both iran and the united states. so, iraq was in deep crisis before the assassination at baghdad airport imposed new layers of complexity and danger. these people here think they are in a revolution. now all of this isn't just a problem for iraqis, it should be worrying for the rest

of us as well. because foreign interference in iraq has a history of sending shock waves, notjust across the region, but further afield as well. this mother was mourning her dead son, a demonstrator. too many lives in the middle east are wrecked by political turmoil and violence. in tahrir square, protesters lined up for food hand—outs, in a country where people, once again, fear tomorrow. jeremy bowen, bbc news, baghdad. meanwhile in washington, the us secretary of state mike pompeo today reiterated his view that american lives were saved by the strike. but, pushed about assertion that the us assasinated soleimani last friday because it had intelligence that the iranian was planning an ‘imminent attack‘ against us interests, mr pompeo failed to substantiate that claim.

if you are looking for immenence, you need look no further than the days that led up to the strike that was taken against soleimani. and then in addition to that have, what we could clearly see where continuing efforts on behalf of this terrorist to build out were continuing efforts on behalf of this terrorist to build out a network of campaign activities that were going to lead potentially to the death of many more americans. it was the right decision, we got it right. the department of defence did excellent work and the president had a entirely legal appropriate and a basis. mike pompeo. with us now is robin wright, staff witer at the new yorker, who recently interviewed barham salih— the president of iraq. thanks for coming in. we seem to be ina thanks for coming in. we seem to be in a position to the defence secretary today and listening to the iranian side, what the americans or sing to the iranians, ok, do not retaliate. let‘s leave this here. the iranians are saying we are going to retaliate, and then let‘s leave us to retaliate, and then let‘s leave us there. where does it end? it's a

tit—for—tat situation. iranians have pledged that they are... 13 different scenarios are under consideration. i think the iranians are intense, and that leaves open to what the united states does. so the danger of escalation very quickly, as we have seen danger of escalation very quickly, as we have seen over danger of escalation very quickly, as we have seen over the last ten daysis as we have seen over the last ten days is very high. the middle east is combustible right now. you has a situation as a reporter pointed out in iraq, where you have weeks of protest, the government has resigned from 18,000 isis fighters along the iraqi syrian border, this is a moment that threatens, as the president of iraq has said to him of the future of iraq as a viable nation. 50 even before we the future of iraq as a viable nation. so even before we have any potential retaliation from iran against american interests, in a sense, we are already seeing the impact of this strike in iraq, where there is a possibility that iraq is driven further into the arms of iran, and isis is given some latitude, because foreign troops are having to force protection rather than training iraqi soldiers to prevent isis from spreading further.

exactly. the us and its allies have moved from an offence of operation to deal with isis to a defensive, just to protect themselves, and that underscores the mission and the fact that so many countries are considering leaving changes the ground rules. robin, iwouldjust interrupt you there, because we need to go live to the us defence secretary who is speaking at the moment.

we are seeking a diplomatic solution, but first, this will require iran to deduct —— de—escalate. we are seeking a diplomatic solution, but first, this will require iran to de—escalate, it will require iran to de—escalate, it will require iran to de—escalate, it will require the regime to come to the table with the goal of preventing further bloodshed. as i have said, we are open to having this discussion with them, but we are prepared to deliver a forceful response to defend our interest. the american people should know that their safety is in the hands of the strongest most capable military and the world. the men and women of our armed forces should know that we are standing with them, and continue to support them as they meet and ove i’co m e support them as they meet and overcome today's threats from actors including iran and its proxy militias. our partner should know that remain committed to our strategic priorities in the middle east, deterring a rainy and bad behaviour, sustaining the enduring defeat of isis, and supporting iraq as it becomes a strong and independent nation. with that, i will open up to questions, thank you. thank you mr secretary, just want to clarify one thing you said earlier. that the us continues to engage isis in syria what have you done and what are you doing to clear up what you said yesterday was a mistake? our policy has not changed, we are not leaving iraq, and a draft unsigned letter does not constitute a policy change, and there is no signed letter to the best of my

knowledge, i have asked the question, so there may be people trying to create confusion, but we should focus on this much, as i said a few times now, our policy has not changed. we are in iraq, and we are there to support iraqi forces and iraqi government, become a strong independent and prosperous country. what about isis in syria? independent and prosperous country. what about isis in syria ?|j independent and prosperous country. what about isis in syria? i have gotten no report from a commander saying that we have had a material impact on our ability to engage isis along with our sdf partners. to follow up on the question, what ifi to follow up on the question, what if i iraqis do not want you to stay, if i iraqis do not want you to stay, if the prime minister says you need to go, will us troops ploughed, and also nato allies are pulling out, why aren‘t us troops pulling out? also nato allies are pulling out, why aren't us troops pulling out? we will take all of those one step at a time, there are a few procedural mechanisms or hurdles that the iraqi government needs to go to, we remain in constant contact with them on that, i think it's fair to say that many iraqis recognise the strategic importance of our partnership with them. whether it's training and advising their military to become more effective on the field of battle, or it's working together with them to defeat isis coalition. i think the vote the other day shows the support of most iraqis for our presence in the country. as you know, most kurds and sunnis did not show, and those who did vote, many of them voted at the threat of their own lives by militia groups. even in the last few days, we still see

iraqis on the streets protesting their government due to corruption and the influence of iran. so the sentiments and feelings have not gone away. so i think at the end of the day, working with the iraqi people, you will find that our presence is important for both their country, and ours. you also asked about partners, i've talked to many of our partners in iraq, who are pa rt of of our partners in iraq, who are part of the isis coalition, and many europeans, they are fully supportive of us, they are fully with us —— de—isis, of us, they are fully with us —— de-isis, i of us, they are fully with us —— de—isis, i have been told by them that they moves are taken with force protection. we drink some of that as well. it does not signal any withdrawal from iraq with the mission at large. can i follow up on that. sir, could you speak to the range of options that were under consideration. can you give us any sense of how many other options were under consideration. did you support any other ones? was one option to not take this strike inside iraq,

which would have clearly made... ? i'm not going to speak to any options or anything we presented to the president, because that's howl approach things. i will tell you that options we presented where all options that we supported and believe we could deliver on, and it would be effective, and with any time we deliver an option, we always list pros and cons, and pluses and minuses, that's how we approach it, that's my duty, it's my obligation to the commander—in—chief. that's my duty, it's my obligation to the commander-in-chief. where there are multiple options that you would‘ve considered that you would‘ve considered that you would‘ve supported ? would‘ve considered that you would've supported? i'm not sure i understand the question. were there other options that you supported in addition to this one? well, look, there are always a wide range of options, our duty is to narrow them down to ones that are consistent with the president cosmic guidance or expectation and can meet the political and state that we are trying to achieve. so, again, we had a full plano of options available, we presented them and portrayed them we presented them and portrayed them we do. i'm sorry, about the allies moving their troops, does it mean that you

couldn't guarantee their security, especially with air protection, or did you ask them to move?” especially with air protection, or did you ask them to move? i don't think so. i know in one case in particular it wasjust think so. i know in one case in particular it was just a matter of us being able to move in additional us forces into a confined space. that was being occupied by some of the international trainers, that was being occupied by some of the internationaltrainers, partners on the ground. it was a logistical issue. thank you, can you clarify the attack soleimani was planning, was that days or weeks away?” attack soleimani was planning, was that days or weeks away? i think it's more fair to say days, for sure. is the us legally obliged to withdraw from iraq if told by the iraqi government to go? i'm not going to speculate, we are not there yet. none of that has happened, to the best of my knowledge, and so those events unfold, and we will address them and have all the right legal experts to advise us on that. mr secretary, use of the us is not seeking war with mr secretary, use of the us is not seeking warwith iran, mr secretary, use of the us is not seeking war with iran, i think the question most people want answered is how close are we to war with iran

and specifically how would you characterize iranian military movements over the past several days? yeah, it is true, we are not seeking war with days? yeah, it is true, we are not seeking warwith iran, days? yeah, it is true, we are not seeking war with iran, i think what happens next depends on them. i think we should expect that they will retaliate on some way shape or form. either through their proxies, as they have been doing now for how many years? orwith... as they have been doing now for how many years? or with... by their own hand. so we take this one step at a time, we are prepared for any contingency, and then we will respond appropriately to whatever they do. how would you characterize their military movements over? 0h, you know, we watch them very closely, we see their movements. i don't want to get any more into that, because it starts getting intelligence issues, so, iwilljust leave it at that. mr secretary, you talked about being ready for a potential conflict here, in case iran retaliates. but if they don't retaliate against american

targets or interests in the middle east, but instead target our partners in the region, is that enough to warrant a us response? look, i'm not going to comment on, i'm not going to hypothesize or comment or speculate, we are standing there to defend not only our interests but those of our allies and partners, and i want to reassure them that we are there with them as well. two points to follow up on if i may you have talked about iran needing to de—escalate, my first question is does the us have any obligation to de—escalate, or is it in iran‘s court. my second question, you have said several times in the last couple of days, that you will follow international law on a potential war crimes. i think, international law on a potential war crimes. ithink, let international law on a potential war crimes. i think, let me set that aside, i think everyone would expect you to do exactly that will stop my question is not hypothetical. the president is out there with his position. if you get an order, would you resign from office rather than

violate the law? barbara, i'm not going to get into some hypothetical that you are portraying here. i'm fully confident that the president is from of the commander—in—chief will not give us an illegal order, and asi will not give us an illegal order, and as i said, the united states military will come as it always has, obeyed the laws of armed conflict. end escalation, does the us have any responsibility or obligation to also de—escalate, or is it that in your view solely in iran‘s courts? de—escalate, or is it that in your view solely in iran's courts? we are not the ones that have escalated this over the past argue be 40 years, and certainly over the past month, it's been a ran through its proxies that it has consistently escalated this in terms of the size, scale, scope of their attacks. so we reach the point where we had to act in self—defense. we had to take appropriate action. so at this point, as i've said a few times now, the ball is in their court. but what they do next will determine what happens in the subsequent moves. i would like to ask you, before the attack against qasem soleimani, have

you been in consultations with your partners in the region, i mean the gcc countries, or israel. if you have informed them that this operation is going to take place today at this moment. i'm not going today at this moment. i'm not going to get into the details of our consultations. obviously, we have been talking about our forced posture in iraq for some time from our concerns about iranian actions, or the actions that they are inspiring, resourcing or directing through militias, but i am not going to get into any details. your remarks about the parliamentary road, you raise some questions about the kind of people who did vote and didn't vote yesterday and today, do you believe that vote was legitimate, that that resolution calling on us forces to leave was legitimate, and separately come on theissue legitimate, and separately come on the issue of, you said use expect iran to retaliate, are there any off ramps to this crisis, or do you expect that we are heading towards

this military confrontation? on the first question, i want characterize it any differently than what many other people have characterised, and many experts, and that is nonbinding. we know there are mechanisms by which they would have to act, i'm not an expert on iraqi government, sol to act, i'm not an expert on iraqi government, so i characterised it the way you did with you all the other days, as nonbinding, as regards to the off ramp, there is a big off ramp sitting in front of tehran right now, and that is to de—escalate, to message us that they wa nt de—escalate, to message us that they want to sit and talk without precondition by the way to the united states about a better way forward , united states about a better way forward, i way forward which we constitute a new mode of behaviour by iran, where they behave more like a normal country, and one could presume free them up from economic sanctions and allow the iranian people to pursue the life they want to live, and that is one with freedom and prosperity and all those things that most human beings want. thanks again, sir. after pressure from iran, has the iraqi government

prevented the us military from using certain capabilities within the country hampering operations in any way? they have taken some actions in the past that had hampered some of our operations in regard to airspace and things like that, but nothing that we weren't eventually able to work through with them. and is that happening currently? there is nothing that they are doing right now that is hampering operations. to the best of my knowledge. yeah mike ijust want the best of my knowledge. yeah mike i just want to follow—up the best of my knowledge. yeah mike ijust want to follow—up on an earlier question. so what would, just depress you a bit more on this, what would constitute a binding orderfrom the iraqi government, because there seems to be a disconnect from what the prime is telling ambassador and other heads of state from europe about implementing this resolution through iraqi parliament, and what the pentagon says has been communicated or hasn‘t been communicative. i think that's a great question for the iraqi prime ministers. so does that mean that you are not taking his communication about the implementation of that elementary

resolution on its face, in terms of what he‘s actually saying? resolution on its face, in terms of what he's actually saying? to the best of my knowledge, haven't received any communication from him or the iraqi government about the legislation or about an order or request to withdraw us forces. thank you. mr secretary, can you please explain to us how the killing of qasem soleimani the top general would contribute to the case of de—escalation. you're asking iran to de—escalate now. with the us respond in sucha de—escalate now. with the us respond in such a manner if one of your top generals was killed in a third country? let's take a look at history. qasem soleimani was a terrorist leader of the us designated foreign terrorist organisation. he's been conducting terrorist activities against us and our coalition partners for over 20 years. he has the blood of hundreds of americans soldiers on his hands and wounded thousands more. we could talk about all the mayhem he's caused against the syrian people, the people of lebanon, even his own

people in iran. he is responsible and the quds force of killing of iranian people. so the sense of somehow of taking somebody with the la st somehow of taking somebody with the last few months had it planned, orchestrated, resourced attacks against united states that resulted in the killing of americans and the siege of our embassy in baghdad, and was siege of our embassy in baghdad, and was in baghdad to co—ordinate additional attacks to somehow suggest that he wasn't a legitimate target, i think it's fanciful. he was target, i think it's fanciful. he was clearly on the battlefield. he was was clearly on the battlefield. he was conducting or preparing planning, military operations, he was a planning, military operations, he was a legitimate targets, and his time was due. one final question. can you give a bit of a preview of what you're going to tell congress tomorrow in terms of how much detail will you be willing to give members that you haven't thus far told the public in terms of the size, scope, and eminence. you are aware of how

sceptical people are of the imminent threat issue. you are there in 2003 when he heard all of that. so what, temper expectations, what are you prepared to disclose tomorrow? first of all, much of my messaging to congress will be the same as what i'm delivering to you all here in terms of my views on the policy, the broader regional situation, the history, obviously, with members of congress, we can go into a classified, we will be in a classified, we will be in a classified setting and be able to share more, but the exquisite intelligence that we are talking about that lead to the decision to, i should say one of the factors that led to the decision to strike at soleimani is only shared with a handful of members, the so—called gang of eight, so they are getting that briefing this afternoon. they will have access to that, but most members will not have access to that. you talked about increasing force posturing in the region, what about force protection levels? have you gone up to the sea or delta highest level? the commanders in the

region, i should say globally, are taking all appropriate force protection measures relevant to their situation, the threat that they are receiving, the readiness of their troops, etc. so they are receiving, the readiness of theirtroops, etc. so i'm they are receiving, the readiness of their troops, etc. so i'm confident that our commander is going to do the right thing on the ground. ok? thank you all very much. ok, that was marked with the us defence secretary, taking us all a little bit by surprise there in the pentagon briefing room coming into give a briefing on what‘s happened over the last few days and what they think is going to carry on happening. christian and i are joined by robin wright, she is still with us, and also with kareem, senior fellow at the carnegie endowment for international peace. a lot in that briefing, was sort of surprised that he has come out and given that. do you get the impression that the administration is feeling they have some explaining to do? absolutely. people are asking questions about the nature of the term imminent, why was it in imminent threat that required impulsive action? i think one of the

concerns that everyone has is not only about the safety and security of us diplomatic and military outposts in the region, but also that of our allies. i think that trying to reduce america's footprint in the middle east is now a bipartisan concern. both republicans and democrats want that. i think everyone now understands that with the assassination of qasem soleimani, it's going to necessitate a much greater us presence in the region to protect both us outposts, but also those of our allies. robin, the way that he was speaking there, and a little bit from mr pompeo earlier today, i was wondering whether it made people feel that there had been unintended consequences, that perhaps the white house had not anticipated when it took out mr soleimani?” house had not anticipated when it took out mr soleimani? i think the united states grossly underestimated the potential fallout from the

soleimani assassination. one of the striking things about secretary's comments was that he held at the prospect of diplomacy. the irony in all of this is that up until the strike and the recent escalation, the two countries actually have been exploring ways to create a new deal on nuclear issues, but a broader package. that now seems very unlikely, one of the questions is why didn't come if the us is so interested in diplomacy, why didn't they take advantage of the french president micron's initiatives for many months to get the two sides together? and who is going to be the interlocutor today? the study defence was at minister the white house to see president trump today, the question is the saudis who have deep tensions with iran and recently the victims of an attack tied to iran on its oil facilities, are they really going to be an interlock or when it comes to making peace and diffusing the situation? it's very ha rd diffusing the situation? it's very hard to see how this plays out diplomatically.

0k, diplomatically. ok, robin, kareem, thank you very much for the moment, plenty more reaction to his statement. you are watching beyond 100 days. do stay with us. do stay with us, we are going to have more on this conversation, kareem, can we keep you there for just a second longer, and know this is all moving rather fast, because at the pentagon briefing that we weren‘t expecting, robin, when mark was talking about the prospect of an off ramp in order to de—escalate, do you think that that is something that the iranians are prepared to ta ke that the iranians are prepared to take at the moment? i don't. i think that the millions of people who have turned out on the streets are an indication of how much passion, how much emotion supports retaliation against the united states commanders are real danger that it would be ha rd are real danger that it would be hard for the iranians not to do something right now. i don't see how

you de—escalate, how we get to a point where anybody can mediate between the two sides until the iranians have responded, and then the question becomes is the us willing to de—escalate and not retaliate for anything the iranians do? kareem, i think retaliate for anything the iranians do? kareem, ithink the retaliate for anything the iranians do? kareem, i think the reason a lot of people are their heads is because there‘s a disconnect between the broader strategy that trump has set notes with his electorate that withdrawing from the middle east, and yet, he is carried out an assassination here, which has required him to put 3000 more troops into iraq forforce protection required him to put 3000 more troops into iraq for force protection at a time when he‘s trying to pull troops out of syria and out of the region. that‘s why people on the site are asking what the longer—term strategy is? well, absolutely. term's tactics and his strategy are at war with one another, and this isn't unique to his iran policy. on many issues, you see this profound incoherence, but i think that the iranians are now very motivated to try to make trump a one

term president. they thought that they successfully did that in 1979 with the hostage crisis that made jimmy cartera one with the hostage crisis that made jimmy carter a one term president, andl jimmy carter a one term president, and i think in 2020, as we near november of 2020, i think iran will put trump in a tough spot, because trump does not respond to a provocations. he risks appearing weak. if he does respond to iranian provocations, he risks the conflict that, as you just said, his base does not want. so i think iran is going to be the largest looming foreign policy challenge for trump in his reelection campaign. robin, the russians have graciously said that they will step into the breach to replace us troops in iraq, and lo, we see vladimir putin in damascus today alongside president assad looking for all the world like the cat who‘s got the creed. what do you think is going on here? do you

think the russians who have been pretty muted all along over the last few days, do you think they spy an opportunity here? absolutely. one of the consequences for the united states and the western alliance is the balance of power in the middle east changes. aside is no winning in syria, hughes consolidated his whole over most of the country, russia would like nothing more than to be able to step in and whether it's russian troops taking the place in iraq or being the mediator on a broader level, this is exactly what vladimir putin has long sought to be the player in the middle east. there's been policy envyin the middle east. there's been policy envy in moscow, and this is a moment to exploit what russian interests are. 0k are. ok robin, kareem, thank you for your thoughts. thank you both for being with us. one strategy that we have not talked about is of the sort of knock on effect, if you would have looked at the beginning of the year at the turn of the year, the big

crisis around the world, you would‘ve picked out iran, but you would‘ve picked out iran, but you would‘ve also picked up north korea. pyongyang has been fairly quiet on what‘s happened here, but if you are kim looking at this, don‘t you think well, you know what, i‘m going to hang onto my nuclear arsenal, because of the americans are firing hellfire missiles at people they don‘t like, maybe i just hellfire missiles at people they don‘t like, maybe ijust needed as a back—up. don‘t like, maybe ijust needed as a back-up. yeah, i think it's very important to see this notjust in terms of the context of iran, iraq, and even of the middle east, you mentioned there with robin, the fact that vladimir putin has pitched up ona that vladimir putin has pitched up on a surprise visit, he wasn‘t scheduled to be in syria today meeting aside, but there were ramifications of in north korea saying i will hold onto my nukes, russia sees this clearly as an opportunity, on top of the potential destabilisation caused by whatever retaliation that we haven‘t yet had. just a couple of lines that are coming out. we have comments coming from president trump at the moment saying, so the —— soleimani was

planning a big attack is what he‘s calling it he‘s talking about the right of america to retaliate if need be. these are all lines that arejust breaking. need be. these are all lines that are just breaking. so clearly the president, and i am struck by the fa ct president, and i am struck by the fact that we are getting mike pompeo, president trump and mark i spent today, all talking about this. all talking about in the context of the intelligence that led to it, and reassuring allies that this was in your interest as well. i do get the impression from the fact that this is not an administration that likes to have to explain its position very often, but they are having to do that today, and i suspect there is some nervousness about it. they will because the europeans have come up and said... de—escalate. we are nervous. they are coming here for an eu investors meeting and they will be talking to them off the back of that, in fact, we will get into some of the european reaction a little bit later in the programme. we will have more on iran as well and iraq. but there is other news that is happening around the world. keep an eye on venezuela, because that‘s

where but he needed to break into the national assembly building. he insists he is still the head of the parliament despite the assembly voting for a new leader. the armed forces initially block the leader from entering parliament but forced their way through the doors. 100 opposition lawmakers broken through that court and into the national assembly, where he was then re—elected as speaker. he was joined by the uk representative to the uk. why is it important symbolically for him who wants to be leader to be re—elected as the speaker? him who wants to be leader to be re-elected as the speaker? first of all, it is because we are following the constitution that was signed

into law in 1999 under nicolas maduro‘s predecessor and according to that constitution every 5th of january the national assembly has to re—elect its leader. what happens is that in his case because of the election was force he is also the interim constitutional president of the republic, so he is both. how important is it for you to keep venezuela at the top of the international agenda? i would imagine you are looking at these pictures of a ring of steel around the people‘s legislature, and that is useful for you, is the people‘s legislature, and that is usefulfor you, is it? it the people‘s legislature, and that is useful for you, is it? it has been a gift. everybody understands worldwide the image of military surrounding a legislative palace, and today there were three

diplomats, and the fact that it shows that he is so afraid of the impact that guaido has had over the last year inside venezuela and in the international community that he wa nts to the international community that he wants to steal that legitimacy by stealing the national assembly. bring us up—to—date in terms of where global support is in an active way for mr guaido? since this story was front and centre of news headlines last year, it seems to have died down. i am just wondering how much active support he is still getting. that is a great question because we had about 50 countries when he was initially sworn in, we are up to more than 60 countries now, we have a growing number of ambassadors being given more credentials all around the world as we... as they change their policy and recognise guaido more. but others countries doing much to help

you on the ground? —— arcos. others countries doing much to help you on the ground? -- arcos. yes, absolutely, a lot of the international embassies in the uk alone is on the ground, fully functioning, providing a lot of humanitarian aid, medicine and food and they are also there, the instant they were the observers to the legitimacy of guaido‘s pre—election, of warning 100—1 on sunday. legitimacy of guaido‘s pre—election, of warning 100-1 on sunday. -- winning. he was saying to me of the involvement of iran and venezuela. we were talking about their involvement in south america yesterday but of course venezuela and iran are opec countries. this man soliman had quite a connection with nicolas maduro? absolutely. i

have researched and published on the relationship that nicholas adorno when he was foreign secretary under his predecessor chavez signed all the agreements with the eye are with slimani, and set up businesses for the forces to launder money, set up factories in training camps in venezuela. venezuela provide support for terrorism throughout the world and this is why we need the world‘s democracies and the people who are concerned about the global war on terror to help us respect our constitution and get the country back to prosperity and get the terrorists and the narco criminals out of our country. we‘ve heard the us defense secretary this hour saying that the us is not seeking a to start a war

but it‘s ready to finish one. inside iran leaders have renewed their threats of revenge in response to the us killing of general soleimani, but huge questions remain over how, when, and where iran or its allies will respond. mourners at the general‘s burial in his hometown of kerman reportedly chanted ‘death to america‘ and ‘death to trump‘ at today‘s ceremony. iran‘s foreign minister mohammad javad zarif today said that the us had failed to choose ‘the path of de—escalation‘, and described the assassination of general soleimani as an ‘act of war‘. de—escalation means the united states not taking further measures to stop threatening iran, to apologise to the iranian nation. but the action by the united states has consequences that will happen, and i believe it has already started. the end of the us presence in our region has already begun. we‘re joined now from tehran by dr seyed mostafa khoshcheshm, university of iran professor of news and media. iran‘s supreme leader said he wanted

direct proportional retaliation, the risk here is that what you might consider a proportionate response might elicit a further response from the united states. that is what is worrying european allies, that there will be an repairable response that they cannot stop, and you will escalate the situation further. thank you for having me. it is no secret even in washington people know now that iran has been left with no other option but to retaliate against the assassination of soleimani. unless tehran wants to see its other generals thrown. so, after tehran showed a goodwill gesture under the nuclear deal and the us showed full disrespect, the europeans failed to comply with the terms. they even failed to stop

donald trump from escalating the tensions, he antagonised a run, escalated tensions and apparently he is headed to somewhere. it doesn‘t make a difference if you continue to appease donald trump or not, those that have gone down this path have failed. donald trump understands only the language of force because iran has already given him a chance that he has done something com pletely that he has done something completely irrational, it‘s notjust iran. he has been at war with the chinese, the europeans, with north koreans he has not struck any deal, so the man sees no respect for anyone. some might call him the reincarnation of lucifer as he does not respect any sanctuaries. so the only way to approach donald trump is in his own language. but it is not

just on trump anyone else escalating tension and attacking you, you need a deterrent and they should be tough. in the last few minutes we are getting lines from the white house that president trump has said he is prepared for any iranian retaliation and in return the us would retaliate as well. my question to you is where does this end? if this leads to full—scale conflict between the us and around this does not end well for your country, for a run, and by carrying on this process you are just inviting america to have to retaliate again. at some point it has to stop. the united states started it. iran believes it will finish it. except we had the defence secretary saying it was actually around who started this because they have been nonstop provocations at those provocations have increased. the point is not who started it but who will end it. and

isaid, first started it but who will end it. and i said, first a full, the united states started it, according to the former cia chief, the president does not believe the intelligence reports of any validity, he questions their reliability. he has made such a vital decision based on intelligence reports, it‘s no secret they have been after qasem soleimani for the past 20 years. they placed irg sea in the list of terrorist organisations, they are headed for somewhere, it is pretty clear that they need to be brought to a halt otherwise it is not iran, i believe the us is underestimating a run. it is iran and its allies throughout the world that will strike back and we would wait and see. if donald trump would go for further risks. i do not believe he would gamble his

second term with bringing back and then retaliating iran‘s price of the qasem soleimani‘s life. even if this happens it will not be a tough measure. anyway, the us is already in trouble in lebanon, syria and afghanistan as well as iraq, and it needs to stop the present path of humiliation and aggression against other nations in this part of the world. we have to leave it there, thank you very much forjoining us from tehran. german, french and british diplomats today met in brussels to discuss the european response to iran‘s announcement that it will no longer be abiding by the uranium enrichment restrictions set out in the 2015 nuclear deal. germany‘s foreign minister called for a unified european response but no concrete steps were announced and he stopped short of supporting renewed un sanctions against iran. earlier we spoke to daniela schwarzer, director of the german council on foreign

relations. last night, the pentagon mistakenly circulated a letter suggesting they we re circulated a letter suggesting they were withdrawing us troops which caused everybody on the hop. —— court. does that undermine confidence amongst european allies? it definitely does and it adds to the impression among europeans that the impression among europeans that the decision of the us seems to have been a decision of the us president to kill the iranians general, and so europeans for some time have been fearing that there is uncoordinated action and uncoordinated decisions and whether nato and last night‘s letter and the subsequent withdrawal really adds to that. and was that sentiment the reason behind the german government‘s decision today to reposition some of its troops?”

think there were two major reasons for that decision, one was security concerns because of the escalation of the situation, but secondly a question of international law because the iraqi parliament has passed a resolution ending the request for security assistance and hence there is a question amongst germans but also other nato countries under which conditions they can continue working with the iraqi government and they are waiting for a statement from that government. the british teenager convicted of lying about being gang raped in cyprus lastjuly is flying home tonight. the 19—year—old, who we are not naming, was given a four—month suspended sentence in court this morning which meant she could finally leave the island. she reported to police that she was raped by up to 12 israeli tourists in a hotel room in the party town of ayia napa

last summer, but days later retracted her statement. but she says she was forced to change her account and still maintains she was raped. i‘m joined now by susana pavlou, director of the mediterranean institute of gender studies, a cypriot ngo. where does this case stand now as the teenager is heading home, but still has with her this conviction from the cypriot court? she does have this conviction. the good news with the sentence is she does finally get some comfort after a six month ordeal that she has been through. with the suspended sentence and conviction, her lawyers are saying they will appeal. the only way that conviction can be overturned is for them to appeal to

look at this case. we believe she did not get a fair trial, we believe there were systemic flaws in the way this case was handled from day one, soi this case was handled from day one, so i would support an appeal, but i think it is positive that she is going home because she is in a fragile psycho geological state, she has been to a terrible ordeal and needs all the help she can get. -- psychological. is this case is unique in cyprus? it is unique in terms of the international dimension and in terms of how much publicity it has received, but it is not unique in terms of police handling and criminaljustice unique in terms of police handling and criminal justice handling unique in terms of police handling and criminaljustice handling of cases related to violence against women. i think that this case has brought to the surface though

systemic flaws that have existed for many years and have resulted in in an enormous gender justice many years and have resulted in in an enormous genderjustice gap in how the criminal justice an enormous genderjustice gap in how the criminaljustice system deals with cases of sexual violence and rape in particular. thank you very much forjoining us. lots of women demonstrating outside the courtroom who feel that there has been a miscarriage ofjustice in this case. the three—month contest to find the next leader of the labour party got underway this evening. the six leadership contenders are at hustings, facing questions from labour mps on why they are best suited to replacejeremy corbyn. under the timetable agreed yesterday by labour‘s ruling body, the contenders have until monday next week to show they have the support of 22 mps and meps in order to get onto the ballot paper. chris mason is at westminster for us. have you had your ear pressed to the hustings door? i have. there is

a lwa ys hustings door? i have. there is always an election going on in this place and if it is not the real thing it is an election for the party leadership election, so here we go with this labour contest on the way with a hustings that had been going on for one hour 45 minutes. i have just been going on for one hour 45 minutes. i havejust walked down from the corridor where it has been taking place. it is one of those where the politicians on the inside and we are on the outside, leaning against the big thick wooden doors, hoping to hear things through said doors and only hearing snatched extracts but hopefully the teams tend to send us a little lines about what their candidates have been saying and a lot of soul—searching going on within the party given the scale of their defeat a couple of weeks ago, so take this from lisa nandy, one of the contenders, she said possibly one of the most important in our history, now is not the time to steady the ship, if we do not change course we would die and we deserve to. keir starmer also

talking about the devastating election result. each of them making their pitches and we will have more hustings tomorrow. the deputy leadership contest, plenty of mileage in this contest though which will run until easter. there are a few differences between the labour party contest and the contest taking place here in the us, namely that the democratic process goes on for a year and the democratic process goes on for a yearand a the democratic process goes on for a year and a half if not two years and this one is over in three months which might be a blessing actually to all of our view is! but one thing iam to all of our view is! but one thing i am wondering is whether on the labour side a bit like on the democratic site hear the real priority amongst the candidates themselves and labour party supporters is to nominate the person who they think and when the next election, or is it to nominate someone who they feel is politically pure? that is absolutely the crux of what we will see the next few months. i was bemoaning this would

go on for three months forgetting the reality for you! three months is a mere blink of the eye! this is absolutely at the centre of all of this. winning elections involves appealing to the people who have a vote and those who have a vote in this contest over the next mere matter of 12 or 13 or 14 weeks are those within the labour party. they are obviously to the left of the overall electorate, so where did these candidates pitch themselves if they want to secure leadership but at the same time hope to win subsequent general election? you look at keir starmerfor subsequent general election? you look at keir starmer for instance who put out a very slick and polished campaign video the other day which emphasised his left—wing credentials even though there are some in this contest who arguably to the left of him but he has to win a contest where there people who

select the next leader were brought into the fold by the rise ofjeremy corbyn and so are very much on the left, so i think that is absolutely the contest you will get in the next couple of weeks, those who are willing to say look what happened over the last couple of years, it was a big mistake, and those who might want to say that but are willing to go to the left a bit in order to hope that is enough. willing to go to the left a bit in order to hope that is enoughm this the first time you have broadcast since after the election? can you tell? you did it brilliantly! the other differences it doesn‘t cost hundreds of millions of dollars, the labour party. time and money, the big differences. facebook has announced it will remove videos modified by artificial intelligence, otherwise known as deepfakes, from its platform. these computer—generated clips, designed to look real,

often feature politicians or celebrities merging or superimposing content on to a video in a way that makes it look real. the social media company says these videos distort reality and present a significant challenge for the tech industry. the new policy has attracted criticism with some saying it still doesn‘t include all misleading content. let‘s bring in areeq chowdhury from the tech think tank future advocacy, whojoins me now in the studio. you will have to explain this a bit more to me. realfake is where you will have to explain this a bit more to me. real fake is where the mouth has been doctored and what we are hearing has been doctored, how is that different to other kinds of videos that are not real? these deep fa kes videos that are not real? these deep fakes but have identified are made using ai techniques which look very convincing. —— which facebook. a video of donald trump example. this isa video of donald trump example. this is a welcome policy announcement, it‘s welcome that facebook recognises the extent of the threat.

let‘s bringing these from the election. here is jeremy corbyn. all ladybird members to consider people before privilege and back boris johnson to continue as a prime minister, promised to who works for the many and not the few. —— all labour members. i wish to rise above this divide and endorse my worthy opponent, the right honourable jeremy corbyn, soon to be prime minister of jeremy corbyn, soon to be prime ministerof our jeremy corbyn, soon to be prime minister of our united kingdom, only he not i can make britain great again. they are quite convincing, aren‘t they? again. they are quite convincing, aren't they? there are ones we produced. they were not on general release, where they? know, we release, where they? know, we release them to raise awareness. just because there is a band does not mean they will all be hauled off facebook. copyright and hate speech is banned by facebook but it is still there. this is the issue, does it mean anything? lots of things go

against facebook‘s community standards. the other big problem here is, how does this align with facebook‘s previous announcement that it will not remove misleading content posted by politicians. the example on the 2020 election, would facebook flag will remove a deep fa ke facebook flag will remove a deep fake posted by president trump? would it stand up to the president in that way in flag his content is fa ke in that way in flag his content is fake news? i find in that way in flag his content is fake news? ifind that in that way in flag his content is fake news? i find that unlikely so there are a lot of issues here with this policy. thank you very much indeed. lots of news this evening about iran and lots of reaction from the white house this evening. it is interesting. we heard from the defence secretary, we heard from mike pompeo and we are also getting lines from president trump who has been speaking at the white house, all talking about the fact that they are saying there was a big attack planned. we had mark casper saying

it would have been in days. they will not release the intelligence on that but i think the subtext is understanding there is nervousness around the world about whether the white house precipitated this action. i did think though that the secretary of state‘s response was convincing when he was asked what qasem soleimani was doing in baghdad, does anyone believe he was the owner diplomatic mission? the a nswer to the owner diplomatic mission? the answer to that was no because he had history. the counter to that is that he goes to iraq other times too. but not on diplomatic missions. i don‘t think anybody believes that. but the question is, was there a specific incident and will congress which will be briefed tomorrow about this be briefed more on the intelligence and will allies as well who are nervous and moving their troops out of iraq today get to see some of

that as well? i suspect we will have more about this tomorrow? hello. it really has been one of those days, especially so across northern britain. we‘ve had a combination of very wet and very windy weather, and that should come as no surprise when you see the number of isobars liberally spread, particularly across the north, but it‘s been a blustery day, even down into wales and parts of the south—west. sandwiched between the two weather fronts, the temperature is way above what we would expect for the time of year. more on that in a second. but, through the night and into wednesday, cooler, fresher conditions will dominate across the northern parts of britain, but through the night on into the first part of wednesday, the wind will still be a feature across northern britain and travel will continue to be affected. that‘s the sort of range of gusts we‘re expecting into the wee small hours. 40mph around about some of the welsh coasts, but then further north, 50—70mph. now, wherever you spent the day

on tuesday, the temperatures all the way from scotland, down into the south—west of england, have been well above what we would expect for the time of year. but as i say, things are changing, as this weather front gradually works its way ever further towards the south. clearing the skies behind it and, underneath those clear skies, the temperatures beginning to dribble away, to the extent that some of these showers across the north—west of scotland could turn really quite wintry to lower levels and could deposit a couple of centimetres of snow. further south, no such issues. temperatures still stuck in double figures, and that‘s how you‘re going to start wednesday. the isobars still quite tightly packed across the north of scotland. further south, they really do open up. so, nowhere near the sort of strength of wind. a rather still sort of day, if the truth were known. quite cloudy in the south. for northern ireland, the far north of england, much of scotland, you‘ve got some sunshine to speak of. a much fresher feel to the day, despite the sunshine. still that noticeable west—south westerly wind across the north, and the temperatures here in single figures. temperatures in double figures further towards the south. the rain becomes a good deal more

extensive as we move from wednesday on into thursday. thursday, a deal of doubt, yes, we‘ve got a low pressure going from west to east right through the heart of the british isles, but if there are more isobars in there because the centre is deeper, with regard to its pressure, the wind will be stronger. and that‘s why at the met office have already got a warning about the strength of the wind. potentially, come friday, a little ridge of high—pressure beginning to move in. so, thursday, the certainty is it will be very unsettled. could be very windy. friday will be a much, much quieter day. take care. bye— bye.

this is bbc news i‘m rebecca jones. the headlines at 8. more than 50 people are killed in a stampede, as iranians flocked to the funeral of the general assassinated by an american drone strike. in washington, the trump administration is urging iran not to retaliate — but warning that if it does, america will hit back. i will save as, if iran does anything that they should not be doing they will be suffering the consequences and very strongly. flying home to the uk, the teenager convicted of lying about being gang raped in cyprus last summer is given a suspended sentence. hackers hold foreign exchange company travelex to ransom after a cyber attack that‘s forced the firm to turn off