i used to be the israel correspondent here in beirut, so between us, hopefully we've got a lot of expertise, a lot of experience in this region, and we can really answer some of your questions. questions that we've seen searched thousands of times online over the last two weeks or so. so, thank you for sending them in and we are going to start with lena. we are going to start in a really basic place, i think. it's good to start simple and get more complicated as we go on. first of all, we are here in lebanon, you and i, we are in the capital beirut. talk us through the geography of the region of the middle east and where lebanon sits in all of that. well, this is a region that has always been troubled by wars and conflicts, and lebanon is at the heart of it. lebanon is situated on the mediterranean to the north and east of it is surrounded by syria. to the south of it, there is israel. and this is where also one of the reasons of the conflict,

hezbollah is part of the political game here in lebanon. it is almost the only party that is, you know, armed and lebanon and also has representation in the parliament. but has engaged in fights and conflict with israel since it started in 19805 until this latest confrontation that we are living these days. frank, a lot of people i think certainly after the attack we saw a couple of nights ago, that unprecedented attack in terms of scale and size that iran launched on israel. one question which people are asking is why did iran attack israel and will israel now attack iran? ok, so this really goes back to april the 1st, when the israeli air force carried out an airstrike on iran's consulate in damascus,

killing a number of iranian revolutionary guards officers, including allegedly the man who was coordinating the flow of arms from iran through syria to hezbollah in lebanon. and that was an attack on a diplomatic premise, the international outrage was pretty muted. iran said it would respond. it gave everyone about a week's notice, and 12 later after the attack, it launched a volley of around 300 drones, cruise and ballistic missiles at israel. so that really was unprecedented. it was the first time that iran had directly attacked the state of israel. and 99% of those were shot down by a coalition of israel us, uk, france jordan and so on. israel felt compelled and how to respond but there ——israel felt compelled it had to respond but there was a limited response by israel, a symbolic one. it hit a radar post. but subsequently, there have been two major assassinations both laid at israel's door. the other is a hamas political leader into ron in the heart

——the other is a hamas political leader in theran in the heart of the reigning capital, as he had just finished attending the inauguration of iran's new president. israel didn't say they did it but everyone believes that it was mossad. israel's external spy agency, and then of course the assassination in beirut a few days ago, beirut a few days ago, of hassan, the hezbollah leader. iran said two right that's too assassinations we can't let this go unanswered. so they say it is self—defense. they are claiming article 51 of the un constitution and they have fired all these missiles at israel. israel says there will be a very heavy response, but currently the jewish new year, but when that finishes and just about 36 hours' time, there could well be an israeli response against iran in which case iran has said they will retaliate, and that is why everyone is fearing escalation right now. tom, you arejoining us

from washington, and if we keep it current for the moment, because i think we will get into america's historic support for different countries in this region and why it is the way it is, but when we just look at what happened the other night with this iranian attack on israel, what is the us�*s response to that? well, i think it's important i for most of all to wind back. we saw such a sudden shift in what is happening both. on the ground and in terms of the way the us is going with this that i think it's. important to set out the change. - now, a week ago, i was covering the united nations general- assembly up in new york where the americans - were leading a diplomatic charge to try and get - a diplomatic resolution - between israel and hezbollah after months of cross—border fire on the border— between the two. that to me felt like quite - a stark change from what had happened when it came - to the gaza war, because for months, the americans. were actually vetoing calls

for an immediate cease—fire by the un security council. i this time the americans i were actually really among those leading this charge for, "an immediate cease—fire" i so they were calling - for restraint, for mediated negotiation between the two and a truce. | a 21 day truce in the context of everything that frank - has just been about. now, that efforts completely failed and it failed _ in a very vivid form - because the israeli prime minister was at new yorkl for the general assembly, gave a speech where he didn't mention the cease—fire at all, | and within about 90 minutes of the outcome of the strikel was launched by the israelis that killed hassan in beirut. it was authorised by- benjamin netanyahu from his hotel room in new york, even to the extent that i the israelis released - a photo of him doing so. so that felt like a clear signal tojoe biden - that they weren't going down the path of diplomacy- on this one.

they thought it was right, they had the opportunity, | and they killed hassan. so then we see the iranian i response, and the americans have now had to follow suit. they publicly support the killing, they of. course back their ally, israel, publicly. - they supply the weapons for it to carry out these l military operations. so now they've been trying to kind of- walk this line of trying to, i first of all, they were trying to bring down the temperature and bring down the scale - of the iranian strike - on israel by being quite threatening before hand. they said that the iranians would _ they said that the iranians would suffer, _ they said that the iranians would suffer, in— they said that the iranians would suffer, in their- they said that the iranians . would suffer, in their words, "severe _ would suffer, in their words, "severe consequences" - would suffer, in their words, "severe consequences" for. would suffer, in their words, . "severe consequences" for any strike _ "severe consequences" for any strike on— "severe consequences" for any strike on israel. _ "severe consequences" for any strike on israel. so _ "severe consequences" for any strike on israel. so there - "severe consequences" for any strike on israel. so there is- strike on israel. so there is now— strike on israel. so there is now a — strike on israel. so there is now a sense _ strike on israel. so there is now a sense they— strike on israel. so there is now a sense they have - strike on israel. so there is now a sense they have to l strike on israel. so there is- now a sense they have to follow through — now a sense they have to follow through on _ now a sense they have to follow through on that _ now a sense they have to follow through on that threat, - now a sense they have to follow through on that threat, on - now a sense they have to follow through on that threat, on thatl through on that threat, on that premise, — through on that threat, on that premise, so— through on that threat, on that premise, so severe _ premise, so severe consequences, - premise, so severe i consequences, well, premise, so severe - consequences, well, that premise, so severe _ consequences, well, that could mean _ consequences, well, that could mean severe _ consequences, well, that could mean severe sanctions, - consequences, well, that could mean severe sanctions, but, i consequences, well, that could mean severe sanctions, but, of course, — mean severe sanctions, but, of course, they— mean severe sanctions, but, of course, they are _ mean severe sanctions, but, of course, they are backing - mean severe sanctions, but, of course, they are backing what. course, they are backing what they— course, they are backing what they see — course, they are backing what they see as _ course, they are backing what they see as israel's _ course, they are backing what they see as israel's right - course, they are backing what they see as israel's right to i they see as israel's right to respond _ they see as israel's right to respond militarily- they see as israel's right to respond militarily to - they see as israel's right to respond militarily to this i respond militarily to this imartian— respond militarily to this iranian strike _

respond militarily to this iranian strike on - respond militarily to this iranian strike on israel. i respond militarily to this i iranian strike on israel. but my sense _ iranian strike on israel. but my sense from _ iranian strike on israel. but my sense from washingtonj iranian strike on israel. but. my sense from washington at iranian strike on israel. but- my sense from washington at the moment— my sense from washington at the moment is— my sense from washington at the moment is they— my sense from washington at the moment is they are _ my sense from washington at the moment is they are still- my sense from washington at the moment is they are still trying - moment is they are still trying to moderate _ moment is they are still trying to moderate or— moment is they are still trying to moderate or restrained - moment is they are still trying to moderate or restrained to. to moderate or restrained to some — to moderate or restrained to some extent _ to moderate or restrained to some extent the _ to moderate or restrained to some extent the israeli - some extent the israeli response _ some extent the israeli response i— some extent the israeli response. i don't - some extent the israeli response. i don't thinkl some extent the israeli. response. i don't think it's immanent _ response. idon't think it's immanent within- response. i don't think it's immanent within the - response. i don't think it's . immanent within the coming hours. — immanent within the coming hours. but _ immanent within the coming hours, but probably- immanent within the coming hours, but probably within . immanent within the coming i hours, but probably within the coming — hours, but probably within the coming days _ hours, but probably within the coming days— hours, but probably within the coming days. thank you, tom. these are _ coming days. thank you, tom. these are your _ coming days. thank you, tom. these are your questions - these are your questions answered here on bbc news. nora has been in touch. thank you for this, has been in touch. thank you forthis, nora. she says, and this is one for you lena. "what does the fundamental reason for the war and what has lebanon got to do with it? "— got to do with it? " well, it started, — got to do with it? " well, it started, really, _ got to do with it? " well, it started, really, after- got to do with it? " well, it started, really, after the i started, really, after the event of the 7th of october where hamas launched an attack in israel and then israel responded by attacking gaza. hezbollah here, they call themselves a resistance movement to liberate lebanon and support palestine.

engaged in this war and started to fire across the border missiles that hit northern border of israel, something that forced some 60,000 israelis to flee their homes and villages for safety because it hasn't become an unsafe safe area. hezbollah continued with these kind of attacks. and of course, there was a response from the israelis across the border. so there was a year long cross—border clashes and violence between hezbollah and israel. some 400 or over 400 hezbollah members have been killed through this. but the recent weeks, there was an escalation where, you know, israel felt the need to return the 60,000 residents to their villages and towns and announced a full fledged, you know, campaign against hezbollah. it started with attacking, you know, leaders, assassinations. there was also the big blow to hezbollah's security, which is the major detonation

that israel did not claim. ——which is the pager detonation that israel did not claim. but the hezbollah, you know, points the finger against at israel for being behind this attack, some 3000 were injured on that day and dozens were killed, mainly members of hezbollah. that was a big blow to their security. and then it followed by the big assassination that happened on friday to the leader of hezbollah, hassan nasrallah. of course, in between that, there were massive attacks at the villages and towns in the south that forced a big exodus of people towards the north. and in one single day there were more than 500 people killed, including many women and children. and that was the main reason of what we're living today. but of course, there is a history of tension between hezbollah and israel. the main foundation of hezbollah itself

in the �*80s was to push israel outside out of lebanon. thank you, lina. and frank, when we look at what people are searching for online, there are often some really, really clear themes that come through. and one of them is that people are really clearly interested about nuclear weapons and who has them in this region. so a lot of people are asking online, does iran have nuclear weapons or does israel have nuclear weapons? so only one state in the region has nuclear weapons. that's israel. it doesn't talk about it, but it's widely assumed to have scores of nuclear warheads, and it has since the 1960s. it decided a long time ago it needed them for its own survival. famously, years ago, there was a defecting israeli scientist who was kidnapped in italy, i think, and lured and brought back to israel and was imprisoned for a long time. iran's nuclear programme is highly suspect. why?

because un nuclear inspectors, whose job it is to try and make sure that iran is not expanding its nuclear programme, its civil nuclear programme, beyond the lines that's supposed to keep within. they say that iran is enriching uranium, its stockpiles of enriched uranium well beyond the levels it needs for civil nuclear power _ and there is a suspicion, certainly held in israel, but also in some other countries, that iran is secretly far below ground, working _ to produce the capability, at least, of being able to produce a nuclear bomb. so, you can imagine for israel that deluge of ballistic missiles that came through a few days ago. imagine if those had been nuclear tipped. not all of them were intercepted by israel's air defences. some of them got through and landed and exploded on waste ground. but if those carried a nuclear warhead, that would be pretty, pretty serious. like, that's an understatement.

so, there are some in israel who are saying right now is the best opportunity to try and take out iran's nuclear facilities. that would be a massive step, and it wouldn't necessarily succeed because they're buried so far underground, well guarded, well protected. it almost certainly wouldn't succeed. and i think that particular ship has sailed in terms of israel trying to physically knock out iran's nuclear enrichment facilities permanently. and, tom, to you in washington, again, i did say we talk a little bit more fundamentally about the us and who it backs in the region. and again, looking at those online searches, a lot of people asking, why does the us support israel? well, it's historical, - and it goes back a century. and if you look at the roots of the conflict l in the middle east, you have to go all the way back - to the role of european powers there in the first half— of the 20th century, at a time _ when you had a growth

of rising nationalisms i both in the middle east and all over the world, | especially in the aftermath of the first world war. - now, what had happened then was that the growing - zionist movement that sought a | homeland for the jewish people, had got a promise from . the british in 1917 to create a jewish homeland in palestine, as it then was now. _ now, after the first world war, britain took control— under a so—called mandate - of the league of nations, then of palestine, and the french, incidentally took control - of the area north of that - what is now lebanon and syria. as for the role of britain, it spent about 30 years . in the region as conflictl between arabs and jews broke out over the land there. and then what happened i was we saw the americans increasingly back thej right, as they saw it, for the zionist movement, for a jewish homeland. -

now, in 1948, there was. the british pulled out, um, and then there was a i conflict after the state of israel was declared. arab countries invadedj and during that period, over about a year or so from before that into late 1948. l in that conflict - there, about three quarters of a million - palestinians were forced or fled from their homes in the war surrounding . israel's creation. now, when the state of israel was declared, the us- was the very first country toi recognise the state of israel. and we've seen then throughout the last i the next century, - the century that followed, that, the us continued to back its israeli ally. and increasingly become involved _ in supplying it militarily- and supporting it militarily. now, when you look at the sort of wider region, there is also i a strategic interest

for the us. - and it has seen, really, israel as a key ally - in extending its own strategic interests in the middle - east as well. some of those have changed over time. | if you look back at the 1970s, for example, the us - was much more dependent on oil from the gulf- than it is, for example. ——on oil from the gulf- than it is, for example today. now, that played into all those relations in the way— that the us was managing its relations between- arab countries and israel. but fundamentally it still sees a core strategic interest- in its support for israel. it's a really big question that but actually it's worth saying if you are interested in the whole history and the politics of the middle east, tom's got a brilliant series called the mandates. if you have a look on bbc sounds, that is still on there, and you can listen to those episodes as well and really find out more about how a lot of this began. you're with us on bbc news. these are your questions answered. another question now, this one's from indigo, and this one

is for you again, lina, here in beirut, it says hezbollah is always referred to as iran backed hezbollah. but what does that actually mean in a concrete sense? are they given weapons or other resources by the iranian state, or are they backed in a more symbolic sense. how does it work? that's a very important question to explain to our audience the history of establishing hezbollah. hezbollah was established in the 19805 when israel invaded lebanon, and that was the time when a shi'ite group started this by training and support from iran. their target was or mandate was to fight israel, to liberate palestine and liberate any occupied territories, but actually their affiliation and belonging was to the iranian leadership, to the ayatollah leadership in iran. so they're basically a religious group of the shi'ite group that

have been, you know, supported to be established by the iranians throughout these years with several, you know, conflicts in the region with israel or here in lebanon, with further conflicts with hezbollah. iran was the sole supporter for hezbollah. they provided the training, they provided the weapons, and they provided even some of the missiles. and in the recent, especially in the past decade, we've seen hezbollah expanding its mandate and its power beyond the territories of lebanon. so we've seen hezbollah involved in the war in syria backing assad's forces and iranian forces against the opposition. we've seen them in iraq also supporting iraqi militias and iraqi groups that are supported by iran. and recently we've seen them also providing training and support in yemen. and hence we see the yemenis, the houthis are involved in this conflict as well, and supporting both hezbollah and the palestinians inside gaza.

and actually, on that point as well, frank, there's another another interesting question from rusty gaspard, who's in louisiana in the us. following on from what lena was talking about there, rusty wants to know, is hezbollah in lebanon at the invitation of the lebanese government? is the lebanese government at liberty to ask them to leave? well, actually, that question is probably best aimed at lina since she's in lebanon. but what i would say about that is that, no, they are not. they have grown in importance from a relatively small proxy militia, founded, as lina says, by the islamic republic of iran into what was up until two or three weeks ago, the most powerful non—state militia or army in the world, proscribed as a terrorist organisation, notjust by israel and a number of western countries, but also by a number of gulf arab countries. and it's important to make this point that gulf arab states and conservative arab states,

which include jordan and egypt, they fear the power of hezbollah. they fear the encroachment by iran of its militia right across the middle east and saudi arabia particularly, which only recently has got a kind of tentative truce going on. it's been the big arch rival in the region of iran. the only kind of try to settle their differences last year. saudi arabia fears that it is encircled by iran's allies, its proxy militias, the houthis to the south of them in yemen, hezbollah to the north, other proxy militias of iran and iraq and syria. so iran has been able to do this despite crippling international sanctions on it. and yet it's been able to extend its military tentacles right through the region of which hezbollah are the most strongest. and that's why they are really worried now that they are watching israel slowly take apart their biggest and closest ally, hezbollah.

tom, joe has a question about israeli support from the us, which we touched on a little bit earlier, butjoe wants to know if israel could be conducting the war in gaza or in southern lebanon without us support, or is that crucial to all of that? and what kind of influence does the us have on the choices that israel makes? yeah, well, it's. a good question. i mean, the first thing to say. about us support is, of course, and it's been reported a lot is about weapons supply. l so the us gives — and this is a sort of baseline - level - $3.8 billion worth of military assistance - to the israelis per year. now, that is mandated - in a ten year memorandum of understanding, as it's - called, that has been renewed and will probably be i renewed again towards the end of this decade. in addition to that, there's a lot of - supplementary military- assistance that takes place. and we've had congress, for example, voting -

since october the 7th for more weapons to go to the israelis. i so there's been, - you know, a very, very steady flow of military . assistance to the israelis. and i say that's just . the baseline, because that is the stuff that l is comes from the us. that is part of what - congress mandates to go. the israelis can buy. more, and they do buy more with their own funds. and in addition to that, there is, of course, - all the diplomatic support as well. i and you often see the us, for example, acting - to shield its israeli ally- diplomatically at the united nations, for example, but also a lot of the i sort of diplomatic, - diplomatic outreach they do. so that relationshipl is, you know, exists in all of those spaces i as well as the political support as well. so it would be very hard to see how israel could continue - the military operations it - carries out without that same level of support.

i want to end on a question from mark and actually to get the thoughts of all three of you on it, probably about 30s ——probably about 30 seconds or so each, but it's a it's a big question to answer in a short time. mark wants to know about the chances of this spiralling into something like world war three, he says, i mean, lena, that that sort of escalation idea, it frightens people here in the region, doesn't it? well, it's definitely worrying people in the region and especially here in beirut. they're still hoping that it won't fall into a full fledged war, including the whole country. but for our, you know, world war three, it's a big question. however, the answer would be how israel would respond to iran, because if they were to attack the nuclear site, then the situation will be worse in the whole region. thank you, lina. what do you think, frank? i don't think it's going to be world war three, no.

the russia—ukraine nato situation in the long term is far more serious. but unless, of course, you're living in the middle east. but there are ways that this could catastrophize quite quickly if israel attacks iran in a big way, and iran then retaliates against us bases in the region against shipping tries to mine the strait of hormuz, for example, there are any number of ways that this could really interrupt global trade and hurt people in the region. so it could get a whole lot worse. but i don't see this being world war three. and tom, what's the view on that from the us? well, i think frank's absolutely right- about all of that. and i think, you know, the big us concern is about a regionalj conflagration in the - middle east, one that has the potential to draw in direct confrontation between - the us and the iranians. that's their- nightmare scenario. just one other point to add very quicklyl on that is that russia, i remember, is engaged in the middle east. it basically controls l the skies over syria. there is a very-

delicate relationship between the israelis and the russians. . and so there are ways in which there are, . you know, contact points, i connections between the two conflicts, both in eastern europe _ and in the middle east, i and in other ways as well. the iranians sent- drones to the russians. so the americans are watching all of this i and are a bit worried j about where all their adversaries are at| versus, you know, in addition to the dangers of. themselves being further drawn in into conflict - in the middle east. tom bateman, frank gardner, lina sinjar, thank you so much forjoining us, for sharing your expertise and for answering those questions as well. these are your questions answered. there are so many of them, of course, as we've been reflecting on from the very simple about how people here feel to the very big as we were talking about how this might affect the wider world. but don't forget here on bbc news, we are continuing to follow this developing conflict for you, whether it's on the bbc news channel, on bbc sounds as well, or you can of course watch this

again if you'd like to. so much information there on the bbc news website. so thanks for being with us. bye— bye. hello there. it's a dry, chilly, bright start to the day on friday for much of the country. however, we have been seeing some changes taking place overnight, with a weather front pushing into northern ireland and western scotland. that's brought more cloud, breeze with outbreaks of rain, but elsewhere, it stays dry all day thanks to this area of high pressure. this is the weather front that's been working its way in off the atlantic. the first of a series of fronts tied in with low pressure there. so a cloudy start, breezy, outbreaks of rain for northern ireland, western and northern scotland. but southern and eastern scotland, england and wales, it's a chilly start, bright, some early mist and fog, and it stays dry with sunshine into the afternoon. light winds, as you can see, but breezier further north and west. temperature wise, well, after that chilly start, we could be up to 17 or 18

degrees in the warmest spots in the south, closer to the mid—teens further north. and where we have the breeze, the cloud and the rain, it will actually feel quite cool. as we head through friday night, it stays cloudy breezy across northern and western areas, but large parts of england and wales will see lighter winds, clear skies, so, again, it will turn quite cool. perhaps a bit of mist and fog here and there. temperatures in low single digits out of town, but a recovery in temperatures for scotland, northern ireland, we're into double digits there throughout the night. into saturday, our area of high pressure holds on for at least one more day for central and eastern areas, but these weather fronts are really ganging up on us out west. so it looks like england, wales, parts of eastern scotland should see another fine day with some sunshine around after that cool start. the breeze picking up, the rain out west turns heavier later on, certainly for northern ireland. again, those temperatures mid—teens in the north, 17 or 18 in the south. but it is all change for part two of the weekend, that area of high pressure eventually breaks down, low pressure takes over and sends weather fronts across the country, more

isobars on the chart. so it's a cloudy day on sunday, more of a breeze coming up from the south, outbreaks of rain. most of the rain towards southern and western hills. the odd heavier downpour there and brightness will be limited. could see a little bit for north—east scotland at times. temperatures could be up to 18 or 19 degrees in any brightness, the mid—teens further north. but nights will start to get milder as we import this milder air off the atlantic on a south—westerly wind. the upcoming week stays unsettled with low pressure always nearby. there's a chance around the middle part of the week, we could see the remnants of hurricane kirk bring some rain and gales, so stay tuned.

live from washington, this is bbc news. large explosions light up the night sky. reports say beirut airport has been hit. a senior leader of hamas speaks to our international editorjeremy bowen. president biden to is more destruction from hurricane helene is a death toll rises plus the uk gives up control of the chagos islands, its last african colony by the us retains control of its military base. thank you forjoining us. we

start in lebanon where large explosions have been reported in beirut in the last hour or so. we have these pictures. you can see these massive explosions lighting up the sky. the israel defence forces they were targeting a senior hezbollah official. the strike happened near the airport as a middle eastern airlines flight was landing. the israeli military called on civilians near two buildings in the southern beirut suburb stiffly. we are also following a developing story in the region in the occupied west bank. an israeli airstrike is reported to have killed at least 18 people. the idf confirmed in a statement it had carried out a strike on the toll can't run region and updated data say the strike killed a hamas commander they believe was responsible for planning attacks. video shows chaotic scenes with people gathered outside a hospital, bodies being carried into the facility after what palestinian officials said was a strike on a refugee camp. violence has surged since the

start of the gaza war and