of america's war in the country. it's part of a deal signed between the trump administration and the taliban in february last year — according to which it's been agreed that all foreign forces will leave afghanistan this spring. peace talks are taking place between the afghan government and the taliban, but it's unclear if and when they might result in a resolution. all this comes against the backdrop of a significant surge in violence. dozens of afghans are being killed every day. the conflict has resulted in acute poverty and hunger. there are fears that, once all international forces leave, the taliban might be back in power in the country. i met afghanistan's vice president, amrullah saleh, and began by asking him if this was the right time for us troops to be leaving. we believe the mission is not accomplished,

but if they decide to leave, we respect their decision. but you wouldn't be asking for them to stay? not necessarily. we would ask them to respect their agreements with us. they have signed a strategic partnership agreement with us, and they have signed a bilateral security agreement with us. based on that, they have to give a notice to the afghan government and work with the afghan government on proper and disciplined exit. but they don't seem to be doing that. the troops withdrawal announcement in november was premature. what do you mean when you say that they are leaving before accomplishing the objectives they set out? the taliban have not separated themselves from al-qaeda, even after the us envoy signed an agreement with them in doha, months later — with assistance of us, together with them —

we killed one al-qaeda leader in ghazni. he was inside a taliban command compound. we killed two al-qaeda members — both on the blacklist of the cia — in helmand. they were again embedded with the taliban, which means without putting a proper counter—terrorism verification mechanism — just accepting the verbal assurance of the taliban that they won't be with the global terror networks — it would be a mistake. that's one. secondly, the question is not the fate of afghanistan. the question is the fate, reputation and standing of the western civilization. they came to us as a small country to prevail against terrorism, against radicalism and al-qaeda affiliates. they should ask themselves

the question, what was the mission? is that accomplished 7 but if we put a common checklist, the mission is not accomplished. but even as you say that the taliban has links to al-qaeda, your government is also speaking to them right now in doha. right. we are not taking it as easy as the us negotiating team. that's why the taliban hate us, because we fly in their face hard evidence of where they are working with global terrorist networks, where they are siding with regional terrorist networks, where they have drug factories and how they are lying to the afghan people and to the world. we say sovereignty belongs to the people, is vested in the public, and it is expressed through elections.

taliban say sovereignty belongs to god and god entrusts this to the most pious person. if you decode their message, they are pursuing a clerical dictatorship. so agreeing with taliban is agreeing to installation of a clerical dictatorship. no—one can impose that on us. no—one. with or without the world, we will not sell our souls. we will resist. but in afghanistan, there has been a massive investment of the whole world. it's notjust material investment. it's emotional investment. it's political investment. it's reputational investment. why shall we sacrifice it to appease a terrorist group? our aim to talk to the taliban is to offer them a chance

of becoming mainstream, and leave violence. but we are not providing them easy terms as the us negotiators have offered them. no. so you think the us has made a mistake by trusting the taliban? i think the way they conducted the talks with the taliban, the outreach itself was not a mistake. but the massive concession so far given to them was a mistake. the us delegation came to us, they swore to every holy scripture that if you release these 5,000 people, based on these assurances there will be no violence. but the taliban, in order to protect their prestige with their fighters, they will not announce it. we told them at the highest level that this is our intelligence and it indicates otherwise. if we do this, violence will spike. violence has spiked.

why did we give that concession in return for absolutely nothing? so, again, what is it that you would like? because there's a new us administration that's coming in later this month. what would you like to say to them? we want the united states to define its interest. what is the interest of the united states? we will respect that definition. we are begging no—one. we are thankful to everyone for their assistance, but we are begging to no—one. how worried do you think a global power should be about the threat of al-qaeda? very deeply. if they withdraw prematurely, they can put any title on their withdrawal and exit. but there is also a title that the terror groups will put on their withdrawal — defeat, surrender and escape. it's up to them to choose. if we prevail and we have

a settlement, that's one thing. but if we don't have a settlement and they leave, the other side will call it defeat. how strong are al-qaeda in the country? it's not about their strength, it's about their quality. al-qaeda did not send 17 battalions to the united states. they sent 17 bombers. so i think it's...it�*s the quality of al-qaeda presence. it's those small cells which are allowed to operate, train, have a breathing space, have a territory — they are still embedded with the taliban. what are the status of the peace talks between you and the taliban? are you really hopeful that there will be a power—sharing agreement at the end of it? what is the status of the talks? the taliban completely misunder. . . misinterpret their agreement with the americans. they think the world has two superpowers — washington and the taliban.

that is how these talks with us is interpreted by the taliban. so bringing them back from the sky to the earth and telling them "you are a group" takes time. plus taliban at best, when polls have been conducted — secretly, half secretly or openly — have never enjoyed more than 10% popularity and acceptance in afghan society. south, east, west or north. and that should be taken into consideration when we negotiate with them. that's what we are telling them. we say, why are you afraid of election if the population accepts you? why you are fearing? the incoming us presidentjoe biden has, during his campaign, maintained that he would like to leave some us presence here — in his words, several thousand people...

right. ..a counterterrorism force. right. the deal that the trump administration made with the taliban was that all us forces withdraw by spring this year. what would you like to see happen? my offer, you know, my invitation, whatever you call it, from the us is they define their security interests and share it with us, if they think sharing it with us again will serve their national interest and security interest. we are no—one to tell them what their security interest is. cia, as the most powerful intelligence agency in the whole world, they know taliban are an afghan brand of al-qaeda. i don't put this word in their mouth. if they make a crude deal with al-qaeda, that's their thinking. i can't stop it.

but i am telling them as a friend and as an ally that trusting the taliban without putting a verification mechanism is going to be a fatal mistake. so what kind of verification process do you think you will see from the talks that you're holding with the taliban? because you are also talking to them at a time when you're saying they're continuing violence. right. but we are calling a spade a spade. we are not giving a nice fake title to the taliban. we say, you are terrorists... but you are a reality. we would like to find a solution through talks. if you were to reach some sort of agreement with them, do you expect foreign countries like, say, the uk to then treat the taliban like any other normal political group in any other country? we have one golden line and one golden condition in our negotiations —

elections. that is, that you be allowed to hold elections in the country. if taliban went through elections, and if the afghan people prefer some taliban leader than myself, i will respect that decision. but i will not sacrifice that right of the afghan people in the negotiations. why has afghanistan struggled so hard to find peace? well, it's our location. of all the things, it's our location. it's a... it's a very good location, but it's also a frontier of big powers. and we are never left by ourselves. we are never left alone. hello.

heavy rain and flooding in the forecast for the week ahead. later, even the chance of snow too. sunshine turning hazy after what has been a steady start. a lot of thin high car, but we have some wet weather this evening across scotland and northern ireland, in particular turning more showery, and we will see some of the cloud and showers pushing into england and wales. a bit of a breeze overnight, should not get too cold, for many places, temperatures above freezing. just the risk of a few icy patches across eastern areas. tomorrow, we're left with this area of rain across southern scotland. to the north of it, sunshine and showers, wintry in the hills. bright enough elsewhere, but a cloud overfrom the hills. bright enough elsewhere, but a cloud over from the south—west. rain into south—west england in the west country in the morning. temperatures probably getting into double figures. chilly are elsewhere, probably 5—7. wetter overnight, the wind continuing into

tuesday and wednesday across england and wales, and here we are likely to have some flooding, and that heaviest rain will be over the hills. the area of particular concern, with an amber warning from the met office, covers this area here, quite a small area, but it will impact a lot of people. we have snow melt on top of the rain, arriving, and by tuesday, wet across northern england, but also northern ireland, and it will be wetter in wales and the south—west. drier towards the south—east of the uk. there may be some snow in the southern uplands as we pump into that because there are still in place in scotland, but for england and wales, very mild of rather windy, temperatures 11—12. this stream of weather fronts and areas of low pressure moves up from the south—west, becoming slow—moving across england and wales. the rain really adds up by wednesday. more rain overnight into england and way is. wetter weather continuing across much of northern england and is as well. dryeracross much of northern england and is as well. dryer across scotland and northern ireland. colder here as

well. that will be significant later in the week. still mild for most of england and wales, windy in the south—east. that colder air will move south across the country by thursday, so it turns cooler later in the week, but we have the chance of some heavy snow over the ills of scotland and also for northern england for a while. —— the hills of scotland.

this is bbc news, the headlines at 7am. a stark warning from the head of the nhs in england, on the intense pressures, caused by coronavirus. staggeringly, every 30 seconds across england, another patient is being admitted to hospital with coronavirus. mass vaccinations begin at another ten centres in england from tomorrow as the foreign secretary lays out the government's targets for the roll—out. the anti—kremlin activist alexei navalny is detained in moscow, afterflying back to russia for the first time since he was nearly killed by a nerve agent attack last year. the american music producer phil spector