showers of the south—east and perhaps the greater london area, and a fairly brisk north—easterly breeze. further north and west, the area of high pressure building. a lot of dry weather. temperatures reaching the mid—teens in the north. as we move into thursday, this area of high pressure really dominates the scene, so i think thursday is looking like the driest day of all. as we head into friday, still dry weather. thursday is a chilly start, lots of sunshine around. lighter wind, including the south—east, where we should see more sunshine as well. temperatures responding. i7 where we should see more sunshine as well. temperatures responding. 17 or 18 degrees in the warmest spots. as israel invaded lebanon, iran launches hundreds of missiles on

israel. how dangerous is this moment? good evening. welcome to newsnight. tonight, are we now on the cusp of a full—blown regional war in the middle east? iran has launched a missile attack on israel this evening which is now over. earliertoday, israeli troops invaded lebanon. also, in what's being described as a terrorist attack, at least six people have been killed in tel aviv by two gunmen. just before we came on air i spoke to shadow security minster and conservative leadership candidate tom tugendhat. well, this is an incredibly dangerous moment. this is a moment when the vicious iranian regime is targeting notjust jews, muslims and christians in israel, but is putting ballistic missiles overjordan, over iraq, and threatening many, many people on the route.

this is a moment when we need the british government to be absolutely firm and clear, standing with our allies in the region, injordan, in israel and standing alongside democracies. we need to be defending ourfriends and standing up against our enemies. what could happen next? because israel's political leaders have said they will respond. what do you think israel should do so this doesn't escalate even further? well, israel has many different options, and i'm not going to be advising them on their military actions. they have their own considerations. what i will be advising is the prime minister of the united kingdom. he should be immediately summoning cobra and making sure that we're providing every assistance, not just to israel and jordan and to other allies in the region, but making sure that we're ready to support british citizens in the region, those who need assistance in leaving and those who may need assistance while they remain in place. we need to be standing with our allies. and that is exactly why this is no time for the weak leadership that we're seeing out of the labour party. what we actually need to see

is the proper investment in defence that i've long called for, and real leadership, because the uk has a clear and important role in supporting global peace. and what instead we're seeing is silence from our government. well, it's not silence, is it? it feels like you're now making a political point. the british prime minister has spoken to israel's prime minister today. he's spoken to the king ofjordan. he's made it clear that israel has a right to defend itself. he's also called for a ceasefire. is that what you're calling for? no, what i'm calling for is for the right of the israeli government to protect its people, for the right of thejordanian and for iran to immediately stop threatening countries in the region. they've already murdered, quite literally, hundreds of thousands of people in syria, and tens and possibly even hundreds of thousands of people in lebanon using proxy groups like lebanese hezbollah. the iranian government has, over a0 years, murdered quite literally millions of muslims around the middle east. this is a vicious, despotic regime,

and it is a known evil regime. we should be making sure that we are protecting ourselves and our allies against it. how does this end, then? it's very difficult to say. what we need to be making sure is that we're protecting our friends in the region. countries like bahrain and qatar and the united arab emirates have often been threatened by iran in different ways. kuwait has been threatened as well. we need to be making sure that we're standing with them. i want to ask you about something that's happened on the campaign trail in terms of the tory leadership contest, and it's a video that robertjenrick, one of the contenders, put out, one of his campaign videos. just have a look. our special forces are killing rather than capturing terrorists, because our lawyers tell us that if they're caught, the european court will set them free. what do you think of that? well, first of all, it's factually wrong. it simply isn't true. that would be a breach of the law of armed conflict, and it would be a violation of the values and standards of the british armed forces.

i've spoken to a few former directors of special forces today. friends of mine who have commanded operations are the ones that are referred to there. it's just not true, and it would be wrong to do so. special forces are not killing rather than capturing terrorists? it is simply not true. it is not true that special forces are doing that. it is also not true that the echr prevents us conducting kinetic strikes, as they're called often, military operations against military targets. it just isn't true. and what's particularly upsetting is that video is using a piece of footage of some of the people i served with, one of whom there died shortly after that film was taken in an accident and is not able to defend himself from the accusation that is effectively being levelled against him. so that is actually footage of somebody you knew. yes, that's footage of a soldier in northern afghanistan in around 2002. how do you feel about that, then? well, i do not think that we should be using footage of our special forces soldiers in operations. should robertjenrick

remove that footage? i would not put that video out. in fact, i'd pull it down. and should he clarify what he meant? i'm afraid i'm not sure clarification is the problem. it's a complete and fundamental misunderstanding of what it is to be a military commander on operations, and what the echr has an effect on in time of war. i published two papers on this in 2013 and 2015 for policy exchange. the first called the fog of law, the second clearing the fog of law on the effect that the echr has on the battlefield, and why i believe that we need to opt out of certain elements of it, reform others, and, if necessary, be prepared to make other decisions. but this is simply factually incorrect. so he needs to withdraw his remarks and apologise? well, i think this video is simply wrong. right. you sound quietly furious. well, how would you feel if a friend of yours who died a few years

after the film was taken, was being included in an accusation that would be were he to be responsible for it, which let me just make absolutely clear, he would not, and did not do in an accusation that would be against the values and standards of the armed forces. thank you very much for talking to newsnight. thank you. tom tugendhat, and we will talk more later on in the programme about that jen rick campaign video. amongst our guests tonight, times columnist and conservative peer danny finkelstein, afshin shahi, senior lecturer in middle east politics at keele university, and jasmine el—gamal, a former middle east advisor at the us department of defence. and obviously nick is here. afshin shahi, ifi and obviously nick is here. afshin shahi, if i could begin by asking you about this attack. is it over now. have they sent a message? this

is more than — now. have they sent a message? this is more than a — now. have they sent a message? ti 3 is more than a message. this now. have they sent a message? t1 1 is more than a message. this is essentially a declaration of war that has the potential to change the security landscape of the region beyond recognition, and what is so puzzling at this stage is why the islamic republic has taken the risk for a major escalation. 0ver islamic republic has taken the risk for a major escalation. over the last three or four decades, what we have seen is effectively a cold war. a lot of friction going on between iran and israel, but one of the main reasons, not the only reason but one of the main reasons that these frictions did not turn into a major escalation was because iran was effectively using hezbollah as a deterrence strategy. and what we have seen over the last weeks or so, within the matter of seven days, effectively the command structure and the communication infrastructure of hezbollah crumbled, and that

leaves iran in a very, very vulnerable position. and until a few hours ago, it seemed that a lot of people thought that iran probably is not going to retaliate because a retaliation effectively gives netanyahu a licence to put increased pressure on iran, and potentially target sensitive military and nuclear sites in iran, and obviously if a nuclear scientist targeted by israel at this stage, of course that is going to create an existential crisis for the islamic republic, and of course you have to remember this is a regime that is facing a crisis of legitimacy at home, and this new kind of existential crisis is going to create a very unpredictable situation and conditions. let me

brin: in situation and conditions. let me bring in jasmine _ situation and conditions. let me bring in jasmine el-gamal. - situation and conditions. let me bring in jasmine el-gamal. the | situation and conditions. let me i bring in jasmine el-gamal. the us bring injasmine el—gamal. the us have said that they will be severe consequences. what will be going on. give us some insight into what kind of conversations will be going on in the biden administration tonight. £31 the biden administration tonight. of course the major theme in the conversations is how to de—escalate the situation and make sure that this war— the situation and make sure that this war which is ongoing doesn't escalate — this war which is ongoing doesn't escalate even further and draw in the us— escalate even further and draw in the us even further. as you know, the us even further. as you know, the us— the us even further. as you know, the us has— the us even further. as you know, the us has assets in the region, and it has_ the us has assets in the region, and it has stated — the us has assets in the region, and it has stated very publicly, unequivocally, that they would be there _ unequivocally, that they would be there and — unequivocally, that they would be there and they are there for the defence — there and they are there for the defence of israel, in case that is needed~ — defence of israel, in case that is needed. now the question is exactly how does— needed. now the question is exactly how does that de—escalation happen, and what _ how does that de—escalation happen, and what are the steps that i needed to be and what are the steps that i needed to he put— and what are the steps that i needed to he put in— and what are the steps that i needed to be put in place right now for that to — to be put in place right now for that to happen? we have seen over the last— that to happen? we have seen over the last few months the us at least publicly— the last few months the us at least publicly stating that they are in favour — publicly stating that they are in favour of — publicly stating that they are in favour of a ceasefire between hamas and israei. _ favour of a ceasefire between hamas and israel, but they have been

working — and israel, but they have been working tirelessly towards a ceasefire, but what we have been seeing _ ceasefire, but what we have been seeing in — ceasefire, but what we have been seeing in the last several weeks, maybe _ seeing in the last several weeks, maybe a — seeing in the last several weeks, maybe a couple of months, is almost giving _ maybe a couple of months, is almost giving up _ maybe a couple of months, is almost giving up on — maybe a couple of months, is almost giving up on that prospect, that the us administration no longer believes that a _ us administration no longer believes that a ceasefire between hamas and israei. _ that a ceasefire between hamas and israel, regardless of what they say in public, — israel, regardless of what they say in public, is — israel, regardless of what they say in public, is on the horizon, and so they— in public, is on the horizon, and so they have — in public, is on the horizon, and so they have quietly agreed with the israeiis _ they have quietly agreed with the israelis that a shift by the israeiis _ israelis that a shift by the israelis from the war the focus on hamas— israelis from the war the focus on harnas to — israelis from the war the focus on hamas to the focus on their northern front with _ hamas to the focus on their northern front with hezbollah is the right way to — front with hezbollah is the right way to go, and you've seen us officials _ way to go, and you've seen us officials saying that they believe at least — officials saying that they believe at least in private, and this was reported — at least in private, and this was reported to politico under condition of anonymity by former us officials that they _ of anonymity by former us officials that they see this in lebanon to turn _ that they see this in lebanon to turn the — that they see this in lebanon to turn the tide in the middle east and perhaps— turn the tide in the middle east and perhaps create a new reality, and victoria, — perhaps create a new reality, and victoria, i— perhaps create a new reality, and victoria, i know that you as well as everyone _ victoria, i know that you as well as evervone on— victoria, i know that you as well as everyone on this panel remember that the last—

everyone on this panel remember that the last time us officials and others — the last time us officials and others thought that a new tide could be others thought that a new tide could he turned _ others thought that a new tide could be turned in the middle east was condoleezza rice saying the new birth pangs of the middle east during — birth pangs of the middle east during the iraq war, and we all know how that _ during the iraq war, and we all know how that ended up, and so it is an incredibly— how that ended up, and so it is an incredibly dangerous time right now, especially— incredibly dangerous time right now, especially for people who are advocating for more military confrontations as a way to try to address— confrontations as a way to try to address issues that are at their heart _ address issues that are at their heart political and diplomatic issues — heart political and diplomatic issues. ., ,, , issues. 0k. lord finkelstein, i su ose issues. 0k. lord finkelstein, i sunpose where _ issues. 0k. lord finkelstein, i suppose where this _ issues. 0k. lord finkelstein, i suppose where this goes - issues. 0k. lord finkelstein, i suppose where this goes next | issues. 0k. lord finkelstein, i- suppose where this goes next depends on how israel responds. back in april there was a symbolic attack, a symbolic response, it was described as. it depends on what they do next. it does. i'm not a military expert. you honestly— it does. i'm not a military expert. you honestly had _ it does. i'm not a military expert. you honestly had from _ it does. i'm not a military expert. you honestly had from diplomatic it does. i'm not a military expert. - you honestly had from diplomatic and military— you honestly had from diplomatic and military exoerts, _ you honestly had from diplomatic and military experts, you _ you honestly had from diplomatic and military experts, you know— you honestly had from diplomatic and military experts, you know far - military experts, you know far more than i _ military experts, you know far more than i but— military experts, you know far more than i but what— military experts, you know far more than i. but what |_ military experts, you know far more than i. but what i do— military experts, you know far more than i. but what i do understand - military experts, you know far more than i. but what i do understand is. than i. but what i do understand is a little _ than i. but what i do understand is a little bit — than i. but what i do understand is a little bit of— than i. but what i do understand is a little bit of the _ than i. but what i do understand is a little bit of the psychology - than i. but what i do understand is a little bit of the psychology of - a little bit of the psychology of the jews — a little bit of the psychology of the jews who _ a little bit of the psychology of the jews who live _ a little bit of the psychology of the jews who live in _ a little bit of the psychology of the jews who live in israel- a little bit of the psychology of the jews who live in israel and| the jews who live in israel and those — the jews who live in israel and

those who— the jews who live in israel and those who support _ the jews who live in israel and those who support israel's - the jews who live in israel and . those who support israel's rights the jews who live in israel and - those who support israel's rights to exist here — those who support israel's rights to exist here. half— those who support israel's rights to exist here. half the _ those who support israel's rights to exist here. half the jews _ those who support israel's rights to exist here. half the jews in- those who support israel's rights to exist here. half the jews in the - exist here. half the jews in the world _ exist here. half the jews in the world iive _ exist here. half the jews in the world live in _ exist here. half the jews in the world live in israel, _ exist here. half the jews in the world live in israel, and - exist here. half the jews in the world live in israel, and it- exist here. half the jews in the world live in israel, and it is. world live in israel, and it is simply— world live in israel, and it is simply not _ world live in israel, and it is simply not possible - world live in israel, and it is simply not possible as - world live in israel, and it is simply not possible as a - world live in israel, and it is. simply not possible as a matter world live in israel, and it is- simply not possible as a matter of policy, _ simply not possible as a matter of policy, politically— simply not possible as a matter of policy, politically or— simply not possible as a matter of policy, politically or in _ simply not possible as a matter of policy, politically or in terms - simply not possible as a matter of policy, politically or in terms of i policy, politically or in terms of the existence _ policy, politically or in terms of the existence of— policy, politically or in terms of the existence of the jewish - policy, politically or in terms of - the existence of the jewish people, to allow— the existence of the jewish people, to allow israel— the existence of the jewish people, to allow israel to _ the existence of the jewish people, to allow israel to be _ the existence of the jewish people, to allow israel to be insecure, - the existence of the jewish people, to allow israel to be insecure, so i to allow israel to be insecure, so it has— to allow israel to be insecure, so it has to — to allow israel to be insecure, so it has to respond _ to allow israel to be insecure, so it has to respond in _ to allow israel to be insecure, so it has to respond in the - to allow israel to be insecure, so it has to respond in the way - to allow israel to be insecure, so it has to respond in the way that| to allow israel to be insecure, so. it has to respond in the way that it does _ it has to respond in the way that it does and — it has to respond in the way that it does. and sometimes _ it has to respond in the way that it does. and sometimes that - it has to respond in the way that it does. and sometimes that isn't. it has to respond in the way that itl does. and sometimes that isn't the most _ does. and sometimes that isn't the most diplomatically— does. and sometimes that isn't the most diplomatically easy— does. and sometimes that isn't the most diplomatically easy route, - does. and sometimes that isn't thel most diplomatically easy route, and also, _ most diplomatically easy route, and also, as— most diplomatically easy route, and also, as we — most diplomatically easy route, and also, as we can— most diplomatically easy route, and also, as we can see, _ most diplomatically easy route, and also, as we can see, lots— most diplomatically easy route, and also, as we can see, lots of- most diplomatically easy route, and also, as we can see, lots of people i also, as we can see, lots of people die in_ also, as we can see, lots of people die in these — also, as we can see, lots of people die in these instances, _ also, as we can see, lots of people die in these instances, so- also, as we can see, lots of people die in these instances, so they- also, as we can see, lots of people die in these instances, so they are| die in these instances, so they are appalling — die in these instances, so they are appalling to — die in these instances, so they are appalling to contemplate, but - die in these instances, so they are appalling to contemplate, but it. die in these instances, so they are appalling to contemplate, but it isj appalling to contemplate, but it is hard at _ appalling to contemplate, but it is hard at least — appalling to contemplate, but it is hard at least for _ appalling to contemplate, but it is hard at least for me _ appalling to contemplate, but it is hard at least for me to _ appalling to contemplate, but it is hard at least for me to see - appalling to contemplate, but it is hard at least for me to see what . appalling to contemplate, but it is i hard at least for me to see what the alternative — hard at least for me to see what the alternative is — hard at least for me to see what the alternative is. until— hard at least for me to see what the alternative is. until hezbollah, - hard at least for me to see what the alternative is. until hezbollah, the. alternative is. until hezbollah, the iranian— alternative is. until hezbollah, the iranian government, _ alternative is. until hezbollah, the iranian government, hamas- alternative is. until hezbollah, the iranian government, hamas as - alternative is. until hezbollah, thei iranian government, hamas as well understand — iranian government, hamas as well understand and _ iranian government, hamas as well understand and accept _ iranian government, hamas as well understand and accept israel's - iranian government, hamas as wellj understand and accept israel's right to exist _ understand and accept israel's right to exist and — understand and accept israel's right to exist and right _ understand and accept israel's right to exist and right to _ understand and accept israel's right to exist and right to exist _ understand and accept israel's right to exist and right to exist within - to exist and right to exist within secure — to exist and right to exist within secure borders. _ to exist and right to exist within secure borders. the _ to exist and right to exist within secure borders.— secure borders. the defence secretary — secure borders. the defence secretary has _ secure borders. the defence secretary has just _ secure borders. the defence secretary hasjust released l secure borders. the defencej secretary hasjust released a secretary has just released a statement. secretary has 'ust released a statement._ secretary has 'ust released a statement. . �* , ., , statement. that's right, in the last few minutes _ statement. that's right, in the last few minutes we _ statement. that's right, in the last few minutes we have _ statement. that's right, in the last few minutes we have heard - statement. that's right, in the last few minutes we have heard from i statement. that's right, in the last i few minutes we have heard from the defence secretary saying that uk forces have this evening played their part in attempts to prevent

further escalation in the middle east. this suggests that what the uk has done is probably pretty similar to what the uk did back in april, the last time iran launched ballistic missile attacks on israel, so what happened with the us, uk and french forces were involved in either helping to shoot down those missiles or help to provide reconnaissance and intelligence, and john healey talking about how he wants to thank all british personnel involved in the operation for their courage and professionalism, and then he says the uk stands firmly behind israel's right to defend its country and its people against threats. �* , country and its people against threats. . , ,, ., , ., threats. afshin shahi, when israel resonds, threats. afshin shahi, when israel responds, what _ threats. afshin shahi, when israel responds, what might _ threats. afshin shahi, when israel responds, what might iran - threats. afshin shahi, when israel responds, what might iran do - threats. afshin shahi, when israel. responds, what might iran do then? it depends, depends on the nature of the retaliation, because at the mornent— the retaliation, because at the moment it is all speculation. is netanyahu going to use these opportunities to target iranian

military— opportunities to target iranian military and nuclear sites? if that is going _ military and nuclear sites? if that is going to — military and nuclear sites? if that is going to be the case, then we can imagine _ is going to be the case, then we can imagine that it is easily going to escalate — imagine that it is easily going to escalate to a major multifaceted or multidimensional crisis in the region — multidimensional crisis in the region if— multidimensional crisis in the region. if israel decides to target these _ region. if israel decides to target these signs, what i can imagine, iran these signs, what i can imagine, iran is— these signs, what i can imagine, iran is going to mobilise its forces in syria. _ iran is going to mobilise its forces in syria. in— iran is going to mobilise its forces in syria, in iraq, in lebanon, and there— in syria, in iraq, in lebanon, and there retaliation will make the existing — there retaliation will make the existing dynamic even more complex and unpredictable. sol existing dynamic even more complex and unpredictable. so i assume that given— and unpredictable. so i assume that given the _ and unpredictable. so i assume that given the very weak defence infrastructure that iran has, they are very— infrastructure that iran has, they are very much hoping that israel is going _ are very much hoping that israel is going to _ are very much hoping that israel is going to he — are very much hoping that israel is going to be persuaded by the international community, primarily the united — international community, primarily the united states, to exercise restraint, _ the united states, to exercise restraint, or limit itself to a symbolic— restraint, or limit itself to a symbolic gesture, very much like what _ symbolic gesture, very much like what they— symbolic gesture, very much like what they did last april.

and finally and briefly is there any hope for diplomacy? it has failed certainly in the last three weeks but longer than that. is certainly in the last three weeks but longer than that.— certainly in the last three weeks but longer than that. is there any ho e? but longer than that. is there any hepe? l'm _ but longer than that. is there any hepe? l'm glad — but longer than that. is there any hepe? l'm glad you _ but longer than that. is there any hope? i'm glad you asked - but longer than that. is there any hope? i'm glad you asked that i hope? i'm glad you asked that question and ended on that note because there is absolutely hope for diplomacy but there must be political will to do it. we can all agree i think on the right of israel used to live in peace, i do not hear many people on his programme is talking about the right of middle eastern people to also live in peace. there often referred to as human shields, very dehumanising terms but at the end of the day all people in the region deserve to live in peace and that is why diplomacy has to be given a chance. now there is a diplomatic from the table, it is a diplomatic from the table, it is the basis of the arab peace initiative of 2002, the jordanian initiative of 2002, thejordanian foreign ministerjust a few days ago

said at the un in new york that the arab and muslim states are willing right now to work and guarantee the security of israel and its safety in the region in the context of the end to the occupation and two state solution. that is the political horizon but again there needs to be a political will to do it and an understanding on the part of israel and its friends that what is happening right now and what has happened in the past year and what is going to happen when israel responds to this is not making anyone in the middle east safer let alone israel. and of course the hundreds of thousands of arabs and muslims in the region who have been affected by this as well. so diplomacy is the only way to keep every acting in the region safer. thank you very much. let's talk about what's happened here at the tory party conference today, where the heat has been on one of the contenders, robert jenrick, over a campaign video. let's take another look at

what tom tughendhat told us earlier. what is particularly upsetting is that video uses footage of some people i served with any one of whom died shortly after the film was taken. in an accident. and is not able to defend himself on the accusation that is being effectively levelled against him. so accusation that is being effectively levelled against him.— levelled against him. so that is footaae levelled against him. so that is footage of— levelled against him. so that is footage of someone _ levelled against him. so that is footage of someone you - levelled against him. so that is| footage of someone you knew? levelled against him. so that is - footage of someone you knew? yes, a soldier in northern _ footage of someone you knew? yes, a soldier in northern afghanistan - footage of someone you knew? yes, a soldier in northern afghanistan in - soldier in northern afghanistan in around 2002. soldier in northern afghanistan in around 2001— soldier in northern afghanistan in around 2002. ., ., ., around 2002. how do you feel about that? we should _ around 2002. how do you feel about that? we should not _ around 2002. how do you feel about that? we should not be _ around 2002. how do you feel about that? we should not be using - around 2002. how do you feel about | that? we should not be using footage of secial that? we should not be using footage of special forces _ that? we should not be using footage of special forces soldiers _ that? we should not be using footage of special forces soldiers in _ of special forces soldiers in operations. welcome to the political editor of the guardian pippa crerar who joins us now. tom tugendhat revealing that tonight, what impact is that going tonight, what impact is that going to have? i tonight, what impact is that going to have? ~ , ,

tonight, what impact is that going to have? ~' , , , ., to have? i think in this very small environment _ to have? i think in this very small environment that _ to have? i think in this very small environment that we _ to have? i think in this very small environment that we are - to have? i think in this very small environment that we are in - to have? i think in this very small environment that we are in here i to have? i think in this very smalll environment that we are in here at conservative party conference it would be the first example of what has been so far very slick campaign from robertjenrick. he is in the lead amongst conservative mps, he is certainly the one candidate that most people assume would automatically make it to the last two. and this is really the first example that we've had of his campaign not quite going to plan. and the impact obviously that this video has had on tom tugendhat in particular because obviously he has his own forces background and a friend of his as we revealed tonight was in that video. i think it will definitely cause ripples. it will be the first sign that maybe the very slick and professional campaign that robertjenrick has so far run is perhaps not quite as successful as

it might otherwise have been. what it might otherwise have been. what is interesting _ it might otherwise have been. what is interesting is _ it might otherwise have been. what is interesting is that _ it might otherwise have been. what is interesting is that video is based, — is interesting is that video is based, robertjenrick says, on some remarks _ based, robertjenrick says, on some remarks that the former defence secretary ben wallace gave to the daily telegraph where he said last year human rights laws mean that the uk is forced _ year human rights laws mean that the uk is forced into taking legal action— uk is forced into taking legal action rather than actually detaining terror suspects and the reason _ detaining terror suspects and the reason for— detaining terror suspects and the reason for that according to ben wallace — reason for that according to ben wallace is — reason for that according to ben wallace is if terror suspects were to surrender you can't render them, cannot— to surrender you can't render them, cannot take — to surrender you can't render them, cannot take them to another country. the point _ cannot take them to another country. the point is _ cannot take them to another country. the point is the example ben wallace .ave the point is the example ben wallace gave of— the point is the example ben wallace gave of reflections, he described drone _ gave of reflections, he described drone strikes and what he called kinetic— drone strikes and what he called kinetic air— drone strikes and what he called kinetic air strikes. the example robert — kinetic air strikes. the example robertjenrick use were kinetic air strikes. the example robert jenrick use were special forces — robert jenrick use were special forces soldiers on the ground. that is not _ forces soldiers on the ground. that is not what — forces soldiers on the ground. that is not what ben wallace was talking about _ is not what ben wallace was talking about and — is not what ben wallace was talking about. and as i understand it the view— about. and as i understand it the view amongst the special forces is that they— view amongst the special forces is that they are incandescent about this and — that they are incandescent about this and these people are very

careful— this and these people are very careful and do not talk about this stuff— careful and do not talk about this stuff but — careful and do not talk about this stuff but i — careful and do not talk about this stuff but i spoke to one source from that world _ stuff but i spoke to one source from that world and they said they thought— that world and they said they thought robertjenrick was that world and they said they thought robert jenrick was a bleep and they— thought robert jenrick was a bleep and they hoped this would sink his campaign — and they hoped this would sink his cam aiun. ., and they hoped this would sink his camaiun. ., ~' campaign. could it? ithink it will not sink it— campaign. could it? ithink it will not sink it by _ campaign. could it? ithink it will not sink it by itself, _ campaign. could it? ithink it will not sink it by itself, there - campaign. could it? ithink it will not sink it by itself, there is - campaign. could it? ithink it will not sink it by itself, there is a - not sink it by itself, there is a question of over whether it ought to. i think on such a hot topic involving such emotive and tricky things, to put out something that was quite as sloppy as that quite, legally and politically, at the very least it was a political error but beyond that i think a very odd thing for someone who wants to beat leader of a political party and wants to be prime minister to do. apart from anything else obviously it is strange when we have tom tugendhat having the advantage of expertise so

really leading with the chin. so if either of you _ really leading with the chin. so if either of you were _ really leading with the chin. so if either of you were advising the robertjenrick campaign what would you advise him to do, pull it down? i do not think that apologies and withdrawing work well in politics, from a moral point of view and i agree with tom tugendhat and he is correct to press him to do that and it will be the right thing to do i think but whether it would be politically effective i'm not so sure. �* , ., , , politically effective i'm not so sure. a . , sure. as ultimately it is a dividing line, he is the _ sure. as ultimately it is a dividing line, he is the one _ sure. as ultimately it is a dividing line, he is the one candidate - sure. as ultimately it is a dividing line, he is the one candidate of. sure. as ultimately it is a dividing. line, he is the one candidate of the four who supports withdrawal from the european convention on human rights. the other three have variations on the theme. that if circumstances meant that we had to we may consider it in the future. but he has been quite unequivocal go about it. so using this as a political ploy to reinforce a dividing line. possibly cynically, politically, it does that even more because it is attracting attention. was someone close to the campaign

said it cuts through to the members. it is unfortunate because i would love to _ it is unfortunate because i would love to be — it is unfortunate because i would love to be able to say that politically the most effective thing to do is— politically the most effective thing to do is to think that i think is the right— to do is to think that i think is the right thing to do but i'm not so clear— the right thing to do but i'm not so clear about — the right thing to do but i'm not so clear about that. i think if robert jenrick— clear about that. i think if robert jenrick wants to press home his point _ jenrick wants to press home his point on — jenrick wants to press home his point on the echr which i happen to disagree _ point on the echr which i happen to disagree with four almost precisely the reasons, the reasons behind it are actually— the reasons, the reasons behind it are actually quite sloppy. find the reasons, the reasons behind it are actually quite sloppy.- the reasons, the reasons behind it are actually quite sloppy. and he is dramatically _ are actually quite sloppy. and he is dramatically showing _ are actually quite sloppy. and he is dramatically showing his _ are actually quite sloppy. and he is| dramatically showing his opposition to echr. kemi badenoch the other day raising questions about the level of ten to play. when it comes to the membership stage, balanced next week amongst mps and many mps thinking, i wonder. brute amongst mps and many mps thinking, i wonder. ~ ., ., ., ., wonder. we were meant to have a pro-recorded _ wonder. we were meant to have a pre-recorded interview _ wonder. we were meant to have a pre-recorded interview with - wonder. we were meant to have a| pre-recorded interview with robert pre—recorded interview with robert jenrick but for some reason that did not happen. tomorrow all four candidates make a 20 minute speech to the activists and members here in birmingham.

it's been described by some as the tory�*s version of the hunger games. james cleverly is going to promise in his speech to increase defence spending to 3% of gdp and abolish stamp duty, plus he's going to call on the tories to stop being "the grumpy party". i asked him first about those robertjenrick�*s comments that have dominated today at conference — that uk special forces are killing rather than capturing terrorists. hello, mr cleverly, how are you? hi, victoria. hi. right. i'm going to start with that last subject, if i may. as ex—military, have you ever seen any evidence, and particularly when you were in the foreign office as well, of british forces killing people abroad ? well, look. thank you, thank you. so this is a very, very, very serious issue. if anyone believes that they know of, you know, breaches of law of armed conflict or breaches of the rules of engagement, they should make that position clear. and i'm not comfortable... do you think it happens? well, i've seen no evidence of that. um, look, i don't pretend to be...

i don't pretend to be any, you know, massively experienced, er, operational soldier. my career was in the reserve forces. but we should all take this incredibly seriously. and if there is specific information to justify that line, that claim, then we need to see it. he needs to see it. well, he said something. he needs to explain it, justify it or retract it. in your speech tomorrow, you're going to talk about promising to raise defence spending to 3% and abolish stamp duty. yeah. how are you going to pay for that? it's about £29 billion a year, according to the ifs. so one of the things that we've got to do differently, we've got to think very differently. when governments take money from people through taxation, it is the job of the government to justify why it's taking money off of people, rather than people expect the individuals to justify why they keep it.

thank you, mate, thank you. now the point is stamp duty will free up liquidity in the housing market, get the property market moving, help people downsize, and also help first—time buyers. but it leaves a hole in the treasury of 29 billion. if defence spending and abolishing stamp duty. so if we want to be a low—tax country, a lower tax country, and we should be, we need to start making decisions about bringing down taxes. now this is a tax which stifles the housing market, which young people tell me over and over and over again is not working for them. i get that, but where are you going to make up the money elsewhere? we are going to spend less as a government. we're going to spend better. 0k. we're going to spend on what we need to spend, not on everything. the equivalent amount of cuts. is that what you're saying? what i'm saying is, if we want to be a low—tax economy, a lower tax economy to compete on the international stage, we should start finding ways of cutting tax, and cutting taxes which stimulate market activity are good taxes.

thank you. awesome. thank you. took my breath away. is this staged or is this genuine? i came here completely that three of the candidates i was prepared to back. i wanted to listen to them all. this man took my breath away. 0k? i have known them for peace inside out. that's the best i've ever seen. thank you. james. 0k. thank you. why can i? in your speech, you're also going to say you've had enough of being the grumpy party. what does that mean? what have you been grumpy about? so we have got to demonstrate to the world and to the country we seek to serve that we are optimistic, energetic, positive, forward thinking, not harking to a time gone by, but looking to a better future. if we do that, i think we will attract voters of every age, from every geography and get back

into the habit of winning again. but don't you think voters are grumpy with you because of the state, the nhs, can't get a gp appointment, can't get an nhs dentist waiting for hours and hours in a&e. they're grumpy with you because that's how you left the country. well, look, i recognise that we were kicked out of government for a reason, so we need to repair that. but part of the offer to the british people is that we are a positive party, a positive government, and one that listens to their concerns but doesn'tjust... but doesn't just leave it there that having listened to their concerns, we actually do something about fixing them. that's the positivity. fixing the stuff that you broke essentially fix. no, because we have had the most unique set of challenges, we have had covid, which has hit our economy and our health service incredibly hard. but the point is, when people tell you that they are hurting,

when they tell you that they are frustrated, when they tell and if you want to carry on watching newsnight, please turn over to bbc two or watch on iplayer. do stay with us here on bbc news for all the latest headlines in the us and around the world from the team here in washington. i'm sumi somaskanda in washington and this is bbc world news america. israel warns of consequences, after iran fires missiles at tel aviv. israeli troops continue raids in southern lebanon, in what they are calling a "limited and localised" operation. i'm caitriona perry, live in new york city, where injust i'm caitriona perry, live in new york city, where in just a few hours, democrat governor tim walz and republican senatorjd vance face each other in the first and only vice presidential debate of this campaign.

hello and welcome to this new, extended hour of world news america — where we'll bring you a full hour of live news and analysis from here in the us, the uk and around the world. and we begin in the middle east, a region on edge after iran launched a barrage of missiles at israel, on the same day israel launched a limited ground invasion into lebanon. the us says nearly 200 rockets were fired at israel — most of them intercepted by air defence systems. the strikes lit up the skies above tel aviv and jerusalem as sirens sounded across the country and civilians were told to take shelter. no injuries or casualties were reported in israel, but a palestinian in the neighbouring west bank was killed by rocket debris. tuesday's strikes by iran appear to be a response to recent israeli strikes targeting hezbollah in lebanon, which killed hundreds of people and displaced about a million more. israel defence forces spokesperson daniel hagari has been discussing a possible israeli response to tuesday's attack.