tariffs on chinese goods, and he threatens they will go higher depending on how trade talks go. a year after the outbreak of ebola in the democratic republic of congo, 1,800 people have died and neighbouring countries are worried the disease may spread. and this video is trending on bbc .com. this 18—year—old has become the first jockey wearing a hijab .com. this 18—year—old has become the firstjockey wearing a hijab to wina the firstjockey wearing a hijab to win a competitive horse race in britain. and that's all. stay with bbc world news. now on bbc news, hardtalk.

welcome to hardtalk, i'm stephen sackur. the world's most pressing and potentially dangerous strategic confrontation is playing out in the narrow waterway between iran and arabia. the united states is leading efforts to isolate the government in tehran. iran is responding with defiance, despite severe economic disruption. my guest, former british foreign secretary jack straw, is a veteran of western diplomatic engagement with iran. how high is the risk of calamitous conflict?

jack straw, welcome to hardtalk. welcome. your diplomatic engagement with iran spans two decades, and through that period you've been an advocate for dialogue, for engagement, with tehran. but here we are today, with relations are between the us and the uk and tehran toxic. so is it a story of complete failure? it's not a story of complete failure at all, and indeed, the nuclear negotiations which the french foreign ministers and i got going in the summer of 2003, by fits and starts, laid the foundations for discussions which president obama and his secretaryjohn kerry had with rouhani and zarif from 2013—2015, which led to this groundbreaking nuclear deal. the thing about this deal which was agreed internationally, including by the us, is that it wasn't perfect,

but it damn near guaranteed that iran could not develop the techniques and kit necessary to make a nuclear weapon for the next 15 years. it was time—limited, for a start. let's be quite clear about that. and there was a question of what happened at the end of the 15 years. what president trump has done — and it looks as though the only reason he decided to destroy the deal, or to do his best to destroy the deal, was because it had been undertaken by president obama, not for any other reason. there was nothing else but pure spite. i have to say, there was no strategy that is discernible behind this. he's torn up his side of the deal. first of all, if the deal fully collapses, then the guarantee that iran could not develop a nuclear weapon for the next 15 years goes. and we've already seen the hardliners in the system are desperately anxious to ramp up production of highly enriched uranium and of plutonium.

the amount of heavy water... you've introduced several really important points, and i want to go through them one by one. i want to start with your analysis of donald trump. you say it's pure spite, in a sense, to undo the work done by barack obama. i would point to the coherent set of reasons that trump and his advisers would suggest that iran is an unreconstructed threat to us and other western powers‘ interests around the world today. the point about iran is it is a very divided government, an elected government, relatively reformist. rouhani and zarif don't have absolute power, but a huge amount of influence. they are a front. the real power sits with the ayatollah, and the security apparatus goes through him. that is the error that the american right wing made, saying they're simply mouthpieces at the front. they are not.

this is a very divided governmental system. the supreme leader and the revolutionary guards control the apparatus of the state. but khamenei had to accept the nuclear deal, under pressure from rouhani and other sensible people in the system, who wanted iran to have an economic future. the irony of trump's position is that the one group who are cheering his position are indeed the hardliners in the revolutionary guards, who always opposed the nuclear deal because they could see how restrictive it was. yes, but if i may, there is substance behind the american list of reasons why that deal,

to use trump's melodramatic phrase, was "the worst deal ever". for example, ballistic missile technology and development continues in iran, and that represents a fundamental danger, in the view of the americans. for instance, another instance, iran's funding of different groups in the region and beyond, which are absolutely contrary to western interests, has been ramped up. one only has to look at hezbollah, the situation in syria, and the houthis in yemen. all of these are instances where iran's behaviour, according to trump and many others, is simply unacceptable. i'm not here as a spokesman for the iranian regime, far from it. in fact, i have written about it in my book. however, what trump did was to dispose of the one good thing, the nuclear deal, which ensured some sort of guarantee on the nuclear capabilities.

yes, there were other things on the agenda. in fairness to the iranians‘ use of missiles, all of their activities elsewhere in the region were not part of the nuclear deal. in my view, if the nuclear deal had settled and started to produce economic benefits for iran, which it was beginning to do, notwithstanding efforts by the united states even before the latest trump abandonment of the deal to undermine the economy in iran, then those other items could have been... that logical leap you've just made simply doesn't work — that yes, there were economic benefits for iran after the 2015 signing of the jcpoa, but the result was iran was able to ramp up spending on its military, ramp up spending on military in syria, on hezbollah. those were the very real consequences of the easing of sanctions.

where is the falsehood in that? i think it's entirely true. iran is supporting its erstwhile allies. what i think is completely exaggerated is the extent to which iran was able to use the normalisation of relations as a result of thejcpoa, in your phrase, to ramp this up. in my view, i understand why — exactly why iran has been doing that. it's because it's weak militarily, very weak. it spends one fifth of what saudi arabia spends on armaments, an infinitesimal amount compared to the united states, and it's using its neighbourhood as its form of defence. now, in my view, since most of the iranians are desperate for a normalisation of the relationships, that had we settled the nuclear deal, then those other issues

would have been subject, could have been subject, to negotiation. your book makes me wonder, too. you've written this book — the englishjob: understanding iran and why it distrusts britain. it's a fascinating book, and indicates that the links go, with the country, very deep diplomatically. you know foreign minister zarif very well. your wife travelled through iran, and had you adventures in the country yourself. i just wonder whether you have consistently overestimated the influence and the power of people like your friend mr zarif? and indeed, in the course of writing that book, my attitude towards the hardliners, in view of the needs of the system, actually toughened up, and that is illustrated by the conclusions. rouhani and zarif are presented as if they were a similar government to any other elected government. but when you look at the iranian

constitution, you will see that they are literally, as is the parliament, subordinate to the supreme leader and the so—called guardian council, a preacher. so i don't accept that. i'm far from dewey—eyed about it. my concern is the — i think the way president trump is going about it will have the opposite effect of what he is proposing. what we now have is an iranian government, and we can talk about rouhani and zarif being the frontmen for this particular policy, saying we are no longer going to live with the uranium enrichment limitations put on us by that deal. we're going to go beyond the 3.67% purification limit that was put on by thejcpoa deal, and that does suggest that iran is saying to hell with the deal.

if that is their decision, i think that is very unwise of them. it is. i understand. and if they decide to continue with that strategy, what they will do is alienate their erstwhile allies within europe, the united kingdom, france, britain, macron's beingjust as tough as britain, and the germans. if those three countries pull away from the deal, on the basis that the united states has broken it and now iran has, then that will be the end of the deal. is it your belief as a former british foreign secretary, looking at the way the europeans have handled this, that they have failed to do enough to ensure that iran was somehow shielded and protected from the economic damage done by the reinstatement of us sanctions, and the toughening

up of us sanctions? i think the europeans have done more than i expected they could do, but it's less than the iranians want. and the reason for that, not to do with the lack of will or practical action by the europeans, is to do with the extent and ubiquity of america's extraterritorial sanctions. it is very difficult for any company in the world to trade with iran if they have any contact at all with dollar trades as well. is that the truth? because we spoke on hardtalk to foreign minister zarif in new yorkjust the other day, and he is clearly extremely exercised about the failure of what he sees as the international community outside of the united states to do enough to help iran. he says, if the europeans, the chinese, japanese, all of them don't allow the united states to bully them into abiding by these decisions, will the us really go to destroy the global economy, to put out sanctions on all of them? it is a good rhetorical point, but it doesn't work that way. it's about what would happen to the individual entities — the chinese company which wants to trade with iran but also

has dollar trades. a russian company in the same position. so the possibility the united states would not propose sanctions against the other five world powers involved — it doesn't have to. i am looking at the analysis of matthew bey, who studies the iranian economy for stratfor consultancy. he said the level of financial pain is that the iranians are going now face as a result of the toughening us sanctions is unprecedented. i do not think, he says, we can rule out a humanitarian crisis. no, i think that's absolutely right. just before the sanctions were imposed, iran was exporting about 2.5 million barrels of oil a day. that's dropped to less than one sixth of that, to 400,000. the iranian rial was trading at 9,000 to the us dollar. it is now trading at 42,000 to the us dollar on the official rate, but on the unofficial rate, which is what most people get hold of, 135,000.

so what was worth £1 is now worth less than 10p. iran is desperate, and britain is in a difficult position. britain is, with the europeans, keen not to see this agreement with iran completely disrupted. but at the same time we know, for reasons that we will discuss in a moment, that britain is extremely eager to stay close to the trump administration. the trump administration is talking about putting more military vessels in the area. britain has seen one of its flagged oil tankers detained by the iranians in a tit—for—tat after britain detained an iranian shipped in gibraltar. how close do you believe we are, in that stretch of water,

to a confrontation? well, i don't think we're that close to a confrontation in a very wide, conventional sense, but i'm quite clear that you could easily get an increase in skirmishing, and something accidental but very serious could happen. so you could easily see a number of iran's fast boats being sunk. you could see the iranians plant mines in retaliation. and then you could, you know, have one of the mines going off, and then you could get a serious escalation. the problem is the iranians are indeed desperate. they feel they have to do something. it doesn't excuse what they're doing, but it's an explanation. as, i've said again, and you can't repeat often enough, the power has shifted very markedly from the elected government to people like hossein salami, who is the major general in charge of the external force

of the revolutionary guard, who was a politician in his own right and reports only to the hardline nearly—octogenarian supreme leader khamenei. 0ne specific point about britain. do you think britain needs to consider releasing that oil tanker detained in gibraltar, to defuse tensions, and then hope in a response measure the iranians might release the british—flagged ship? i wouldn't do it unilaterally. i would be searching for a multifaceted deal which involved the release of the iranian tanker in gibraltar for the uk—flagged one in the straits of hormuz, and also release of nazanin zaghari—ratcliffe, in exchange for the reimbursement for chieftain tanks which were paid for but never delivered.

they would have to orchestrate this, because it would be... this reminds me thatjohn bolton who is now the security adviser, once called you jack of tehran, for your commitment to keep the dialogue, the notion of engagement... indeed, butjohn bolton has called iran wrong on every occasion. the problem with whatjohn bolton and president trump have been doing is not undermining the people who may take objection, and so do i. they've been strengthening them. you served as foreign secretary to tony blair. his contention led him to put british forces into iraq, and the united kingdom could not afford to be anything but the closest partner to the united states. it was always going to to be, as he said, in britain's best interest. is that still true today, with donald trump in the white house?

it is less true. we never, everjust did what the united states told us to do. on many occasions we had disagreements, but because personal relationships are so good, and george w bush's administration included some very, very senior and highly respected diplomats, like condoleezza rice and colin powell, as well as other people in the white house, we were able to resolve these difficulties internally. the critical thing about that was that it occurred in the shadow of 9/11. do we want very close relations with united states? of course we do. any government of the united kingdom that didn't would need their head examined. but that does not, should not, have meant that we should do what the united states want us to do. which is more difficult to deal

with for britain right now, the fact that it has real, significant differences with donald trump in washington, or the fact that it seems still, despite confusion, exiting the european union? well, of those two, the potentially more catastrophic for the united kingdom is exiting without a deal. now, i was in favour of remain, and from where i stood in the house of commons, i would be arguing with colleagues to do everything we could to stop prime minister johnson from exiting without a deal, because i just don't think he and his colleagues in the government have thought through the potential consequences. you are emphasising exiting without a deal. are you suggesting that exiting with a deal, goodness knows it looks unlikely, but it might happen, you're suggesting that exiting with an arrangement with the eu wouldn't have any impact on britain's influence and leverage around the world ? well, i think it will. that's one of my many arguments for staying in. but it would be far less disruptive to our economy and our standing in the world, without any question. but, you know, i'd prefer

there to be a second referendum, and for the british people to decide after all this wasn't such a good idea. that's not going to happen. it is not going to happen? frankly, i would imagine — you are still a member of the labour party. you have grave differences with the leader of the party, jerry corbyn, but you still vote labour. some of colleagues didn't. i did, so i'm not here to... so would you say that labour, your party, has a clear, coherent position on brexit? no. i mean, that's one of the major problems and one of the reasons we did so lamentably in those european elections of which you have just spoken. for us, we got 9% of

the popular vote in scotland. we used to dominate them. we lost seats to all the other parties. it was awful, and why did we do that? because we're standing in the middle of the road. and i'm afraid jeremy corbyn, who represents a very strong remain constituency, islington north, to my experience, is a brexiteer. what prime ministerjohnson said about it happens to be true. if he has meant what he said over years and years and years, his whole instinct is to see the european union as a capitalist club, and he wants out of that. so is your position that labour needs right now, as people like tom watson and emily thornbury have said, within the shadow cabinet, needs to come out as a party of remain? notjust a referendum, but remain? yes, and it needs to be clear about that. and of course it won't please everybody. some labour mps have made it quite clear that, if it comes to a no—deal brexit or no brexit at all,

they will choose no—deal brexit. but at the moment you're not pleasing anybody, because you're trying to ride these two horses, and they‘ re diverging. and jeremy corbyn has fallen in between those horses, to continue the metaphor. yes, and the politics of britain has radically changed the last week. borisjohnson has changed the political atmosphere. can a jeremy corbyn—led labour party win a general election fighting against boris johnson? i think that is extremely unlikely. you can never be — i actually thought that we would do very badly at the 2017 election. so did most people in the labour party, until the last week. so you can be surprised where you're predicting people's behaviour. but things have changed radically since the 2017 election. borisjohnson is a far more effective campaigner than theresa may turned out to be, and she was never a campaigner anyway. the scales have fallen from people's eyes about jeremy corbyn. for the 2017 election, he was able to be packaged as this rather kindly sort of grandfather figure, and he wasn't put under great examination in that election, not least because nobody including the broadcasters thought he was going to do well. but in the last two years, he has been put under scrutiny, and he will be still more. and we've had a taste of that in the last prime minister's questions — sorry, statement, that borisjohnson

made just before the recess, where he skinned corbyn. in your opinion? interesting you feel so strongly about it. i do. alastair campbell, he was the director of communications. just this morning, he hasjust said, "i can no longer be a member of the labour party." it's not a party i want to be in. corbyn's labour does not represent my hopes and my values. do you feeljust the same? not quite the same. i mean, i understand exactly why alastair campbell feels like that, but for him to be expelled just like that, in a millisecond, for having said that... just to be clear, for voting liberal democrat. again, serious allegations

of anti—semitism have had their cases postponed. so why on earth can't you say, this is not a party i can be in? because i'm still a member of the blackburn labour party. blackburn labour party remains a very good party. it's a momentum—free zone. it continues to attract support. and for me to leave the labour party would be for me to betray people who'd worked for me over a 30—year period. so you're burying into a little hole, and you can't see the big picture? no, i can see the big picture, and there may come a moment where i take a different view. if you ask me why, i'm giving you an explanation. i could, but it's about my personal loyalty to people who've been loyal to me, and to a town and to a cause in blackburn which remains on the same cause. i'm as distressed as anybody about the wayjeremy corbyn has brought down, and more to the point

the people he's allowed to have around him, like len mccluskey, who bears greatest responsibility, for bringing down this great party and corrupting its values. allowing us to, on good reason, to be called racist is just extraordinary. jack straw, we have got to the end. i thank you very much for being on hardtalk. thank you very much. hello. the good news is it's fairly quiet on the weather front but not com pletely on the weather front but not completely because we are expecting a few showers to develop on friday across some northern parts of the country and that does include

derbyshire. the good news is the chance of any heavy rain falling in the vicinity of that reservoir where the vicinity of that reservoir where the environment agency has a severe flood warning, well the chance of any further rainfall is very, very low and it is looking like it's going to be a mostly sunny day so some good news there, as i say, at least on the weather front. the forecast all the satellite pictures shows we are in between weather systems so clear skies across western and central areas towards the east by the early hours of friday morning, we will probably have some thicker cloud so anywhere from aberdeenshire all the way down into east anglia, the weather is looking pretty cloudy first thing was in the west, sunshine pretty much from the word go. mild morning. 15, 16 degrees across the south of the uk. he was the forecast for the rest of the morning. a lot of sunshine. that cloud in the east should disperse and give us a sunny day for places like hull and newcastle and a few showers developing across scotland, northern

parts of england, maybe one or two in the midlands, wales, or the south—west. the further east and south—west. the further east and south you are, i think you are in for a south you are, i think you are in fora dry south you are, i think you are in for a dry day. 25 in london. well, how about the cricket, the ashes? it's looking sunny, at least for the most —— most part. bright, temperatures in the low 20s, just the outside chance of one of those showers developing during the course of the afternoon. so that was friday. let's have a look at the weekend now and low pressure out there in the atlantic and front heading our way. that does mean things are going to cloud over and turn, for some of us, which through the course of the weekend. not immediately so. on saturday, a lot of bright weather around across england but notice in the west here, got increasing amounts of cloud and also some splits and spots of rain. a warm day, 25 in london in 20 newcastle and as we go into sunday, it looks as though those weather fronts will be approaching, wedging closer so that does spell some rain

for north—western areas and the thinking is that in scotland and northern england, during the course of the afternoon, and that does include areas a bit further south in derbyshire, we could see some heavy, thundery showers developing. the south of the country should be dry and very warm, temperatures may be as high as 28 in london. bye—bye.

welcome to newsday on the bbc. i am mariko 0i in singapore. the headlines: president trump imposes more tariffs on china, and he threatens they will go higher depending on how trade talks go. north korea fires another missile from its eastern coast, the third sale test in a week. —— missile test. i'm lewis vaughanjones in london. a by—election which could reduce the

government's majority to one. and the teenager who galloped