iran mistakenly fired missiles at the ukranian plane that crashed outside tehran on wednesday. president trump says the strike may have been a mistake. iran denies the claims. everyone on board was killed, including dozens of canadians. authorities in australia have warned nearly a quarter of a million people to evacuate their homes — or risk being trapped. temperatures are expected to shoot well above a0 degrees celsius and accompanied by strong winds, are expected to fan bushfires across the east coast. it's been confirmed to the bbc that meghan, the duchess of sussex has left the uk for canada. the news came as the queen summoned an urgent family conference to find a way to accommodate prince harry and meghan‘s wish to go it alone. the queen, prince charles and prince william have instructed their staff to find a solution within days.

now on bbc news, it's hardtalk with stephen sackur. come to hardtalk. i'm stephen sackur. they is one of the fallout from america's assassination of uranian general qasem soleimani appears to be over. washington and rana talking tough while taking a step back from the rink of all—out war, for now. but how has the high drama of the last week changed strategic realities in the middle east? my guess is us foreign policy scholar and sometime advisor to the state department vali nasr. who has gained an who has lost as a result of the killing of iran's they were

general? vali nasr in washington dc, welcome to hardtalk. thank you. donald trump and his supporters say events of the past week show that his strategy towards iran, that of maximum pressure, is working. do you agree? no, idon‘t. maximum maximum pressure, is working. do you agree? no, i don't. maximum pressure was economic pressure. he never brought iran to the table. he didn't change his regional behaviour and the president himself was forced to resort to military action in order to contain reaction of iran to his must assure strategy. well, in a

sense, there is a logic then to what he did because iran's publications we re he did because iran's publications were intensifying and we saw the killing of a us contractor inside iraqi. we saw the attack on the us embassy in baghdad. because of all of that, trump went to the next level and this was that next level, the killing of qasem soleimani. no, that could have been other next levels. i think the killing of qasem soleimani actually in some ways backfired because it galvanised the iranian public around nationalism, it changed the conversation in iran from criticism of the government to rallying to the flag. it had a major impact on the us presence in iraqi. expect iraq. it is change the conversation in iraq away from anti— iranian sentiment towards anti— american sentiment so the united states has paid significant cost for

the decision to kill qasem soleimani. those costs you talk about may play out in the long—term and some of them are somewhat intangible and open to analysis but what is quite clear is that a real blow has been delivered to the iranian government with the loss of what i just called iranian government with the loss of what ijust called their favourite general, the guy who was the architect of much of their regional expansionist policy. that is, major general qasem soleimani. he is gone. yes, but he might have died six months from now of natural causes and ultimately an organisation like the revolutionary guards as succession within it. he might be a particularly valuable general, he might have been replaced but had he died of natural causes, he might not have had a positive impact that his killing has had for the iranian regime and ultimately, iran is in an unequal confrontation with the us. we know that the united states can a lwa ys we know that the united states can always beat iran militarily. the

question is, what is the president's strategy? he up to the anti— with iran. the escalated tensions but where does he go from here? you cannot just keep where does he go from here? you cannotjust keep the situation in status where it is right now and it doesn't look like resident trump has any strategy when it comes to dealing with iran. but if the americans had not gone to the next level, arguable whether it should have involved killing the 02, but u nless have involved killing the 02, but unless they had done something different from what was being done before, surely the message to iran would be that they could continue to up would be that they could continue to up the ante in their aggression, their attacks on us interests in iraq, their attacks on us allies across the region, with impunity and thatis across the region, with impunity and that is a message that washington could not afford the iranian is to take. that's a fair point but the choice of the next level is very important. the assassination of a sitting government official is broad

ramifications, not only with how iran interprets it for the rest of the world. the united states is setting a precedent for any government who doesn't like a government who doesn't like a government official in another country or see them as bad or that they have blood on their hands. it can actually hello america's precedents and kill them. that's not where we want the world to be going. secondly, again, how is the president going to get iran to the table. how is he going to replace the nuclear deal with something different. how is going to change policy in the region. pressure alone doesn't work. pressure is provoking iran to do things that rings the united states closer to war which president trump himself said he doesn't want to do and it doesn't look like he has thought about an exit ramp here or how do you leverage pressure into actually something different with iran. use a pressure doesn't work and i'm very mindful that you were an advisor to

the obama administration in different guises, often it was in afghanistan policy where you have a specialism but you also have a real connection of iran not least because you were born in tehran and even advise the state department on iran policy as well so let's be honest about obama. obama tried a very different approach to iran, he reached out to seek a dialogue, he was determined to push through a nuclear deal. he hoped that deal would fundamentally change the mindset in tehran and events have proven that to be utterly wrong. the iranian ‘s took the advantages of that nuclear deal including a windfall of many tens of billions of dollars of assets that are freed up and they plough those assets into arms, into supporting proxies across the region into an ever more expansionist and aggressive policy. i don't agree with that. i think these are talking points of opponents of the nuclear deal. these are republican talking points in the us. but why do you call them talking

points when actually everything i've said is based on fact, is it not? it's not, actually. i don't agree that it's based on fact. the nuclear deal was an arms control deal. it had a particular agenda of getting iran from imminently having a nuclear capability that israel, the united states arab allies did not wa nt united states arab allies did not want iran to have. it took wore off the table in the middle east. it did not change iran's position in the region one bit. iran was not doing anything different the day after the nuclear deal than it was doing the day before and in international affairs when you have these kinds of arms control deals, use that, you build on it and then you go to the next level you negotiate another deal and negotiate another deal and gradually changes things and in iran it did have a profound impact. it rallied the population in support of opening iraq. it created enthusiasm

for people in iran you want to do continue engaging with the west. this would have been a prolonged process. but it stopped right after that. that sounds like wishful thinking to many people because what you are ignoring is the degree to which in the post—2015. when obama's deal with iran and thejcpoa was signed, what we saw was iran's significant uptick of its investment in syria, we saw it increase its military investment in yemen as well and as donald trump says, iran is doing things which are inimical to us and western interests. that is the reality. well, in syria, russia is iran's counterpart, its partner. it doesn't seem to bother president trump that the russians are involved in exactly the same things that the

iranian ‘s are doing in syria. and secondly let's not forget when the nuclear deal was done, the united states turned around and sold over $100 billion of advanced weapons to persian gulf monarchies so in a way, the united states itself stoked an arms race in the region. it signalled to iran that even though iran was giving up its nuclear programme at least for a period of time, actually the united states was strengthening iran's rivals. sorry to interrupt but when donald trump and again, his key advisors point two what they say is the deaths of hundreds of us servicemen but they also point to the much wider scale of killing that qasem soleimani has supervised in syria, yemen and elsewhere, they say that as much as anything else indicates the world is anything else indicates the world is a better place without him. you appear to be quarrelling with that.

is the issue of whether united states ta kes is the issue of whether united states takes upon itself to eliminate government officials and other countries that have blood on their hands or have done things as opposed to having a strategy. these are two separate things. i worked in afghanistan and pakistan at the height of the afghan war. you could have argued that pakistani generals had blood on their hands. you could say exactly the same things about soleimani you could have said about pakistani generals. it was inconceivable that president obama would order the assassination of pakistani generals. indians may think that pakistani generals are responsible for what's happening in kashmir all for the attack on mumbai a number of years ago. it's inconceivable the indians would send a drone to assassinate the general who was behind that. this is a whole different approach to international relations. it's not about morally arguing that these generals included

good people about people. it's about how we conduct international affairs and whether this kind of behaviour is destabilising because it's a whole new set of rules of the game and if countries begin behaving like this across the world, taking their lead from president from, it will be the law of the jungle. understand what you're that underpinning what you are saying and much of the reaction has been over the past week to the killing of soleimani is your apparent belief that iran shouldn't be treated as america's rate enemy and the lion influence that has to be tamed in the middle east, it should be treated as any other complex player in the difficult region, for example, like pakistan but the trump vision of iran is different. he clearly strategically has a view of iran is a unique and profound threat to american interests in the region and the wider world. well, actually,

conceivably he is closer to seeing iran asa conceivably he is closer to seeing iran as a normal state which he can deal with than his republican predecessors. i mean, at least, and similarly with north korea, he is willing to deal with them, he thinks there is a deal possible. in a way, he actually thinks you can deal with iran. but again, a president of the united states should not basically make a decision whether you treat a country which is a member of the united nations, who has embassies in europe, who has relations with some of our allies as well as with a lot of our allies as well as with a lot of other countries around the world, that you should sort of treated as if you are dealing with isis or al-qaeda. if we say that that argument is valid, again, taking this issue to a completely different place. and again, even in the context of the middle east, there are other governments in the region who are funding isis, who are allies of the united states, who are funding, who are supporting

unsavoury al qaeda— back groups in northern syria, who are also responsible in part at least for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of syrians. i mean, iran, this is a civil war in which iran is supporting one side but civil war means supporting one side but civil war m ea ns let's supporting one side but civil war means let's fly both ways and people are escaping not just means let's fly both ways and people are escaping notjust a side's army, they were escaping isis and groups that were also act by friends of the united states. so in a way, syria is not a very good example of iranian, of what the united states wants to sort of describes bad in the region. let me then tap into your insights into what is going to happen in the short and medium term in iran. obviously you have connections because of your own family history. you seem to suggest to me earlier in this interview, you think the iranian government has been strengthened by what's happened because it's taken the focus away from the internal political dissent

and it's put it around this unifying figure of soleimani as martyr. there are others, though, who say if you unpick what is happening inside iran today, the government is weak, economic sanctions are crippling the iranian economy and the iranian government at some levels of east is looking for a different approach. there has been talk of reaching out to saudi arabia, establishing some kind of dialogue. it is not possible that what's happened in the past week may actually open up possibilities for a new dialogue? it does, absolutely under two things are happening at the same time, namely that the iranian government has found an opportunity to find support among its population and it gives that confidence and that confidence can be manifested in standing up to the us but it can also be manifested in approaching its regional neighbours for

deescalation. mind you, this had been going on for some time. the un iran and had been talking about the escalation much more than with saudi arabia. iran mahmoud abbas president a few months ago wrote a letter to all the leaders of the golf to start all the leaders of the golf to start a conversation about collective security. —— gulf. that they should establish rules and the game in the gulf region. all of that is happening and in fact everything that has happened in the last week and everybody in the middle east has come to look down into an abyss of war should give everybody pause and see how to avoid getting back to this .6 months from now, a yearfrom now. . . this .6 months from now, a yearfrom now... despite all your criticism of president trump, isn't it by the

great disruptor, may bring something to the negotiating table that for example ba rack obama to the negotiating table that for example barack obama could not. no, thatis example barack obama could not. no, that is exactly what barack obama did. he put enormous economic pressure on iran and seriously engaged on diplomacy. resident drum's only pressure. he has not come up with any ideas. he is not said he will meet with them anytime anywhere, it is not serious diplomacy. like his meetings with the north korean dictator. you go to meetings, there is a photo opportunity and nothing follows. iranians wanta opportunity and nothing follows. iranians want a serious conversation about how they want to get out of sanctions. that is what barack obama was saying. if you want to get out of the sanctions, this is a very serious path to diplomacy and they we re serious path to diplomacy and they were secret meetings in mine were both sides jutted out the diplomatic

process. “— both sides jutted out the diplomatic process. —— oman. it took three yea rs process. —— oman. it took three years to negotiate the nuclear deal. pressure would lead the iranians to come out with a divide flag that is for him a definition for diplomacy and it is not a serious engagement but surrender and listening to donald trump yesterday, he did not outline a path of how you get to diplomacy with iran. let me ask you about specifically with iraq which ru ns about specifically with iraq which runs the risk of being the theatre where acra one — us hostilities are played out in the medium term. —— iran. the action by the united states has consequences and they will come and have already started and he said the end of the us presence in our region has really begun. clearly the iranians hoping the iraqi parliament vote to and at

the iraqi parliament vote to and at the foreign troop presence on their soil and it will turn into action from baghdad to boot the american troops out. do you think there is anything the trump administration can do to ensure that does not happen? that... obviously, aside from iranians and us pressure, iraqis have a mind of their own. right now they do not have an actual prime minister, they have an interim prime minister, they have an interim prime minister. in the past every prime minister. in the past every prime minister. in the past every prime minister abe iraq since 2003 and every government in iraq was put together with a tacit cooperation or agreement between iran and the us and now that this does not exist anymore, it is difficult to see how we write will have a functioning government going forward which means things they go apart. the question is what will be the mood of the street going forward. do not know.

it should begins to build on the street, maybe with the help of the militias, maybe with the help of iran or local issues, pressure will be put on the government also erect pressure on the us. le sommer us left iraq it was not because these lucky government told them to leave perse lucky government told them to leave per se also was because they found it costly. —— the iraqi government. you are the great champion of obama policy—making, there is culpability from barack obama in the situation in iraq because he was so keen to reach out to iran that in essence turned a blind eye to iran buzz my progress takeover of many of the levers of security and power inside iraq. i spoke to a shi'ite but

secular politician who told me that he depends a lot of the blame for the way iraqi politics has been turned into a deeply confessional sector and policy on obama. turned into a deeply confessional sector and policy on obamalj turned into a deeply confessional sector and policy on obama. i do not think that is correct. i have criticised president obama for bringing our troops out of iraq during his residency. it did not have anything to do with iran. the iranians influence in iraq predated obama, it continued after obama and it will continue going forward. it is with a deep anxiety that she has have that they would be at the mercy of the sunnis and they do not want the sunnis to be willing iraq. saudi arabia only a few years ago actually recognised the government of iraq. so it is not like the original

dynamics, the saudi shia animus is not at play. —— saudi. you had success with arms controlled deal with the right. if that deal took hold, successful for a few years, if you would have built trust between iran and the united states then you could have gone to negotiate something on top of that and then something on top of that and then something on top of that and then something on top of the second deal and the third deal. ultimately we would have done that. none of that has happened. i need a basic answer, what next? so many different ways in which you are pessimistic about what trump has done in the next few days. what next you believe is going to happen? you put your finger on it. iran still need sanction relief and

address its economic issues and that is the lever the president has to get iranians the table. he has proved he can crash the economy but they will not come out surrendering, pack their bags and leave iran and handed over to the united states. ultimately, he has to put on the table serious pathways as to how negotiations will lift sanctions, how they will get there, and use this moment to see if he can engage iran in serious diplomatic negotiations... has he not done that and even the killing soleimani of is what his message is. you have to stop funding terror around the region stop we have to stop your aggressive extension expansionist policies and any ambition you had the nuclear weapons... in exchange for what? in exchange for a new relationship with the united states

of america. these are sort of 50,000 feet grand ideas, these are not the path to negotiations. in new york, when the president of france tried to mediate between him and the uranium president, the reigning president asked for concrete guarantees that sanctions would be lifted if they had a successful meeting. —— iranian. trump reviews, he would not commit to anything except a photo opportunity. he will say nice things like you said about the north korean leader, he is going to come out and they will still be in the same place they were before. if he's really serious about it, you do it the way obama did it, channelled negotiations to start with, with secret talks, laying out a plan about how the diplomatic process is going to go forward, what happens they won, they too, day

three. that state what they want. those things are not that. trump is overwhelmingly relying on pressure but he does not know how to convert it into negotiations. we have to do and they. vali nasr, thank you for being on hardtalk. thank you. hello there. it looks dry, with sunshine across much of the country on friday. we have seen some heavier rain for central and eastern england earlier on, but that's continuing to push away, together with that weather front. before this one arrives in from the atlantic, that ridge of high pressure

means skies are clearing. it will be chilly start to friday, noticeably colder than we've seen for a while across much of england and wales, with a frost more likely further north. but some sunshine to start the day. one or two early showers in western parts of wales, into western scotland, maybe into east anglia, but those won't last long, and we'll see plenty of sunshine. it will tend to cloud over more in the north—west as the winds pick up through the day, that rain holding off until hopefully after dark. ahead of that 6—9 degrees, cooler than of late in southern england and wales, but a pleasant day in the sunshine. as we head into the night, we see that weather front making further inroads into scotland and northern ireland, bringing with it some outbreaks of rain. at the same time, the winds will pick up in many areas and we will draw our air all the way from the azores again, so turning milder, i think, for the start of the weekend. windy, strong to maybe gale force winds. still rain in scotland, northern ireland, maybe cumbria. wettest over the hills, drier to the east of high ground. eastern parts of england seeing the best of the sunshine here. strong and gusty winds quite widely, perhaps easing off in the north—west later on as the rain starts to clear

and temperatures drop away. ahead of that, we're looking at 11—13 degrees. very mild once again. now, that weather front will eventually take that rain across the whole of the country on saturday night, and then we'll introduce this showery air stream, coming in from the atlantic, and that will bring in with it some cooler air as well. not too cold to start the second half of the weekend because there'll be a fair bit of around. we've still got temperatures perhaps in double figures across the south—east. colder air in scotland certainly. we've still rain to clear from south—eastern england first thing on sunday, and then a fair bit of and showers coming in, even pushing eastwards across england and wales. that's the morning. in the afternoon, most of those have gone. the showers restricted more towards the north—west of scotland, where it is quite a bit colder. temperatures 5—6 again and potentially double figures in the south—east in the sunshine. as we head into next week, well, we've still got a strong jetstream pushing right away across the atlantic, picking up these areas of low pressure. you can see a lot of isobars

on the chart as well. it is going to windy still into next week, which means it's likely to be mild, although there will be rain at times.

this is the briefing, i'm victoria fritz. our top story: iran denies this is the moment its military accidentally shot down a ukrainian passenger jet, killing 176 people. a day after the duke and duchess of sussex announce they're stepping back from royal life, meghan leaves the uk for canada. leave your homes or risk being trapped, authorities warn residents in victoria, as australia braces for more hot weather and strong winds. and coming up in the business briefing. 8 billion dollar takeaway. just eat on the menu as the global food delivery wars heat up.