as the air strikes continue, the country's prime minister has warned that more than a million people could be forced from their homes. austria's far—right freedom party is holding its lead as votes are counted in sunday's general election. candidates for the uk's conservative party leadership contest make their pitch at the annual conference, the first one since its defeat in the general election in july. now on bbc news, the global story: america and the world. hello, and welcome to the global story. the united states has long been seen by many as the world's leading superpower. it is home to the globe�*s biggest military and political force, but its diplomatic challenges are many. from the wars raging in europe and the middle east, to the growing influence of global rivals like china, to the potential proliferation of nuclear weapons in iran and north korea.

the job of president of the united states is one which has long stretched beyond its national borders. but this year's presidential candidates, donald trump and kamala harris, have very different ideas about how to manage america's complicated relationship with other powerful nations. the outcome of the 2024 us election could have far—reaching impacts on people across the globe. so what is america's place in the world today, and how would donald trump and kamala harris shape that role? i'm speaking with our chief international correspondent lyse doucet. hi, lyse. hello, sumi. really good to, well, not face—to—face, but at least speak to you down the line. indeed. and we also have our diplomatic correspondent, james landale. how are you, james? very well, sumi.

good to be here. great to have you both. and i want to start with the fact that many of our listeners will know you, our viewers will know you, you attend summits, you travel the world, you speak to diplomats, you speak to lawmakers. in these conversations, what is the broad sense you're getting on how people right now see america on the world stage? i think the one word i would use is "uncertainty". i think that, in the short run, the world is watching and waiting for the outcome of the election in november to see what impact that will have on us policy. and i think more broadly, i think they're just looking at the united states, thinking this is a country that is in transition, that it's moving, and it's a country that is having a debate with itself about what role it should play in the world, and it's been doing that for many years. and it continues. and i think so the world is sort of watching and waiting to see what the next direction of the us is. but they're not yet certain which way it will go. we are very much in a different political

world than the world, say, decades ago, where we spoke of a bipolar system, we spoke of two superpowers. sometimes we spoke of one superpower, the united states. but i'm really struck in this moment that there is a growing number of countries who say we do not look east or west. we look first at our interests, and we decide in which direction we should look, whether it's to washington or moscow or london or somewhere else, or perhaps not even anywhere at all, depending on what's best for us. we have these new phrases in our lexicon now. we hear about the global south. some people say, well, that's not, that's not right. some people say the majority. but i'm still struck that there are some places in the world where the united states is still the essential power. in the issue of ukraine, because it is the world's biggest military power by far, and because president biden made a point notjust of being engaged on ukraine,

but taking the lead on ukraine. on the israeli—palestinian conflict, because for israel, the only power which matters, the only power it will listen to, and it's not really listening to it as much as america would like now, is the united states. and it was like that in afghanistan. so i'm always struck for all of the talk of america withdrawing from the world, that there are still places that, even though they criticise the united states, they still look to it. picking up on what you were saying, lyse, if you look at us influence in where the us is engaged in diplomacy or in conflicts today, how has that changed over the course of this century? and i know that's a huge question. one big difference is if we go back, let's say, more than two decades, where you had the us military intervention in afghanistan, you had the us—led military intervention in iraq, you had an intervention of a sort in libya,

but what we learned during, i think, in barack obama's time is that even when you decide not to intervene, as was the case in syria for the most part, with troops on the ground in a major military way, that the very act of not being involved has a major impact, as well. where is america's sphere of influence today? starting with you, james, we've discussed ukraine, israel, gaza, of course, but we all remember, during the obama administration, the discussion about a pivot to asia. so, where do you see the us influence still particularly present today? well, let'sjust go through those particular cases. ukraine is absolutely fundamental. i mean, if the united states had not supported ukraine, ukraine would now be russian. you know, we have to be very, very clear about that. you know, the europeans could have done something, but it is american military and economic force that has kept that country together, alongside its own astonishing self—reliance, the courage of its own armed forces.

but this aggression - cannot go unanswered. if it did, the consequences for. america would be much worse. america stands up to bullies. we stand up for freedom. this is who we are. you know, if you have a sort of, you know, what would the world be like without the united states? ukraine would be russian. secondly, in the middle east, in many ways, what we've seen during this conflict, since october last year, is a very stark limitation of american influence. you know, there have been numerous occasions when the israeli government have ignored an explicit direct public request, command by the american government to do something, and they have chosen to do something different. so people talk about, you know, how many times has antony blinken, the us secretary of state, been ignored by his interlocutors? but that said, it is still the united states that is the country that is the convenor that

brings people together, that actually, you know, knocks people's heads together, keeps talks going. you have tony blinken on an almost sort of constant shuttle between all of these countries. and there are times when the americans, by the deployment of military force, you know, carrier fleets have been deployed in a way that has deterred action by iran and its proxies, and so, to that extent, you know, the united states is playing influence there. you mentioned the pacific. there, it's much more subtle. this pivot to asia is a much more untested ground, because ultimately it will be tested by what happens if, or when, there's some kind of chinese move against taiwan, and that will be the big moment of test of the future american power as, what how does america react in that circumstance? and that is occupying a huge amount of time and thinking in washington.

you know, sumi, i love this phrase, "pivot to asia". as you say, it came up in barack obama's time, because they became frustrated with these entanglements that never seemed to end, that seemed to drain american resources. they wanted to go places where things were happening, that things were getting, getting better. barack obama wasn't able to fully pivot to asia. president trump couldn't, and president biden couldn't. they keep being dragged back to the middle east, and i think we have to say, so that our gaze is notjust western, because you began by asking how the world sees america. i think it is very clear that the gaza war is going to have long—term consequences for america's place in the world. they like to take a moral high ground that, "we are better than this. we are america." it's very hard now. and their critics are saying, "don't you dare, you know, get up on your pedestal." we've talked about the fact that for, you know, decades, really, the us was known as the global policeman, and it is perhaps pulling away

from that role a bit. but what impact does that have for some of these global institutions like nato, like the united nations? what is your sense, james? look, i think the united states plays a key role in these organisations, but equally, they know that, you know, they can't always rely on the united states. let's take nato, for example. i think whoever is elected, the trend is increasingly towards more pressure from the united states for the european members of nato to do more to spend on their own defence. but the crucial question, of course, is, you know, does the united states change its own relationship in the future or not, depending on, you know, who's elected? in terms of the united nations, i mean, the un and the us have had a quite prickly relationship over the years, particularly over the amount of money that the us pays to fund it, because in quite

a few parts of the world, the united states thinks that the un is almost acting against its own interests. and so i think, you know, whoever is elected, i think that'll be an interesting one to watch. look, it's very straightforward. if donald trump wins the election, it's highly likely he will once again pull the us out of the paris climate. ..conventions. the united states will. cease all implementation of the nonbinding paris accord and the draconian financial - and economic burdens. the agreement imposes on our country. he will probably pull the us again out of the un human rights council, as he did before. he could cut the cash he gives to the un. i have told our negotiators that the united states - will not pay more than 25% - of the un peacekeeping budget.

when it comes to nato, i think there's much more caution about that. he's sort of talked about sort of pulling out in the past, but i think nobody is expecting that as a likely outcome. but i think, you know, more pressure on european members to spend more, i think, is a definite because that's something that trump hails. he says that it was a policy success of his first presidency, of actually persuading the europeans to spend more, because the europeans kind of agree they should, but some of them are more laggardly than others. diplomacy, as our diplomatic correspondent knows all too well, is about substance, but it's also about symbolism and signalling. and while, to pick up on whatjames said, that kamala harris, whether it's kamala harris or donald trump, they may in very different ways and with very different language keep insisting, "you have to pay more. "you can't expect america, you know, "to pay for protecting you." but the way that they talk about these international institutions and whether they

matter to america and whether america sees itself knit very much into the fabric of the international community is dramatically different. take nato, where president trump... and i went to most of the summits where president trump used to stand byjens stoltenberg, the nato secretary general, talking about a rip off, a waste of time, that, you know, "you got to pay up. "and if you don't pay up, we're going to pull out." 23 of the 28 member nations are still not paying _ what they should be payingl and what they are supposed to be paying for their defence. this is not fair to - the people and taxpayers of the united states. whereas kamala harris, and of course, we haven't seen her very much on the world stage, but she was at the munich security conference, arguably one of the major international security gatherings, in munich in february. and there, she was sending a message to world leaders well, to the transatlantic

relationship, which is what munich emphasises how important it is to america, its sense of self, its sense of security. you wouldn't see... president trump did not go to the munich security conference and make the rest of the world feel good about themselves. and i think since donald trump and president trump would regard this as one of his successes he's made europe feel more vulnerable and made them say, "right, ok, we can't depend on america any more. we should actually take care of things ourselves." certainly, and if you look at the new power blocs forming we discussed china and russia and we look at the shift in what that means for us influence abroad, they, in some spheres, are seen as a challenge to the united states. where do you think that is most pronounced, james? it's most acute when it comes to russia, because that is the hot war of the moment in ukraine. but the long—term challenge to the united states is obviously from china, economically and diplomatically.

the chinese take international institutions incredibly seriously. they will compete hard for every elected post because the greater, the more bodies they have in all the key places of influence, they think it's good for projecting power and it's good for actually being powerful. in a way that the rest of the world is still, i think, only catching up, economically, for the united states, china is the great competitor. post—covid, the united states has been incredibly focused on making its economy less dependent on chinese supply chains. so that is where the competition for the united states is most acute at the moment. and that brings us to the election in november and these two vastly different candidates, kamala harris

and donald trump. and, lyse, you were mentioning, you've covered donald trump at the nato summits extensively, and that language that he used often with allies was one that was criticised by those allies. but he also focused on personal relationships, didn't he, on meeting vladimir putin and what that relationship looked like. did he achieve anything, do you think, through that personal approach? well, he likes to think he did. he talks about his great friendship, the letters he wrote to the north korean leader. he talks about his relationship... ..with president putin. you know, we saw it in the debate, how he said how world leaders, you know, thought so much of him, how viktor orban, the hungarian prime minister, said so, so much about him that was good. and president trump's kind of diplomacy... i remember before he met the north korean leader, it was said at the time and you'll remember this, james, there was hardly any preparation, hardly any strategising. it was going to be that president trump would walk in the room and how he would magically be able to resolve one of the world's biggest problems. ijust want to say -

that this is my honour. i didn't really expect it. we were injapan for the 620. we came over, and i said, "hey, i'm over here. - i want to call chairman kim." and we got to meet. and stepping across that line was a great honour. | a lot of progress has been made. | a lot of friendships have been made, and this has been- in particular a great friendship, so ijust want to thank you. that was very quick notice and i want to thank you. l he always says, "i can resolve... "i can resolve this crisis in a day." "this would... you know, the gaza crisis "wouldn't have started if i was in power." "ukraine war wouldn't have started if i was in power." he keeps... he wants to be seen as the mediator—in—chief. i think the reality is that the north korean leader didn't move onejot, perhaps there was a temporary easing in tension, didn't move onejot away from nuclear weapons. he didn't stop president putin from, you know, eventually invading ukraine. the abraham accords, which did provide a framework

to allow some arab states to engage more closely with israel, but there was some backroom dealing to basically push some arab states to give essentially, bribing them, if i use that word, or convincing them, providing gifts of different sort to ensure that theyjoined the club. but it's said that, you know, they basically left out the palestinians, and it's being cited as a reason why we are where we are today. it's possible that the abraham accords could be picked up again, but the world is a much different place. i think donald trump, if he's elected, will be as transactional as he was in his first term. he will once again, as you say, believe in the power of his own personal diplomacy. in terms of... i think that his time in office is... i think there were a few more successes.

i think that...the fact that he called out the chinese in a way that was so clear and so precise, in terms of saying, "look, actually, you know what? "this has got to stop," the theft of all that intellectual property, the aggression in, you know, the south china sea and other parts of that part of the world, the exertion of chinese power. that calling out of the chinese, i think, surprised the chinese, and the chinese as a result, have pushed back. do you remember all that talk about chinese wolf warrior diplomacy and the incredibly punchy, aggressive stuff? that has all gone now. and the chinese are much more sort of, "let's talk, let's engage, let's. . . " it's much more sotto voce in the world stage. and i think that was just a sort of gut reaction by mr trump that, you know... ..that was more...

you know, it was something that i think many in the west felt needed to be done. and president biden has kept... yes. ..a bit of that. has kept some of that. the problem with the trump sort of diplomacy and you hinted at this, lyse is that it tends to be a grand gesture with very little preparation and not much follow—up. and that comes to diplomacy, it comes to military action. do you remember when he took military action against the syrians for the use of chemical weapons? yes. just to show the world that he wasn't president obama? but it was like a sort of... one sort of strike. and then that was it. and there was no sort of follow—up... and the mother of all bombs in afghanistan... the mother of all bombs, the moab, the mother of all bombs. but...it was a sort of one—off sort of gesture... spectacular. yeah. ..and it didn't send a message to the rest of the world because they didn't know, "right, does this mean the united states "is now more prepared to use military force "than it had been before or not?" well, what have you, then, seen from kamala harris? lyse, you mentioned she was at the munich security conference, but we haven't seen a really meaty policy proposal. we know that she's spoken a bit

about the war in ukraine, about the israel—gaza war. do we have a sense of how and in which way she would deviate from president biden in her dealings with the world? we haven't really seen her in action. i know some of the people around her, who i've known on, you know, covering iran, covering european and they're very good, they know the score. so, as always, as you know, with the president, if it is president kamala harris, she will have the state department, she will have the weight of american diplomacy and all of the envoys she already has around her. and they will help her forge a policy. will she be that much different from president biden? probably not. but also, president biden had a lot more baked in. he loves to say that, you know, he's got 50 years being a senator. she won't have that. she won't have... you know, baggage sounds a bit too pejorative, but when it comes to israel, she won't have the same approach to israel. we're already seeing that. president biden is, by his own... he's an avowed zionist.

and people say that that has been part of how in fact, largely how he has approached israel. she continues to say, "i will have israel's back," but it won't be the same as president biden. they are very different people. and when it comes to world leaders, there is a whole superstructure around them, the weight of history, the weight of precedent, the weight of what the national interests are but personality does play a role, too. yeah, no, i think that's absolutely right. i think the generational difference... oh, yes. ..with kamala harris is important, the fact that she is a political leader who's come of age in the post—cold war era. so it's notjust that she's less of a sort of, quote—unquote, "zionist" the way biden is... less of a warrior, less of a... you know, and biden loves talking about, you know, how he met golda meir and the conversations they had. and, you know, there's none of that, which means that, yes, on israel and the middle east, kamala harris will support israel as all american presidents do but i think she will be less sympathetic to some of the excesses

of the military action. but the bottom line is, we don't know. we simply don't know how she is going to perform, because you sort of... a, you don't know how any president is going to perform until they sort of get there if she gets elected but also because there's just a sort of big gap. i mean, she's not making big policy pledges on foreign policy, even though, as you said, it was actually quite a large sort of subject area for the presidential debate for the contenders just the other week. they spent a lot of time talking about foreign affairs, in an election that will be decided by domestic affairs. and that brings me to my last question perfectly that i'll ask to both of you, lyse and james, whether the us wants to be more or less involved in the world. those events, lyse, is that something that you think is entirely up to the us�*s control? there are certain issues, areas, interests that america will have to be involved by weight of its military

might, its economic power and because we live in a world... to use an american expression, "what happens in vegas doesn't stay in vegas." and i'm always struck by how, in recent years, the crises of our time, whether it was not an epidemic but a global pandemic, not a climate change but a climate crisis, the ukraine war, the gaza war, crises of our times go far beyond borders, such that that old american maxim "foreign policy is domestic policy." i think that the united states, as ever, will at times think that it can stay free, it can step this one out, it can look on the sides. but i think that, ultimately, for me, i think what will drive american involvement in international affairs

in the next 30 or 40 years is going to be technology. the competition over technology is going to make sitting on the sidelines impossible for any country, but above all, the united states that is still the world's most powerful country plus or minus. and i think that, yes, there will be political imperatives and pressures that drive its leaders to say, "yeah, we're not necessarily going to get involved in every conflict and every war," but the united states will forever want to be where the decisions are made. lyse, james, thank you so much for that fascinating discussion. good to be with you, sumi and james. thanks very much. i really enjoyed it. if you want more episodes of the global story, you can find us wherever you get your podcasts.

hello there. although most of us have stayed dry this weekend, low pressure is sweeping in across england and wales and northern ireland as we speak, that will hang around for the first few days of this upcoming week, so monday and tuesday certainly looking wetter and windier, rather cool, but midweek, we start to see high pressure building in. that will settle things down and we will see increasing amounts of sunshine, but nights will be cool. mist and fog will return. but till tuesday, it looks like england and wales bear the brunt of some heavy and persistent rain again. falling on saturated ground, we are likely to see the risk of further localised flooding in places. worth staying tuned to the forecast over the next few days. this area of low pressure is the culprit, which will become slow moving across england and wales, and the rain will be

heavy at times, persistent too, strong and gusty winds up to 60 mph around some channel coast and in toward south wales. but a dry night to come across northern areas, turning windy here as well. single figures for northern and western scotland, with double figures further south. dragging in some milder air, this area of low pressure. into monday, it looks like this low pressure system will grind to a halt across the uk as it bumps up against that area of high pressure, so it is a wet and windy start for large parts of england and wales, the rain becoming more confined to parts of east anglia, northern and eastern england and north midlands, north wales, anywhere in this zone could see some localised flooding, so stay tuned to the forecast. in the north, mainly dry, rather cloudy and on the cool side, and to the south, it will brighten up a bit. south wales and southern england will turn a bit warmer, 17—18, maybe one or two showers, but the rain continues across central, northern and eastern parts of england as we head through monday night. still raining across eastern england and east anglia. by the time we reach

tuesday morning, temperatures again mild in the south, coolerfurther north. that area of low pressure takes its time to move away eastwards, so it will still affect eastern england on tuesday with strong winds, outbreaks of rain, particularly towards east anglia and the far south—east, but high pressures building in further north and west. the wind a little bit lighter here. increasing sunshine, so it will feel warmer, 16—17 in the warmer spots, but still feeling quite raw further east with the strong winds and rain. but high pressure builds in to end the new week so it will settle down, good spells of sunshine but a return to some mist and fog overnight.

live from london, this is bbc news. israel widens its offensive, with air strikes on houthi sites in yemen used to transport iranian weapons and oil. it comes after targeting hezbollah in lebanon. israel says 20 senior figures were killed alongside its leader hassan nasrallah on friday. as the strikes continue, lebanon's prime minister warns more than a million people could be forced from their homes. austria's far—right freedom party is holding its lead as votes are counted

in sunday's general election. here in the uk, candidates for the conservative party leadership contest make their pitch at the annual conference, hoping to replace rishi sunak. hello, i'm lewis vaughanjones. we start in the middle east, where israel has carried out what it called "large—scale" strikes on yemen. israel was targeting houthis�* energy facilities. they say power plants and a sea port were hit in the yemeni city of hodeidah. videos have been posted on social media. bbc verify has confirmed the location. houthi—run media says four people were killed and more than 30 injured. the strikes came as israel carried out more attacks across lebanon. the israeli army says it's targeted 120 military sites belonging to hezbollah. lebanese officials warn that more than a million people face being forced from their homes.

the body of the hezbollah leader, hassan nasrallah,