President Trump hits out at US allies over Iran

BBC Sounds, Music Radio Podcasts. Hello and welcome to NewsHour. It's coming to you live from the BBC World Service Studios in central London. I'm Tim Franks. Iran may still be the main target for the combined might of the US and Israeli military, but today, once again, President Trump has also taken aim at his country's allies, in particular the United Kingdom. Get some courage, he said in an early morning social media post. Go to the Strait of Hormuz and seize the blockaded oil yourselves. And while you're at it, start learning how to fight for yourself. The USA won't be there to help you anymore, just like you weren't there for us when we decapitated Iran. Shortly afterwards, his Defence Secretary, Pete Hexeth, in a briefing to journalists, amplified the call with a rather sardonic dig at Britain's naval forces. I think the President was clear this morning in his truth, that there are countries around the world who ought to be prepared to step up on this critical waterway as well. It's not just the United States Navy. Last time I checked, there was supposed to be a big bad Royal Navy that could be prepared to do things like that as well. I keep pointing out this is an international waterway that we use less than most, in fact dramatically less than most. Pete Hexeth, a little earlier today. Professor Kevin Rowlands is the former head of the British Royal Navy Strategic Studies Centre. He's now journal editor at the London Base Military think tank, the Royal United Services Institute. Is it feasible for the UK and other countries to just go and get the oil, as Donald Trump suggests? Is it feasible? Well, I guess it is. It's a question of timing, though, of course. Does he mean get it after the fighting is finished, or get it when bombs and missiles are still flying? Because those are two very different things. If it's after the war, the kinetic war, the missile bombing war is over, then I do think there's a role for regional allies, regional partners, particularly the Gulf Cooperation capsule countries, and perhaps the European countries, and perhaps the UK to form an international coalition and do something in terms of maritime peacekeeping in the region. If the bombs are still flying, it's a very different matter. It's very risky. Yeah. Well, you say if the bombs are still flying, I mean, presumably you're not just talking about US and Israeli bombs. You're talking about the Iranians and the threats that they're making, but I mean, indeed, some of the hits that they seem to have been achieving on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. The issue with any chote bomb, but in particular the Strait of Hormuz, with its great strategic significance, there's an issue of geography. It's a narrow strait. It's only 20 miles across at its narrowest point. On the Iranian side, there are mountains and islands. It's pretty easy for the Iranians to hide weapon systems, hide sensors, move them around, hide behind islands, in valleys and so on. So it's much easier for them to attack shipping than it is for a coalition or a single country to protect it. And so I think what we're talking about is, when I say the bombs flying, I do mean from both sides. If the fight is still ongoing, the Strait of Hormuz is a kill zone and it's going to be pretty difficult to protect shipping going through that. And of course, we need to think about the risk level of these are private ships, these are real people, these are the lives of seafarers. And this is market driven as well. Well, I was going to ask, I mean, you talk about it being market driven. I mean, I just wonder whether actually the calculation that many of these shipping companies and perhaps many of these governments that the US is currently disparaging will be that, look, distasteful, though it might be actually what we may have to do if Iran continues to have a chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz is simply pay our way, pay for safe transit, which is what the Iranians need to be suggesting. Any war, any conflict, or most wars and conflicts, finish with a diplomatic settlement rather than just, you know, complete military victory. And in this case, I do think the solution, the longer term solution will be one that is political and economic and diplomatic, whether that's the same as a total fare to drive your ships through or not. I don't know. And that brings in a whole range of legal questions and international norms about international, about straits and so on, which we probably don't want to get into because that's exactly what Russia is trying to do with the northern sea route as the ice melts in the in the Arctic. And we're very much against that. So I'm not sure we would want to want that to be the longer term solution. But I do think this isn't in the long term, this is not a military solution. This is political. Can I ask you, as somebody who has served for many years in the Royal Navy, I mean, we've heard some, you know, pretty wounding comments from Donald Trump from his Secretary of Defense, Pete Hexeth about the prowess of the Royal Navy. Once upon a time, the world's greatest naval force. Do they have a point? There is a point. And the point is that over over time, over decades, over successive governments of both parties, the armed forces of the United Kingdom have have reduced in in size. They may have increased in. We've got this horrible term called lethality, which means, you know, the effectiveness of each, each individual unit and, you know, they are better ships, better trained people, better outputs than ever before. But you can only be in one place at one time. So yes, there has been a reduction of forces overall. The Navy has reduced in size. And in particular for this region, there has been a drawdown of forces from the Middle East over the recent months and years. The former British Royal Navy officer, Professor Kevin Rowlands. Let's draw the focus out on into the diplomatic picture now. Robert Malley served as the US Special Envoy for Iran from 2021 to 2023. A week into the bombing campaign, he co-wrote an opinion piece for the New York Times expressing his concern about the wisdom of the US starting this war. Given his initial skepticism, what would he say would count as a good outcome now? Now, at this point, what's clear is this is not a war that can be or will be won. It's a lose on almost every scale. So the priority should be to end it. And what I thought basically from the outset is that this wouldn't be ended with some grand diplomatic bargain. It will be ended at some point when President Trump concludes he's done enough on the one hand and it's costing him too much on the other. And he will declare victory. And at that point, I think what's important is for countries to then turn to Iran and say, you've proven your point that you can hold the world economy hostage. You should end this war as well and not continue it in order to further make your point. I think what's interesting is to see that the country like China now seems to be more involved than it had been in the past. President Trump listens to them. Iranians have to listen to them. They have good relations with Gulf countries. So they may be able to provide this bridge between American aspirations, which are unattainable and Iran's desire to prove that it can absorb the cost of this war and make others pay for it even more. And provide what President Trump needs and what the Iranian leadership needs. Well, that's a fascinating point. You're suggesting that although there's a lot of talk about, you know, possibly Pakistan, possibly Turkey, possibly Egypt being intermediaries right now, that in the longer term it could be China taking a more prominent role in Middle East diplomacy? Well, what I'd say is this. What we're hearing from the Iranians is that they want some guarantee if the war ends that it's not going to resume. And they also want some kind of economic reconstruction package. Now, I don't know how they get that guarantee. There's no way to tie President Trump's hands. There's no way to tie Israel's hands. But that's why they seem to be expressing some hope that there'll be some collection of countries that are going to stand as guarantors. You can't do much better than China in that respect. And also China is a country that Iran is going to have a hard time saying no to given their importance. So they, I don't think the Chinese are the brokers of a deal. As I said, I don't think there even is a deal that ends this war. I think it's an American decision, President Trump's decision that he's had enough. But then the challenge is to make sure that Iran also ends its war because it is waging an asymmetric war in which it is extracting economic toll on the rest of the world. And there you would need a collection of countries that convinces Iran enough is enough. They have made their point. And there I'm saying China can play a role because of its special relationship with Iran, because it also wants to see the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz because of its dependence on Gulf oil. And because President Trump himself has some degree of desire to have good relations with China, he's about to travel there. So again, I don't see a real negotiation taking place now. What I see is a ceasefire that simply emerges out of American fatigue and persuasion on Iran that they too need to bring this to a close. Then the diplomacy begins and then some kind of arrangement is going to have to be found. But first things first, ending a war that is costing enormously to economies throughout the world and to human lives in the region. Can I pick you up on one thing which in normal times we just let slide by because it's an abbreviated way of speaking that we all use when you talked about dealing with Iran. One of the points that has been made is that the difficulty here in trying to just sort of get to a point where there is a cessation of hostilities is that the Iranian leadership, it's so fractured now. How far do you think that that is an issue at the moment? Well, I think what clearly is an issue is that it's hard for them to communicate. They can't get together. They can't make collective decisions. On the other hand, if you compare the U.S. and Iran and you would ask somebody coming from a different planet, which actor has been more predictable, which one has been more consistent in its pronouncements and in its actions? Hard to argue that Iran has not been more predictable, more institutionalized and more consistent in how it's spoken and acted from day one of this conflict. So despite the fragmentation of the regime and decapitation of their leadership, they seem to still have that cohesive capacity to stick to a policy from one day to the next and ongoing. Much less the case in the United States. So I'm not denying that it's going to be hard to reach a new decision if they need to end the war, to make sure that everyone is abiding by it. But again, just based on the last month, they do seem still to have the capacity to make a decision and to stick to it. And do you think once this war is done, the chances are that the leadership that does remain will race for a bomb? Well, I can say their motivation to reach a bomb is probably higher than it's ever been. On the other hand, their capacity in terms of building a bomb without being detected by the United States, without being detected by Israel, that is very low. So the desire will be there, their practical ability to reach that goal without provoking yet another round of conflict is not very high. So, you know, the US foreign policy often suffers from this malady of not understanding that causes have effects and that the war that's been waged and the fact that not once but twice at least the US has struck Iran in the middle of negotiations. That will have a long term impact on the thinking of this leadership in Iran, and it will lead them to believe that ultimately they made a mistake by not building a bomb. And one of the effects of this of this will be a grown constituency within the leadership to try to acquire a bomb. Again, I'm not sure that practically they can do it, but politically and strategically that that goal is is a stronger motivation that it had been in the past, which certainly is one of the unintended consequences of this unnecessary and unlawful war. And that was the former US Special Envoy for Iran, Robert Malley. You're listening to news air. It's coming to you live from the BBC. And coming up on the programme as Buckingham Palace confirms that King Charles will make a state visit to the US four weeks from now, we'll hear from a veteran former BBC broadcaster who thinks the visit should have been postponed. What the King does in the United States when he goes there will be determined by the government. I mean, he is a vehicle. He's a voice for British government policy. That's why I think nothing to do with him. They could have just pulled back a little bit on this visit and it would be a powerful rebuke that Trump would understand. I mean, he'd think, oh my God, why are they doing that? More on that in about 20 minutes. Our main headline this hour, President Trump has lashed out at US allies that have refused to become more involved in the war against Iran, telling Britain and others to go and get their own will from the Strait of Hormuz. You're with news. It's live from the BBC World Service. I'm Tim Franks. The countdown for NASA's Artemis II test flight has begun, all being well in just over 24 hours. Four astronauts will blast off on the first crewed flight to the moon in 50 years. There'll be a voyage around our nearest neighbor rather than landing on it. But the idea is that this mission will pave the way for a lunar landing and eventually a moon base. It's a huge deal, in other words. Dr Barbara Cohen is one of the project scientists for Artemis. I've just given this launch the big build up. We'll try to anyway. How would she do it? We're sending this crew of four crew beyond low Earth orbit, beyond even where the Apollo astronauts went, stepping out into space, sending not only this crew of four, but also the first woman, the first person of color and the first non American on our journey to learn to live and work off the planet Earth. We're building on our experience with the Apollo missions being able to land safely on the moon and return humans. Our shared enterprise of the International Space Station, where we learn to live to work together off the Earth's surface and taking all of that experience together to the moon to set up a lunar base and have a sustainable presence there, where we can continue to learn more about ourselves and what it takes to expand our sphere of influence and our sphere of the economy. And to understand more about the science of our nearest neighbor. I understand, you know, there's a there are many steps to go through yet, but what's the projected or hopeful timetable from getting from Artemis to this this swing around the moon to the next lunar landing to what you just mentioned, which is a full lunar base. Well, NASA is still working to release those details. We heard from the NASA administrator last week that we are hoping to send our first rude land admissions in 2028 and start the first phase of building out that lunar base by testing our technologies and emplacing assets. It'll take a while to build up for sure, just like any endeavor might take a little while. But we are hoping that we can take that experience and spend more and more time there, learn from those long duration stays and then be able to take that experience and move it out to Mars as well. You've talked about a lot of things that we should be excited about. One of the concerns that people have raised is cost. Some estimates that this mission has already cost more than $100 billion. And I guess some people will be asking, is it really worth it? Well, I think that societies spend money in a myriad of ways that they perceive to benefit their society and to advance their societies. You're not wrong. Space exploration is somewhat of a luxury, but it also brings real tangible benefits to people on Earth in terms of pushing our technologies, developing new technologies that we infuse into life on Earth. For example, GPS. Our life support systems are things that we might want to take advantage of in inhospitable climates here on Earth. Water recycling systems. Understanding how our bodies respond to different environments. Those are things that benefit life on Earth. Maybe there are other ways to do that as well, but there are lots of ways to accomplish these things. So this is one of the ways that we choose to expand our knowledge. And if we could add it and use it in some other better way, that's a debate that our societies can have. You began by talking about how this mission is going to be taking humanity further than it has ever traveled before. And again, I guess if some of our listeners around the world might sort of pick up on that word, humanity, because these are fractured times, fractured times within the United States, fractured times around the world. And I know during the late 60s when the Apollo mission first launched, they were very, very turbulent times as well. But is this really something that can transcend national boundaries, you think? Certainly hope so. You're right about the turbulent times during the Apollo missions. We also had some turbulent times when we were building out the International Space Station. I think this is something that brings nations together, that advances all of our technological ambitions, feeds into our industrial base, feeds into our scientific curiosity and our desire to build out scientific knowledge and bring those benefits back to everyone. And that was Dr. Barbara Cohen, one of the project scientists for Artemis Launch Time 4. Artemis 2 is set for just over 24 hours. Going through fertility treatment can be a difficult experience for many couples. And for those travelling abroad and using sperm or egg donors, there's a different set of challenges. Northern Cyprus is a popular destination for those seeking more affordable IVF, but there's no independent fertility regulator. The BBC has spoken to parents who have used clinics there and now believe that their chosen donors were not used. Anna Collinson has this report. Siblings Kate and James are looking through a photo album with their parents. Their two mums, Beth and Laura, each underwent IVF to have their children. The same sex couple needed a sperm donor. They selected an anonymous Danish man known as Finn from a sperm bank. They're showing me his profile. They were right, witty, creative, optimistic, strong physically and mentally. It was really important that they had some sense of who he is. Because that's half of them. It's half their genetics, their DNA, shapes their identity, their sense of self, who they are. As Beth and Laura would each be a biological mother to one child, they wanted donor Finn to be used in all IVF procedures to ensure their children were biologically related. They paid their fertility clinic in Northern Cyprus to import Finn's sperm. When did you start thinking, not everything is adding up here? So when James was born, we expected him to have blue eyes and he didn't. So that kind of rung a bit of an alarm bell. The family decided to do a series of DNA tests. They're meeting with a leading genetics expert to find out their results. Beth and Laura, I've got your results here in these envelopes. After a few minutes of quiet reading, Beth tells us the findings. So it says that Kate and James are unrelated. Is there any possibility whatsoever in your mind that they might be related? No. Professor Denise Sinterkamp-Court has analysed all of the family's DNA tests. She says not only are the children from different sperm donors, she thinks it's unlikely either are from donor Finn. Beth and Laura have gone from knowing a lot about their children's donor to knowing nothing at all. What screening have they done for the donor in terms of health checks and also how many donations have they done? Beth and Laura's IVF treatment was in Northern Cyprus, one of the most popular destinations for British people seeking fertility treatment abroad. Clinics there promise high success rates, low costs and even a sunny holiday. Many patients say they have positive experiences there, but our investigation has uncovered a more disturbing side. The families of seven children have told me they believe they were given the wrong sperm or egg donors at clinics in Northern Cyprus. Most of them have now done DNA tests. That's an absolutely appalling position to be in. That should never, ever happen. Dr Ippocrates Saris from the British Fertility Society has viewed our findings. It's important to say that there's nothing inherently wrong with what's called cross-border medicine and it happens quite a lot. However, the moment you exit the shores of this country, you rely on the local regulation of wherever you're having treatment. Northern Cyprus is only legally recognised by Turkey and has its own fertility laws. Unlike the UK, it does not have an independent regulator monitoring its clinics. Beth and Laura's doctor denies any wrongdoing and the clinic where they had their treatment has not responded to our questions. Oh, wait, no, everyone's got something on the sound. Back on a beach in south-west England is a family coming to terms with what they've discovered, particularly James. How did you feel when you saw your DNA results? Upset because, like, you can't just say someone's this and then they're not. Identity is the main thing. It's who you are as a person, really. And that report by the BBC's Anna Collinson. You're listening to NewsHour. Welcome back to NewsHour. It's been at the forefront of innovation and technology, albeit at the slightly pricier end of things since 1976. On Wednesday, April 1st, the computer giant Apple will celebrate its 50th anniversary. Bloomberg's technology editor, Shona Gosh, took Sarah Montague on a trip of technology-nosed nostalgia. We have college dropout, Steve Jobs, his co-founder Steve Woznak, and we're in the 1970s, so computers exist, but they're not really mainstream. Computers are supposed to make life easier, but what they didn't tell you is that life does not get easier right away. For many newcomers, PC stands for pain and confusion. Jamie Gold is about to buy her first computer. She hardly knows where to start. How do you turn this one on? And Steve Woznak, he essentially builds the first Apple computer by himself and shows it off at this computer club. Now, Jobs, very good friends with Steve Woznak at this point, says, this thing's great. Why don't we set up our own company and sell our own computers? And they always, well, from very early days, had quite unusual designs, even for their chunky computers. Now I'd like to show you Macintosh in person. All of the images you are about to see on the large screen will be generated by what's in that bag. But then, of course, it's, I guess, the iPhone that takes them stratospheric. It is, and phones exist. Smartphones exist, but it's Apple that really understands and nails the design. These are not three separate devices. This is one device. And we are calling it iPhone. Today, Apple is going to reinvent the phone. And here it is. The interesting thing in forming this is that Jobs, he's obviously technically knowledgeable, but he's not a coder. He's not an engineer. He's a systems thinker. He thinks in the round about what you might want from your devices. One of the most influential people in technology is not particularly technical themselves, but it's this idea of what humans want from the technology. That was his sort of guiding principle. The physical beauty of the device has always been a big facet that informs Apple's designs. These ideas are sort of very colorful, small devices, and it was probably quite unreasonable with his design demands. But he always had this idea that something should be very easy to use, even if it appeared impossible to make. For years, I remember that whole kind of like, oh, the new iPhones being launched and there was a tremendous amount of excitement about it. But actually, phones haven't changed that much in recent years. So what next for a company that wants to stay ahead of the game? As sort of it becomes harder to innovate and hardware, the physical devices that you buy, increasingly companies are looking to software. So if you think about Google, Microsoft, Meta, Amazon, all these big players are mostly innovating on the software side. But Apple is struggling a little bit there. No one talks about Apple's AI proposition. They all talk about chat GPT or Claude from Anthropic or even Google Gemini. And this is somewhere where Apple lags and has always lagged, actually. So for Apple, it might need to think very hard about how it continues to innovate in a more software driven world. And that's a problem it's still trying to solve. Shona Gosh from Apple, from Bloomberg, I should say, on 50 years of Apple. This is NewsHour from the BBC World Service. I'm Tim Franks. The UN's top human rights official, Volker Tuch, has become the latest senior international figure to condemn the Israeli parliament's decision. We covered it on the programme yesterday to reinstate the death penalty for acts of terrorism. Deeply disappointing, he called it, and deeply discriminatory. In that it will become the default penalty for Palestinians convicted in the Occupied West Bank for lethal attacks against Israelis. I say he's the latest to protest against the move. Several major European countries had warned against the Knesset taking this step. Today, a spokesperson for the European Union Commission called it a clear step backwards. Natalie Tocci is an Italian international relations expert who's worked at the highest levels in the EU's foreign policy arm. She's also critical of recent Israeli actions. So does she think the EU now needs to go beyond expressions of disquiet? Well, yes. I mean, I definitely think that the time has come. In fact, the time had come quite some time ago. When just weeks before the Gaza ceasefire and the Trump plan came about, Europe and the European Union in particular were moving towards going beyond words of condemnation and concern. Also, La Wunderlein, Commission President, a staunch supporter of Israel had gone in September 2025 to the European Parliament proposing a suspension of the trade preferences under the EU-Israel Association Agreement. So this is as close as the EU had got to sanctions. And then, of course, what happened was the ceasefire came about, and that allowed, I think, Europeans to sort of fall back into the comfort zone of, hey, there's a peace process. As we know, it was a ceasefire in between one bombing and another. And yet the diplomatic dance continued. And now what you've been seeing is this buildup of basically a truth that once again can no longer be denied. So it's not only what's happening in Gaza. It's not only what's happening in the West Bank. It's not only that a fifth of the Lebanese population has been displaced. It's not only the attacks on Iran. And then, of course, you get to the slaw, which is so explicitly racist, and it basically becomes the straw that breaks the camel's back. And it forces Europe back where it was before the Trump plan came about. And so I think, indeed, it's getting back to the situation in which you can't pretend and you can't just express your concern. Obviously, the Israeli government, I mean, just to get this on the record, the Israeli government would dispute, A, that this is a racist law when it comes to the death penalty. I know that many people have said that it is discriminatory, but that it is not drawn explicitly to say that only Palestinians will be condemned to death. And also, obviously, there is Israel's argument about what it's doing in Lebanon, what it's doing in Iran, that it's doing the hard work on behalf of what it sees as Western civilization. Getting beyond those substantive points, though, to what the European Union response should be, if it is to show its displeasure in a more pronounced way. You mentioned the EU-Israel Association Agreement and the possibility of suspending parts of that. If that were to happen, that could be agreed by a majority in the EU. It wouldn't need to have unanimity. Does that then mean, basically, we're talking about where the Germany would vote for it? So if we go back to what the numbers look like in September, there was already a numerical majority, because 17 member states that you had signalled that they would vote in favor of a suspension. But there were still not two-thirds of the population. And this is because both Italy and Germany, and of course these are two of the largest member states, were against. So the qualified majority requires both the majority in the number of countries and a majority of the overall population of the European Union. It would require either Italy or Germany switching. And at the moment, they're still not signalling, they're moving this direction. But the question is, you know, as Israel's actions become more and more extreme, if they are forced into that, particularly when it comes, if I think about my own country, Italy, particularly when it comes to public opinion. There were millions in the street back in September protesting against what was considered by many protesters, and let's see whether the International Court of Justice will eventually consider to be a genocide in Gaza. So there was a big push in this direction. And so domestic politicians, including very Israel-friendly politicians like my own Prime Minister, George Ameloni, may be forced in a position which they don't actually themselves want to be in. But events may push them in that direction, notwithstanding. So the European Union has already suspended certain forms of bilateral assistance to Israel. It's also imposed sanctions on individuals accused of violence in the West Bank, as has the United Kingdom. What do you think is stopping those countries from going further forward? Well, because it would be real harm to Israel. Given that Israel doesn't really receive much hate, suspending one or two million is nothing. If you suspend approximately 14 billion worth of trade preferences, that is a real punishment. And that is basically where European politicians have up until now not been willing to go. Early on in this war that the US and Israel unleashed on Iran, Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission President, said Europe can no longer be a custodian for the old world order. We can no longer rely on it as the only way to defend our interests. Do you think that maybe Europe is changing? You're absolutely right. We were beginning to see a shift in that more, let's say, embracing predatory powers in the world direction. But I think Europeans are beginning to almost rather rapidly get cold feet over what the implications are if they indeed go in a direction of embracing raw power. Natalie Tocci, formerly a senior advisor in the EU's external services arm. We began the program with the tongue lashing or social media post lashing to be precise that President Trump had delivered early morning Washington time to the UK and others about having to learn how to fight for themselves and get the supplies they need for themselves through the Strait of Hormuz. Mr Trump's comments came less than an hour before Buckingham Palace announced that the British king and queen would travel to the US next month for a state visit, which has got some people in the UK wondering whether that's such a good idea. Opinion polls suggest there isn't public support for the visit. The leader of the opposition Liberal Democratic Party has said that it should be cancelled. David Dimbleby is a former BBC presenter who for decades fronted all the major royal events as well as election coverage and other big ticket numbers. The timing may be a bit awkward, but would it not be more awkward for this long trail visit now not to go ahead? Well it depends how that would be handled. I mean I can see an elegant diplomatic way of getting out of it which would consist of saying something along the lines of while the President is so obviously busily engaged in the Iraq war the government thinks it's not an ideal time to turn focus away from that onto a state banquet and a speech in Congress which would of course have amounted to a massive rebuke to President Trump. Yeah, but that's rather dangerous isn't it? Well is it dangerous? He's a bully and if bullies are confronted what do they do? They normally pull back a bit. Or they could lash out. Well what more can he do to lash out? I mean the king is going there of course at the government's behest but the king is the head of the armed forces. It's Trump who said that in Afghanistan we played a minor role and we went to an area that wasn't very important, they didn't really need us. Well that is deeply insulting. So there are good grounds for saying that Trump himself has been really rude not just about our European partners and about NATO and maybe good reasons for saying NATO hasn't been pulling its weight in the European field The language that he uses is always this language of the extreme and I think that when you get somebody who talks like that it's a good idea occasionally to remind them that they're not the only people on the planet. America is not that important to Britain actually. Our relationship with the United States has never been one of close intimate friendship over centuries. It's been a negotiation where we've played our part. You know they were late in on World War One, they were late in on World War Two. It's not like we're sort of cousins or bonded. It's a negotiated relationship and therefore you should play your own cards your own way. And I understand that argument. Let me try a couple of counter arguments. One is that it is not an equal relationship and Britain is still as NATO is still hugely dependent on American military and on the American intelligence services and so forth. And therefore that has to be handled sensitively for the next three years of the Trump presidency. The other thing is I mean you could argue that although President Trump has lashed out at this British government he is still by American presidents standards quite an anglophile and a fan of the royal family. He likes the idea of the royals. Yes I know. He has a sort of fairytale view of Britain and a fairytale view of the monarchy and that's fine and it's good to trade on that but it doesn't mean you have to go all out with bells and whistles all the time. I think there's a way of using that exact passion he has for the royal family just to pull back a little bit. Of course we have intelligence relationships with the United States. Of course there'll be a post-Trump era. I don't quite know what it'll be. I just think that on this particular occasion at this time there is something embarrassing for Britain having schmoozed him at the beginning of the presidency with the offer of a unique second visit to Britain and then to go over there on a state visit. I just think it's awkward and I think it's embarrassing for the monarch though they're always been put in embarrassing positions and never forget the Queen having to entertain President Ceausescu of Romania the most ghastly dictator at Buckingham Palace and hating every minute of it but doing it because that was her duty. Of course that's always true. So it's the government. The question is was the government right not to just put a slight break on this and I think they could have put a break on it. One question for the King and you as an extremely experienced royal watcher I just wonder what you think of this. There are questions as to whether he should meet victims of Epstein the late sex offender. Yes. I mean is he his brother's keeper is what you're saying really. Yeah. And I mean they've expressed quite clearly their revulsion at what Epstein did and therefore what his brother did. I don't know. His brother is always insistent. Of course he's done nothing wrong. Of course but I don't think meeting the victims would serve any real purpose. I mean what the King does in the United States when he goes there will be determined by the government. The words he speaks will be approved by government of speech he makes in Congress will be approved by the government. I mean he is a vehicle. He's a voice for British government policy. That's why I think nothing to do with him. They could have just pulled back a little bit on this visit and it would be a powerful rebuke that Trump would understand. And they'd think oh my God why are they doing that. You know I love Britain. I love the Royal Family. Yeah but you were a bit tough on Britain and you were a bit rude about our armed forces and we don't really like that because we can stick up for ourselves just as you think you can stick up for the United States. And that was David Dembelby a former chief BBC presenter. The press association here in the United Kingdom says and since we recorded that interview with David he said that has said that it understands that the King and Queen will not be able to meet survivors of the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein during their state visit while there are ongoing UK police investigations into matters related to Epstein. This is news hour. This is news hour live from the BBC and we've got an extraordinary story to bring you out of Germany now that of a woman being bitten by a wolf while she was near an IKEA store in Hamburg. The 65 year old woman appears to have been trying to lead the disoriented animal that had kept on smacking itself into a glass wall. She'd been trying to lead it away from this major shopping street when the wolf bit her on the face and ran off. The woman was taken to hospital but has since been discharged. Castan Novak is a specialist in wolves at the Zinkenberg Nature Research Society in Germany. They are very un-experienced. They do long migrations in search of a new territory and sometimes very very rarely they end up in the vicinity of a village and in this case even in a big city. The wolf has been cited for at least the last two days within the city. It never approached people or dogs or whatsoever. It seems that it was simply lost and completely lost orientation. When people think about wolves you may well think well you know this is an incredibly aggressive animal so it shouldn't be a surprise that it launched an attack. Are you saying that actually this was not necessarily or should not necessarily be seen as an act of aggression but perhaps one of panic? Yeah it is quite obvious that this was a reaction of panic. A wolf that accidentally gets trapped in a shopping mall. That's an absolute crazy situation for a wolf. So this wolf was surely horrified by all the people, the noise, the lights and everything you find in a shopping mall. It tried to escape. It repeatedly hit the glass door. Finally a woman came, thought of course, thought it was a dog. Tried to help this one, the wolf bit her in the face. It doesn't seem to be a too serious injury. She could leave the hospital the same day if a wolf would do a predatory attack for instance. For sure this would have ended differently. I know that it's been fewer than 40 years since wolves returned to Germany. Has the effort sort of encouraged the return of the wolf? Are people saying that perhaps it's been a bit too successful and that maybe either that there are too many wolves or that they are approaching too close to urban environments? Of course there's a public discussion about the issue. Wolves have spread from one single pack actively migrating in from Poland. We now have more than 200 wolf packs. Problems with livestock kills are increasing and of course especially farmers, livestock keepers do not appreciate this rapid return. But most of the population that not directly involved is very positive about wolves and appreciates that return and there has never been any attack on humans so far. I'm not sure I've ever asked anybody this question, Castan, but do you have any advice about what one should do if one does come across a wolf, particularly in an urban environment? Usually there is no direct danger from the wolf. I would stay away from the wolf. Probably it has not even recognized you so make some noise that it recognized you that it has the chance to escape from you. Wolves are pretty shy actually and very careful in situations which they cannot judge, which they are not used to. So usually you don't need to be afraid of wolves. Castan Novak, specialist in wolves at the Zankenburg Nature Research Society in Germany. Now we've spent a fair bit of the program as we have over the last month talking about Donald Trump and his foreign policy, his war in Iran. There's something rather closer to home that is currently exercising him because since we've been on air, a US judge has temporarily halted his White House Ballroom Construction project. The BBC's Ioni Wells is in our Washington Bureau. Ioni, why has the judge ruled? Well essentially the judge has decided following a lawsuit that was brought against this project by a preservation group, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, that Donald Trump didn't have the authority to approve funding or alterations to what is federal property without the approval of Congress, without further public oversight. At the time that both this project was announced, but also the moment when we saw those diggers go in, when we saw the East Wing be demolished, critics did look on in horror at what they saw as huge changes to this huge symbol of the nation without much public oversight. And that is what this legal challenge is all about. Now essentially the judge has said that construction will have to stop within two weeks, unless Donald Trump manages to launch a successful appeal before then. Right, and I dare say appeal there will be. Donald Trump himself, has he taken time out of his busy day to react to all this? He has and on his favourite platform of choice, he has posted on Truth Social, attacking the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which is that group that brought the lawsuit against the project, accusing them of, in his words, being a radical left group of lunatics. He said that they overlooked other projects that were over budget elsewhere in the US, but have chosen to oppose this ballroom, which he said was under budget, was ahead of schedule, didn't come at a cost to the taxpayer, and was in his words, the finest building of its kind anywhere in the world. So he's clearly, as expected, not happy at all about this decision, as I say, he may choose to appeal it. If he doesn't successfully appeal though, construction will have to be paused. Interestingly though, the judge did also point out that it isn't too late for him to get that congressional approval. So if this does end up going to Congress, if they did approve it, then again, that would allow this project to continue. And it is a project on a vast scale, isn't it? I mean, at least as far as the rest of the White House is concerned. Yeah, it's huge. And that is by design. Part of the purpose of this ballroom was to host much bigger events, big state dinners, for example, even host balls, essentially be able to increase the capacity of some of those events. At the moment, it's typical, for example, when some of these big dinners are held or events are held, that there are marquees put up, for example, outside the White House, something which Donald Trump has criticised. And he wants this to be a much bigger scale for hosting those kinds of events. Interestingly, actually recently as well, he has described it as a shed for what's underneath, saying that there would be a military complex underneath it as well. So he certainly has very ambitious plans for it and is not happy with the fact that at the moment it's going to be paused. Yeah, and presumably, I mean, this is a, although a big construction project, it's one very briefly, I and he once completed before he leaves office. Yeah, definitely. This is part of a wider push by Donald Trump to try and make his mark on Washington, really, and impose several changes. He's, I think, suggested others, including a massive arch over the river. And I think this is the latest he wants to leave for his legacy. Well, any Wells correspondent in Washington, thanks very much for bringing us the latest on that. And that brings us to an end of this edition of NewsHour. From me, Tim Franks, and the team here in London, thanks for listening.