bringing thicker cloud, the odd spot of rain at times and it will be quite breezy, too, some of that cloud pushing into northern ireland and much of western scotland and north—west england too. and many central, southern portions of the uk will be cold and sunny. temperatures in single figures for most. hello this is bbc news. the headlines: the queen attends church near sandringham after reaching an agreement with prince harry and meghan over their future. the duke and duchess of sussex will no longer use their hrh titles and will give up all royal duties from the spring. i think the whole country will want tojoin in wishing them the very best for the future. in other news — police in england and wales will have more powers to deal with stalkers with new protection orders from this week.

world leaders meet in berlin to try to bring to an end nearly nine years of fighting in libya. back with you at 5pm. now on bbc news — it's time for dateline london with carrie gracie. hello, welcome to dateline london. i'm carrie gracie. this week — in difficult days, and with more to come, iran's supreme leader invokes god's help. but how much will that help? "it was a perfect phone call", protested the us president in an all caps tweet

as his trial began. but his more significant move to drown out the impeachment story was to sign a trade deal with china. we assess both the trial and the trade deal. and it's now life or death for the planet says a famous natural historian — but will his climate change warning shift the political dial where others have failed? my guests this week: greg katz of us news agency associated press, italian film maker annalisa piras, iranian writer amirtaheri, and ned temko of the observer. welcome to all of you. so, "with god on our side we slap the face of the united states", said iran's supreme leader ali khamenei, when he led friday prayers this week for the first time in eight years. he warned anti—government protestors not to serve as stooges for enemies seeking to capitalise on the tragedy of the downed ukrainian airliner. so, how compelling is this campaign for the hearts and minds of the iranian public?

amir, let's start with you. well, it has provoked a big yawn among many iranians, because he had nothing new to say, he repeated his old themes about enemies and so on. but the focus now is on the incompetence of his regime. they couldn't even handle the funeral for general soleimani, 80 people were killed in the crowds in kerman, and yesterday it turned out that they had even made a spelling error on the tombstone of the general. so, they have to change it, you know, because the arabic they wrote, since iranians don't speak arabic, they make a lot of mistakes. so, now they have to change that, too. and during friday's prayers, we saw, you can still see it on the internet, the president leaving the assembly before the ayatollah even gets up from his prayers, talking to god and so on.

suddenly, you see the president getting up and walking away. was it in protest? did he get bored, like the other iranians? the ayatollah reminded me of nicolae ceausescu in his last days... you know, who thought that if he takes over... the romanian dictator, for those who remember. yes. if he reminds the romanians of how good socialism is, their achievements and how they're surrounded by enemies, and things like that, it would do the trick. the problem with iran at the moment is that it is like a ship adrift in a storm, or in many different storms, without a captain. and this is really the dangerous point, because at least until a year ago, people within the regime would listen to ayatollah khamenei — today, they don't, they just ignore him. but at the same time, the vacuum that's created is not filled by anything else.

society, like nature, fears a vacuum, it doesn't want to see nothing in place of something. and that's the main problem iran is facing at the moment. ned, your reflections on that? i defer to amir on how desperate this is. the only anything i would say is, one, that over four decades, the demise of this regime has been predicted more than once before. and as someone who was based in tehran during the hostage crisis after ayatollah khamenei took over, it's a very unpredictable country in many ways, in that there's always been at least two irans. there's been an iran that paid lip service to the islamic republic but went on with its life.

and what's different now, two things are different. one, the dire economic straits because this so—called maximum pressure position by the united states does seem to be having some effect. and the other, and this is kind of the elephant in the room, is it could be argued, assuming the islamic republic and the ayatollah survive this political challenge, that they're kind of blessed by having donald trump as an enemy. in that the americans are hostile, and if you read some of trump's speeches and some of pompeo's speeches, there is a real determination to confront iranian behaviour in the region, etc. but the other tide is trump really wants to get out, and so there is a temptation if you're the iranians to say, yes, this is a fearsome enemy, but does it have staying power? and that idea of trump as a trump

card for the iranian regime, greg, we saw president trump in response to the friday prayers from ayatollah khamenei suggesting that the supreme leader, not so supreme and should be careful with his words. but careful with his words runs both ways. yes, what i think is bizarre and what was totally unpredictable about the events of the last ten days or so, if you look back before this airliner was shot down, president trump was really on an international hot seat for the attack and the legality of killing the iranian general, was really facing questioning all over the world for this really brazen and obviously completely effective targeted attack. but the shooting down has completely changed that and really served to trump's favour. trump seems to be good at thinking short—term, and somehow short—term, if you just look at the last ten days or so, he's sort of turned this

to his advantage domestically, because he's able can to say, look at all the pressure the iranians are under now because of what we're doing. so it's been a bizarre turn of events and completely unpredictable. and annalisa, the european damage, europeans have played an important role in getting iran to the nuclear table with the deal in 2015, in holding that together with all kinds of sticking plaster and bandages over the next couple of years, and after trump withdrew from it, and now the europeans are invoking the dispute mechanism which may call time on it altogether. yeah, and that's one of the saddest aspects of the current iranian crisis. the absolute absence of the european union diplomacy, which has played such an extraordinary role to get to the iran nuclear deal. federica mogherini, the former top european union diplomat, worked relentlessly to make that iran nuclear deal work. now it's falling apart and we see the kind of an absence of any strong voice from the european union diplomacy as a block.

and on the other hand, we see the supremacy of the voice of conflict, of confrontation — the american way of doing things. so, i think that it's an incredibly sad and worrying moment for the world as a whole. the one sliver of hope, very briefly, is before trump pulled the americans out of the nuclear deal, the europeans were working very hard behind the scene to say, don't pull out, and we will negotiate with you a kind of new deal, a kind of nuclear deal plus one with trump tower logo on it, and then we can all claim victory and they won't have a nuclear weapon. it's interesting that borisjohnson revived that idea. yeah, it's quite surprising. and trump tweeted that that's a good idea, so if we're looking for hope, maybe watch that space.

well, let's come back to amir. do all of these challenges and threats from outside, if you are the iranian government facing all of this, where can they go next? ned mentioned the economic crisis, we've heard about the us angle, the european angle, you talked about a vacuum of leadership, where is it going to come from and where is it going to go? well, you know, the problem in discussing iran is that too much attention is paid to foreign policy aspects of it. for example, a little bit of trump bashing, a little bit of european adulation and things like that. or the nuclear deal you talked about... they are all irrelevant. the problem is that at the moment, in iran, there is an absence of leadership. the iranian government, or whatever it is called, cannot take any decisions and khamenei himself says it, he says we will neither fight a war nor negotiate, so what you do? there are two ways of solving your problem.

yes, amir, but you talked about the vacuum before, but as ned points out the economic challenges, the imf are talking about a nearly a10% contraction of the iranian economy in prospect this year. how can they sit there doing nothing with a vacuum? they say they need $60 billion, they are trying to arrange a loan share and survive until after the american presidential election. but that is not going to solve their problem. their problem is that nobody within the present regime is capable of coming out with any solution for iran's main problems. we have to wait and see. of course, this wayward ship will find a captain. i'm confident of that. but at the moment, as our friend here said, there are two irans, iran as a country and a nation, continues its life, and there is iran as khamenei and khamenei's ideology, who are leading iran into bigger

and bigger problems. well, we are out of time on the problems of the iranian leadership. now we turn to the problems of the american leadership because that president is on trial for only the third time in american history. the senators responsible for trying mr trump have sworn an oath to deliver impartial justice, but the impeachment drama has been bitterly partisan until now and this is an election year. so, greg, are we going to get impartial justice? oh, no, not at all, not even close. it's not even clear whether witnesses will be called, what sort of testimony might be permissible. and the senate majority leader, mitch mcconnell, was talking aboutjust dismissing the charges out of hand, which will not happen. but given the strong majority in the senate for the republicans and the need for a two thirds vote, this is a predetermined result that the president will be acquitted.

the key question and the difficult question is — if you look to november, to our election, the only thing that really matters from this is what is the impact on 300, 400, 500,000 voters in the upper midwest, in pennsylvania, wisconsin, michigan? will this drama over impeachment sway any minds or will it reinforce in trump space... why do you say those are the only minds that matter? well, because i think it's likely that the democrats can hold on to the states they had last time around when hillary clinton was running. i think it's likely trump can hold on to his states, with the exception of those contested states that gave the presidency to trump. and it's a relatively small number of voters who could swing there, and, really, you can look at discrete polling, you can look at how white women are feeling this or how african—american voters are seeing it, but the real question is no—one knows yet and it's way too early,

but this is what the impeachment drama means, how will it affect those electoral results, those states, in november? ned, your assessment of this. i would only add that there is a deeper irony to this, because even though the republicans, as greg says... there's a vanishing small number of republican senators who are likely even to break ranks to ask for witnesses, for instance, but it's against the background of unlike previous such controversies, the facts are already known. in other words, there's no great mystery — this happened. if it were not for the partisanship in the united states, the issue the republicans would face is not whether this was wrong or whether it happened, but whether it rises to the level of an impeachable offence. do you have a view on that? whether it does? i mean, i have a view on that because i think this president has

been bad on so many levels for the united states. but my view is supremely irrelevant. the view that i have that i think is more important is that i think it's important for the american system of government that this impeachment, even if it ends in acquittal, which it will, that the process not be a circus, that there be some sort of sobriety. and one of the interesting things to watch as this unfolds will be the effect of the chiefjustice of the united states, who is the presiding officer, who will do everything he can not to intervene, but who i think, given his record and his beliefs, does care about the importance of the institutions and making this a serious trial. yeah, that's the point, there's not only donald trump on trial, there is the entire american constitutional system,

because the impeachment process was never meant to be partisan and there was always this idea that evidence and a proper trial would matter. what we are seeing now, which is extraordinary, is the complete demolition of any apparent respect for evidence and truth. so, the fact that almost everybody assumes that donald trump will get away with it, regardless of the tonnes of evidence, damning evidence put on the table, that in my mind is blowing incredible damage from all over the world towards america and really affecting the credibility of america as a constitutional system, because it has become a mockery ofjustice. greg, going back to what the president himself can do to distract attention, i mentioned at the top that he,

while the senate trial was beginning, he was busy declaring and signing his trade deal with china. and contrasting himself with what he called the do—nothing democrats. "here i am, fulfilling my promise to get a deal with china and bring back jobs." is that an effective stance for him? absolutely, he... i have been impressed with his media operation, it may be a one—man show of him and his telephone tweeting, but he has been really effective, in my view, since he escaped the mueller report unscathed. for the last six months, he has really been able to set the agenda, to distract attention, to sort of sail through things, and my guess is he will sail through this senate trial relatively unscathed and just come out tweeting. and, amir, we haven't looked at the kind of trade element of the deal, because one of the things about the us—china trade deal is it puts in place a kind of slightly different version of us free trade. it's a kind of managed trade, you, china, will deliver on this,

this and this, rather than the straight free trade message that we are used to of old. so notjust the politics of the us on trial at the moment, but, in a way, the economics in question or the economic model. but the us has always talked about free trade but not practised it when it came to its own interests. you know, they always found an excuse, there are hundreds of examples. even the rules they wrote, in fact, the us is the inventor of the modern world, all the institutions and so on, they wrote it themselves, with a little bit of second violin from the british. so you are saying there is quite a big gap between the rhetoric and reality? absolutely. and now trump finds china in a weak position because chinese growth rate is declining, china is finding some political problems in hong kong, the europeans are getting cool about china and so on. so he's trying to use the opportunity to put his own

imprint on a very small part of, in the end, trade with china. but going back to the impeachment business, i think it is also important to note that the democrats are trying to cover their own nakedness with this impeachment because they have nothing to offer. you know, they don't have a candidate, their candidates are weak, as you can have a look at them, and they don't have an alternative programme, so the best thing is to impeach. and this is bad for american democracy. just before we leave this topic, a last word, ned, on the gap between the rhetoric and reality in the trade message, and the democrats. first, i think the democrats were very reluctant to go down this road, certainly nancy pelosi was. and i think the facts kind of forced them into this, and i think they realise there are dangers. and i agree with you, i don't know how this election will transpire because the democrats don't have an obvious strong candidate yet, but that's what the nominating process is for.

and, finally, on trade, it's important to recognise, and amir pointed it out, this is a small sliver of the trade dispute with china, and i know it's just a first tranche, but some of the big issues, like chinese state support for industries and deep competition issues, have not yet even been addressed, so there's a lot of road ahead. we will leave the road ahead for now on that score and turn to a different big road. big structural issue — climate change. politicians once presented it as a crisis that might happen in the future if we're not careful now. but the natural historian sir david attenborough said this week australian bushfires have demonstrated that the crisis is now. tech company microsoft is among those vowing action this week, with a promise to be notjust carbon neutral but carbon negative by 2030. so, what is holding up governments, if anything? annalisa, you take us in on that one.

well, yes, there are a lot of terrifying news and australia is one of those on the front of climate change. but david attenborough is right, this is a matter of life and death, and i think that the tone is changing everywhere across the board. so, there is a clear awareness now that capitalism and being profit driven is killing our planet, so something has to change there. so there has to be a kind of complete radical shift in the money world, and this is happening... one of the interesting things about davos next week... the meeting of the world's elite of government and business. and business, is that it will be entirely dedicated to climate change. yes, there will be greta thunberg, but there will also be mark carney, one of the most important bankers in the world, the former head

of the bank of england, and there will be larry fink who speaks for blackrock — the biggest investment fund in the world. and they are leading the way, saying it's a money problem. so there is a stanford university study, which will be presented in davos, which has put a price tag. so the world needs to find 73 trillions to change the way we run energy, so to transition to carbon zero economy, we need 73 trillion. where will it come from? did stanford come up with the answer to that in their report? no, but the european union, which is one of the richest blocks in the world, has taken this direction very, very clearly. there will also be the new commission president in davos with her new green deal, which has put the money on the table. and, basically, this

plan is very detailed, the green dealfrom the eu, it has been analysed last week in the european parliament, and it's real. it's basically putting a lot of money, 100 billion euros for the time being, which is going to go where it hurts. so, how do we close down the carbon fossil fuels industry? there will be a lot ofjob losses, a lot of restructuring to do, and how do we transition here? that's the money on the table. and i think this is new. greg, some will say sir david attenborough said it was china that needed to set an example. annalisa mentions europe, but mature, slow—growing economies in europe. what about the big, fast growing economies, china, india, and, of course, what is the us doing? the us is not as catastrophic as one would think, because some of the big, important industrial states, like california, are passing far—reaching legislation and taking a lot of action and some

of the us—based tech companies, and you mentioned microsoft, are taking a very strong, aggressive stance to go carbon negative in ten years is really ambitious. i'm not quite sure how one does that. but the federal government, donald trump does not believe in it, so that's having very strong impacts rippling through the system. so, the us, the people who believe in climate change are hanging their heads at what's happening in the white house on that. ned, going back to annalisa's point about financial incentives and capitalism regulated to what degree, do you see 2020 as potentially a year that is a watershed, that people really do something different rather than just talking different? i think the political atmosphere has changed. i'm a little sceptical... i want to think this is a real watershed because i think

it is such an important issue. i think we still have not seen the political proof of that, i think if you look at emmanuel macron in france, for instance, who raised fuel duties and, in part, led to the gilets jaunes, these national demonstrations against him, other european leaders, other leaders around the world will use that as either proof or a rationale or an excuse to say, look, this all sounds good on paper but this costs money, this requires economic choices, and i'm not sure we are there yet. and i think annalisa is right, i think when you have people like mark carney saying that, serious members of the economic... financial elite insiders. that may help, and, again, greta thunberg. i think the politics has changed. the question is whether the political action is there. amir?

well, it takes around 50 years for an idea to become fashionable in the west, and this idea has not become fashionable. the first time they talked about it was harold wilson in 1964 during the general election, that the planet is in danger and so on. mrs thatcher talked about it at the united nations during her speech there, but gradually it has become fashionable, for example a few years ago it was the ozone hole that we were very worried about. before that it was colonialism, before that it was development... and is fashionable enough to trigger action? i don't think so. i don't expect anything to come out of places like davos. i went to davos, from the first meeting, for 20 years... you know, because human affairs cannot be planned. this is a pseudo—marxian idea that some people can sit down... i am going to take your pseudo—marxian idea and one word from each of you on the individual

action that can be planned. i know the big structural issues are less easy to plan. greg, what is your climate change commitment, your resolution for 2020? i've dropped red meat and pretty much all meet. annalisa? yes, the same, trying to be much more vegan and i cycle and i recycle. ned, do you still fly? i fly less and less, but it's a function of being 98 years old, i do a lot less of a lot of things! yeah, amir, have you given up fast fashion? no... you look very fashionable. yes, maybe i buy fewer shoes, i am obsessed with shoes. but i never wear them. i wish we had longer to discuss that. personal and big picture commitments. that's it for dateline london for this week. we're back next week at the same time. goodbye.

hello, there. cold, frosty start, but largely sunny day sums up the weekend very nicely and, indeed, as we head on into the new working week, we're going to have high pressure holding on to bring us a lot of dry weather with variable cloud and good spells of sunshine. it will remain on the cold side. here it is, this big, very strong area of high pressure dominating the scene as we head through sunday night. more weatherfronts, more isobars across the north of the country, so north and western scotland breezier, cloudier and less cold to start monday morning. further south, under those clearer skies, it's going to be another cold one, and even frost and fog patches around, too. high pressure with us as we head through monday. these weather fronts encroaching into the north and west of the uk, bringing thicker cloud,

the odd spot of rain at times and it will be quite breezy, too, some of that cloud pushing into northern ireland and much of western scotland and north—west england too. and many central, southern portions of the uk will be cold and sunny. temperatures in single figures for most.

this is bbc news. i'm rachel schofield. the headlines at 5pm: the queen attends church near sandringham after reaching an agreement with prince harry and meghan over their future. the duke and duchess of sussex will no longer use their hrh titles and will give up all royal duties from the spring. i think the whole country will want to join in wishing them the very best for the future. in other news, police in england and wales will have more powers to deal with stalkers with new protection orders from this week. world leaders meet in berlin to try to bring to an end nearly nine years of fighting in libya. huge hailstones hit parts of australia, with storms leading to fears of flooding following the bushfires.