Strikes between Israel and Iran continue

BBC Sounds Music Radio Podcasts Hello and welcome to News Hour from the BBC World Service. We're coming to you live from London. I'm Leila Nathu. The US Supreme Court is considering whether birthright citizenship should be limited. Later in the programme we'll hear from lawyer Amanda Frost, who was waiting to get into the building. It's a beautiful day here in Washington DC. People are standing in line. They've been here since 6am as have I and I think people I hear around me are discussing the likelihood of a result either in favour of the government or the challengers and feelings are mixed. It has opened up a question which had thought to be long settled, as would inevitably happen when the President of the United States challenges a long-standing constitutional interpretation through such an order. But first, another day, another timetable from President Trump for the end to his war with Iran. That was Donald Trump speaking to reporters in the Oval Office. He's also signalled that the US could stop bombing Iran, even if the two countries don't agree a deal. And he's due to make an address to the nation later about the conflict. Meanwhile Iran's President Masoud Pazeshkian has said his country has the necessary will to end the war as long as certain conditions are met. A communications blackout means it's not easy to hear directly from people inside Iran. But here's what one prominent activist and spokesperson for the Iranian Teachers Trade Union Mohammad Habibi posted on X yesterday. His words have been voiced by one of the BBC's team. Iran's state media has reported explosions across the capital Tehran and a strike on Shahid Haganiport, Iran's largest passenger terminal. Siobhash Adalan is here with me. He's from the BBC's Persian service. Siobhash, just bring us up to date with the latest from what you're hearing inside Iran. Israel and US forces have launched new waves of strikes in different Iranian cities, including those that you mentioned. This is on the back of several other strikes that they carried out, notably not just on military centres, but on civilian infrastructure, which they say has dual purpose use. For example, universities, research centres, industrial centres and so on. But the Iranian authorities are not taking any chances with President Trump's possible statement tonight about perhaps offering a ceasefire. If that's on the cards, they perhaps think that the US is using this talk of negotiations and ceasefires as a smoke screen to launch an invasion of Iran's territory, either the islands or the mainland. And just about 10 minutes ago, President Trump posted another post on his social media platform saying that the Iranian regime much less radicalized and far more intelligent than his predecessors, just as the United States of America for a ceasefire. The Iranian authorities have not confirmed this. They have said that they have not asked for any ceasefire. In fact, they have put forward their own counter proposals to US's peace plans, which are in themselves very maximalists. And the gap between what the US wants and what Iran wants as a ceasefire is so wide that it seems the only way for the US to proceed now is either to escalate or just to leave the scene. It is really difficult to have a proper understanding of what is actually going on, given these conflicting messages from both the US and Iran. But meanwhile, if Iran does fear that the US is preparing a ground invasion, it is continuing to retaliate against the Gulf States. And it has done that. Iran, just the IRGC spokesperson, announced that Iran has carried its own wave of strikes against Israel and against countries in the region. Retaliation for the attacks that they carried out on Iran's industrial centers. So they have not just attacked some of the economic infrastructure in the Arab Gulf countries, but they've also attacked US bases where they think the US is preparing to launch an invasion. Some of their refueling resources and assets in the region. These are the places where Iran is claiming to have attacked and is also claiming that has inflicted casualty dozens of US soldiers that it claims to have killed. Of course, SENTCOM rejected that. And we've just had another written message, at least from Iran's new Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei. We still haven't heard from him or seen him in public. But what does the message say? His messages are either condolences, for example, for the people who have been killed, whether it be the Secretary General of the Lebanese Hezbollah, whether it be the head of Iran's IRGC naval command. What we have seen from him, we haven't seen any visuals, we haven't heard him yet. These are just statements that are being issued on his part. And it makes it very difficult to understand exactly what's going on. And that's what makes it very difficult to verify whether Iran even has offered a ceasefire or whether to verify President Trump's statements that Iranian leadership now has become less radicalized or more reasonable, because we don't even know who is in charge, who is calling the shots. Is it the Supreme Leader? Is it IRGC? Is it the head of the parliament? Is it government? We have no idea who actually is calling the shots and how the decision-making structure has shifted. So it's very difficult to say who the Americans are actually talking to or sending messages to. And who is actually driving any form of strategy in these talks that may or may not even be taking place. Thanks so much, Siobhass Adelund there, from the BBC's Persian Service. Well, President Trump has also told Britain's Daily Telegraph newspaper that he's strongly considering pulling the US out of NATO, describing the alliance as a paper tiger, and said US withdrawal from the pact was now beyond reconsideration. The President has repeatedly called on US allies to join his war against Iran and helped force the reopening of the blockaded Strait of Hormuz. He again singled out the UK for criticism mocking its military capabilities. Britain's Prime Minister, Saqqir Stama, had this response to the President's comments. NATO is the single most effective military alliance the world has ever seen. And it has kept us safe for many decades and we are fully committed to NATO. Secondly, that whatever the pressure on me and others, whatever the noise, I'm going to act in the British national interest in all the decisions that I make. And that's why I've been absolutely clear that this is not our war, or we're not going to get dragged into it. But I'm equally clear that when it comes to defence and security and our economic future, we have to have closer tries with Europe. Well, Evo Dolder is a former US ambassador to NATO. Now a senior fellow at Harvard University's Belfast Centre and also host of a weekly podcast. President Trump has long been critical of NATO and claimed US allies aren't pulling their weight. Could Iran be a tipping point for him? Well, I certainly think this is the worst crisis that the alliance has faced. And it's almost 77 year history. The treaty was signed on April 4th, 1949. So three days from now, we will celebrate that history. The president, as she said, has never been a fan of NATO. He, in fact, tried to withdraw from NATO back in 2018 in his first term when was dissuaded by his Defense Secretary, National Security Advisor. But he no longer is surrounded by people who will tell him not to do things. That includes the Secretary of State slash National Security Advisor, Marco Rubio, who as a senator co-sponsored an amendment saying that the United States could not withdraw from NATO without a two thirds approval of the US Senate. But just the other days that maybe NATO was no longer of use to the United States. So I'm deeply worried that we may be at a point where things are moving in a direction that some have seen for coming for a while, but never really thought would happen. So a potentially very dangerous moment for the alliance. But he's rewriting, isn't he, the terms of the alliance? I mean, he didn't consult allies about the operation against Iran. It's not a defensive military operation. Correct. I mean, there's no reason to blame NATO for the failures of planning, of strategy, of thinking through all of the ramifications of launching a war of choice that was both unnecessary, given that negotiations were still ongoing on the nuclear file, and illegal under international law. So the idea that somehow because there are now problems that were created by this war, including the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, that somehow that is NATO's problem is frankly ridiculous. But it doesn't matter because this president doesn't think in in in pure and strategic terms. His view is that there is a problem here. I don't want to solve it. NATO will have to solve it. If NATO doesn't, then that is for them to decide. And I think that's what we're going to hear tonight. A ceasefire will be will be announced. And the president, like Senator George Aiken in 1966, said with regard to the Vietnam War, we declare victory and we're going home. Do you think that his his threats to NATO and his his criticism of it is actually a calculation to try and bounce allies into doing something he could reasonably say, well, look, I put pressure on or NATO countries to up their defense spending in the context of support for Ukraine. That worked. Couldn't I have another go? Well, one would hope that what it is is a is a strategic game in order to convince the Europeans allies of NATO to do more on defense and to do more in terms of securing the state if and when it is open. The but that assumes that the president actually has a positive view of NATO, a positive view of of what Europeans can contribute. And an idea that America's security depends on European security. Every president before Donald Trump has believed that, but he doesn't. He believes that American security is is not linked to Europe. And that if Europeans are unwilling to take care of their own defense, then that's for them to to resolve rather than for the United States. So yes, hopefully there this is a strategic calculation for Europe to do more. I fear, however, that this may be a strategic calculation for the United States to do less. What, if anything, can Secretary General of NATO, Mark Rutter, do to keep President Trump on side at this point? Well, I think the time for the Trump whisperers to try to get the president to to move in a different direction may have come and gone. It is pretty clear over the past 15 months that the president follows his own advice. He follows his own gut. He thinks his own gut is more is often more informed than than even the greatest expert. And I think the best thing that that Secretary General Rutter can do is to focus on European defense and to make sure that the Europeans are prepared to deal with Ukraine, to deal with Russia, to bolster their commitments within NATO and to strengthen NATO if and when the day comes that the United States is reducing, if not eliminating its commitment. Evo D'Older, former US ambassador to NATO, thanks so much for joining us here on News Hour. Coming up on the program, how will Italy's failure to qualify for the World Cup for a third consecutive time impact the next generation of footballers? The problem is that the World Cup is such a defining moment for generations. These are really moments where everyone comes together and they define our lives and they have been deprived of that. More on that in about half an hour's time. First, let's get the main headlines from our newsroom. Global stock markets have risen and oil prices have fallen after President Trump again said the war against Iran could be over in a couple of weeks. Britain says it will host a multinational meeting this week to discuss how to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and India, the world's most populous nation, is undertaking a census of its more than 1.4 billion residents. You're listening to News Hour with me, Leila Nafi. We're live from the BBC World Service in London. Well, the weather looks to be on their side at the moment. NASA is crossing its fingers that its planned Artemis moon mission scheduled to take off from Florida later will not be derailed by cloud, rain or strong winds. If it isn't delayed, it will be the first time in 50 years that NASA has sent astronauts towards the moon. The team of four won't land on the surface, but they'll be laying the ground for a planned lunar landing in 2028. Well, Professor Kevin Fong is a consultant anaesthetist and professor of public engagement and innovation at University College London. He's also worked with NASA on human space flight as a medical doctor previously. Welcome to News Hour. Thanks for coming into the studio. Just give us a sense of what the astronauts are going to be facing in this next 10 days. I mean, it's a huge mission, right? And it's really exciting. We're deep into the countdown now. We're within eight hours, I think, of the scheduled launch. They'll be suiting up right now, getting ready to go on this mission. And listen, you can't overstate what this is. This is the first time we're leaving low Earth orbit for more than half a century. And all this time, we've been doing great things on the space station on shuttle and elsewhere, but that's all not much more than about 250 miles from the surface of the Earth. This is an object in space that's a quarter of a million miles across the void between Earth and Moon. And they're going there. They're going to travel faster than anyone has traveled in more than 50 years. So they've got a lot on. They've got a busy 10 days ahead. You say they're suiting up. They're very fetching orange color. They're suits. I think they've been specially designed for this mission. What do we know about how they're going to work and how important they are? So the space suits are, well, they're not space suits. They're launch escape suits, the Orion launch escape suits. And the reason they wear those is because part of what makes space space is that you're in the near vacuum of space. And if for any reason there is a malfunction and they lose the atmosphere, they lose the pressure inside the capsule, they need something to help them survive. And that's both during the relatively early phases of launch and when they're on mission. So they're going to be wearing these so-called pressure suits that really contain an atmosphere around them, an atmosphere that they can breathe and an atmosphere that pushes on their bodies and keeps their bodies working. And the fascinating thing here is once you're above about 60,000 feet, which is really not very far towards the moon, your blood starts to boil even at room temperature. So it's not great and not be without a suit in space. So all sorts of contingency plans for any eventuality. There's also the design of the spacecraft itself is different this time. What do you know about that? Yeah, so this is fascinating. So I was there for the last shuttle launch in 2011. The shuttle was a fantastic vehicle, very complicated. But really we've gone back to capsules and rockets because it's safer. The capsule now sits on top of the launcher rather than on the side as shuttle did. And what that means is that this is a very robust vehicle. That means that they have the so-called anytime abort capability, which means there is no phase for the mission in which in theory, they cannot activate an abort, which gives the astronauts a fighting chance of surviving. That wasn't true of space shuttle. Space shuttle had a few periods of flight in which it would have been an impossible for the crews to escape. And we saw that tragically in Challenger in 1986. So it's not a moon landing this time. What exactly are they going to test ahead of the next mission? Yeah, so this is very clearly a test flight. Artemis 2 is about checking out the systems in the vehicle to make sure they're ready for the next stage of this lunar exploration. You know, three of the four crew members here are formerly previously test pilots of high performance jets. And indeed, this is a test pilot mission. And indeed, Christine Acock is not a test pilot, but she's a flight engineer and she's an electrical systems expert. So they're going to get themselves into low earth orbit for a day or so. Check the vehicle out, make sure it's working while they're still close to home. And then they're going to inject themselves for about three days on the way to the moon coast by the moon, they're not going to go into orbit around the moon and they're not going to land on the moon. And then they're going to come back. And I say coast, but this is still a huge adventure for them. And it is really exciting. I think it is. Well, it is the most exciting adventure we've had in human spaceflight for over half a century. Absolutely fabulous. Can't wait to see if it goes ahead. Professor Kevin Fong, thanks so much for joining us to talk through the Artemis mission, which is hoping to take off within hours from Florida. Now, Apple is celebrating 50 years in business. On this day in 1976, Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs with Ron Wayne launched a new company to develop and sell personal computers with its instantly recognizable logo. It's now one of the world's most valuable firms and says it has 2.5 billion active devices across the world, including laptops, phones and smartwatches. What drove its staggering rise and can it maintain its dominance in today's competitive tech landscape? Let's talk to Kevin Curran, Professor of Cybersecurity at Ulster University in Northern Ireland. Kevin, why is Apple so successful? It's been a perfect storm of visionary leadership, relentless innovation and execution in a masterful way. The products came out at the right time, really. The Macintosh, which is 40 years ago, I used it 42 years ago, the Apple 2B, it introduced the graphical user interface that we're all familiar with and the mouse to the masses. Then they didn't rest there and then they had the iPod and the iTunes again that killed the CD era. Then the mobile phones, of course, the iPhone, of course, and the iPad then taken over the tablet market. It's notable, Apple rarely invent first, but what they do is they come along and they perfect and they popularize these categories as well. Also, again, they're obsessive design, the iPhone and the products become objects of desire, even from the unboxing. They have a brand loyalty. People stick with the ecosystem, especially if you're going between your iPad, your iPhone, and your MacBook, whatever else. Things pair so seamlessly across the ecosystem. That's really interesting that they haven't been the pioneers in innovation themselves, but just shown this incredible ability to adapt. Have they made any wrong moves? Yes, they have. When the first release, Apple Maps, Tim Cook, the CEO, had to apologize. They also have spent a lot of money on the VOR headsets, again, Apple Vision, again, and really, the demand is not there. They also sunk billions into what we believe was the Apple Car Project. It's not as if they don't fail. In fact, failures became more frequent after Steve Jobs disappeared from the scene. They're not infallible, but generally, they have so many clever people. They're really in the market. They generally succeed in most things, but not everything is perfect. Can they continue in this vein now, in the age of AI, and given the competition among the tech companies? I mean, they're in a good position as anyone. They haven't invested billions into the capital rollout of AI, again, which a lot of their competitors are. But again, that they really have to double down on AI, and they seem to be doing it quite nicely. In fact, most of the AI people work and use MacBooks, for instance, within the ecosystem, and the iPhone could be the rooter for all these different models again, because somehow to get into AI really, to get onto the cloud or even run it locally, you have to have some type of device really. The Apple devices, again, with GPUs, these graphical process and units within them, are kind of a perfect place for developers. Most developers are now using MacBooks to develop local AI, because again, Apple make it privacy by design, where the information is held on your MacBook again, and it's not going out to the cloud. That's very important for the future. Just very briefly, Kevin, your bets on whether it will exist in another 50 years' time. They have as good a chance as anyone, but only a fool predicts the future, even if you're proven right by coincidence. Good answer. Kevin Curran, thanks so much, Professor of Cybersecurity at Ars State University. Welcome back to Newzower, a project to store carbon dioxide in depleted oil fields beneath the North Sea. We'll soon get going off the coast of Denmark. The BBC's Adrian Murray was given rare access to the site and travelled from the Danish port town Esbea. Our helicopter had flown 250 kilometres from Denmark's West Coast, when it circled a solitary oil rig rising up from the choppy waters of the North Sea. Here, an almost depleted oil field is about to get a second life as the site of a massive carbon storage project called Greensam Future, where CO2 emissions captured from industry will be buried 1800 metres below the seabed. After landing at the large mother platform nearby, Merzgala, CEO of INEOS Energy, showed me to the wellhead where huge pipes have been pumping up oil and gas for decades. When commercial operations get underway in the next few months, this will be the EU's first large-scale offshore storage site. We think it's one of the best answers to CO2 emissions and Denmark has the potential to actually store more than several hundred years of our own emissions. We are able to create an industry where we can support Europe storing a lot of CO2 here. Globally, hundreds of carbon storage initiatives are in development. In Europe, the North Sea is emerging as a hub, with several large-scale projects advancing in Norway, the Netherlands, Denmark and the UK. And as depleted oil fields reach the end of their lifetime, the existing infrastructure and technical know-how is already in place. That, Gellis says, is why his firm is among the first movers. It's coming to the end of its lifetime. We can actually reuse the facilities, the skills, the competences we have. And at a decade of exploration, the region's geology is also well understood. What we have here is now four pieces of corn. At a large warehouse on the outskirts of Copenhagen, cases of rock samples are stacked floor to ceiling. Neil Skorsbån, a senior researcher at the Geological Survey of Greenland in Denmark, showed me a grainy green slab drilled from the sea floor. We call it green sand because it is actually green. If you feel it, it's a little rough. He says the North Sea's porous bedrock is well suited for CO2 storage. And where green sand is located, an almost kilometer-thick layer of clay or cap rock will help lock away the CO2. However, the technology is not without critics who caution that it's no silver bullet. If we want to go net zero and even net negative, we will need these technologies. Helena Higel is head of climate and environmental policy at Greenpeace, Denmark. But if our generation use the seabed for storing carbon now that we shouldn't have emitted in the first place, then the generations coming after us won't be able to use the seabed to store their emissions. That report by Adrienne Murray. You're listening to NewsHour from the BBC World Service. I'm Leila Nathy. Israel is stepping up attacks on the Lebanese capital Beirut. It says it targeted senior members of the Iran-backed armed group Hezbollah. The country's health ministry says seven people were killed and more than 20 injured in the strikes earlier today. More than a million people have been displaced in this latest clash between Israel and Hezbollah, mostly in the south of Lebanon, where Israel wants to establish a buffer zone and says it will destroy all Lebanese homes in villages near the border. Our correspondent, Lena Sinjab, is in Beirut for us. Lena, this plan by Israel would mean troops remaining in the south of the country until they say there is no remaining threat from Hezbollah missiles. But this would involve hundreds of thousands of people essentially never being able to return to their villages. Well, for the Lebanese, this is not a plan to stay and leave. This is an occupation plan. And they say that all the tactics that has been practiced by the Israelis in south of Lebanon resemble what they have done in Gaza. They've already, the Israelis destroyed villages and homes and, you know, across the border and they plan to destroy more. And that's a sign that they don't want anyone to come back anytime soon. The statement came saying that the 600 thousands who left will not be able to come back until the Israelis would decide. And that's really worrying the Lebanese because there is no power that will prevent them from occupying south of Lebanon. And the Lebanese have already lived this with the Israelis in 1982 for 18 years. And now the areas that they're talking about to control are much larger than what they have occupied in the past. And, you know, the dynamics, the world dynamics, the local dynamics have changed. And with no one able to face Israel with this decision. Apologies, Lena. We were having a few wobbles on your line. I hope you can still hear me. Okay. Where does the Lebanese government stand on this? Because they have been taking a stronger line against Hezbollah. But now they they face this situation of Israel sending troops to occupy this territory. Where does that leave them? There hasn't been a direct statement on this latest announcement, but the Israelis have started sending boots on the ground, you know, earlier in the war and said that they are going to create a buffer zone. Now this buffer zone is expanded. But the government already said that this is a violation of the Lebanese, you know, territory on their sovereignty of the state's sovereignty and called on the international community to help. But they also stay weak in in the sense that they have not been able to stop Hezbollah from firing rockets into Israel. They haven't been able to even, you know, implement the decision of expelling the ambassador, let alone stopping a war on their own country. And Lena, all of those hundreds of thousands of people who have been displaced in the south of the country, where have they gone? Is it Beirut that they are heading to? And is the capital under pressure from everyone leaving homes elsewhere? I think Beirut takes a big portion of people, but they are also scattered across the country. They go to the north, they go to the mountains. They are also in the cities in the south, but most of them also stranded in public squares and living in tents waiting for to go back home. And that's, you know, clearly it's not going to happen anytime soon. And is there a sense that there is enough food? They have enough resources, people who have fled their homes? Well, you know, you can't be short of food because the international community, the local community is helping out. But imagine yourself, you're living in your home, in your safe zone, and you end up, you know, displaced, either having to rent or cramp with other families or live in tents. The hygiene situation is not, you know, is not great. And this is not a situation that they want to stay on in for a long time. And with this plan by the Israelis, it means that there is no solution for them and that maybe their villages will be taken from them for a long time. Lena, thanks so much for bringing us the latest from Beirut, our correspondent. Lena Sinjab there. Now in South Africa, more than 2000 soldiers are being deployed to support police in a crackdown on organised crime, illegal mining and gang violence. The government says the operation will help restore order in high crime areas. But as the BBC's Pumsar Filani reports now from Joe Hannesburg, there's skepticism in some communities about how much difference troops will make. Now to strengthen our fight against gang violence, I will be deploying the South African National Defence Force to support the police. In a country where many communities feel under siege from violent crime, President Cyril Ramaphosa's move to deploy troops is being seen by some as a sign the government is getting tough on criminal networks. Soldiers will be sent to five of South Africa's nine provinces for up to a year. For many, the sight of armoured vehicles and armed troops on the streets is still deeply unfamiliar. One of the last major deployments came during the country's strict COVID-19 lockdown, when soldiers enforced curfews and restrictions. But that operation drew sharp criticism, with reports that soldiers were using excessive force, unlawfully detaining and harassing civilians. Security experts warn the military is trained for combat, not for the kind of community-based policing needed to build trust. And so some are skeptical about their return. And there's also history to contend with. The apartheid regime used the military to enforce their rule, a legacy that still shapes how some South Africans view soldiers on their streets today. A smaller, localised military operation was trialled recently in some Johannesburg communities affected by gang violence. We visited one of them. When Eldarada Township south of Johannesburg, one of the main problems in this community is gang-related violence, as well as a huge drug problem. We've come to find out from the community what they think about having the military and armoured vehicles rolling through their streets. This place, Sodom and Gomorrah, has got no say. The babies are young. I don't ever leave them, because the fear of just something happening when I'm absent and then what happens to them, like I know, obviously automatically, I can't redecorate on the police. There's too much going on, so no one is assisting or helping. They're making things worse, you understand? So I don't think it will help, because when they come, it's going to be my things worse. But more safe. But you see when they're out of the area, then things start again. Maybe for the community, it will be okay for them to be in the area at all times. Gang violence is not unique to this community. In Cape Town, police admit they are overwhelmed, as shootings linked to gangs continue to claim lives, with bystanders including children often caught in the crossfire. Joint police military operations could become more common, at least until the deep drivers of crime, poverty and unemployment are addressed. Here's defence expert Dr Guy Lam. The worry is, is that there isn't really a dedicated plan to try and address why crime is so violent in these sort of places. So we're likely to see this happening into the foreseeable future, because this plan of addressing what are the recourses of crime in these high crime areas is not in place. The government says the troops have received additional training for this mission. And for some residents living with daily gunfire, the calculation is simple. Any sense of safety, however temporary, may be better than none. Pumza Filani reporting from Johannesburg. Now, should someone born in the US automatically be entitled to be a citizen there? That's a question being considered by the country's Supreme Court today, because on his first day back in office, President Trump ordered an end to birthright citizenship for children of parents in the US illegally or temporarily. His decision was challenged in the courts for violating provisions set out in America's constitution. The President himself plans to go to the court to hear the arguments today. Professor Amanda Frost, Director of the Immigration, Migration and Human Rights Programme at the University of Virginia will be there too. I caught up with her as she was queuing to get into the building. It's a beautiful day here in Washington DC. People are standing in line. They've been here since 6am SVI and I think people I hear around me are discussing the likelihood of a result either in favor of the government or the challengers and feelings are mixed. Do you get the sense that this case has prompted a debate across the country? Yes, I think it has opened up a question which had thought to be long settled, as would inevitably happen when the President of the United States challenges a long-standing constitutional interpretation through such an executive order. The argument is that before the executive order that everyone born in the United States was automatically a citizen with exceptions only for diplomats. That's the only meaningful exception today. That's been the view for a century and the President's view is no. In fact, that language excludes children of undocumented immigrants and children born to temporary immigrants. One of the arguments for the change is that there is a view that it is incentivizing people to come to the US illegally. Yes, the briefs do argue that. They actually have no evidence of that nor do they cite anything to support it. That's a policy argument so it really doesn't speak directly to the legal question before the court because the court's question is what was the intention when this was added to our Constitution in 1868? What's the order retrospective, Amanda? The order stated that the executive branch of the President would apply it only prospectively. However, the interpretation he's adopting would have been, if the court agrees with it, the interpretation that should always have been adopted of this provision and there would be nothing to stop this President from applying it retroactively. If it's only prospective, a quarter million children every year would lose citizenship going forward and all 3.5 million families giving birth to children every year in the United States would have to prove their status. If it's retroactive, millions of people, citizenship would be a risk. How central a feature has this right been in the US Constitution? I mean, it's not actually that common when you look across the world at other countries who also have this guarantee. Well, it is common in the Western Hemisphere. Canada, Mexico, many of the countries of South and Central America have a similar rule. It's incredibly consequential for the United States because it was added to our Constitution after the Civil War and it was intended, and they said this at the time, but to ensure the former slaves were treated fully as members and full citizens of the society and they explicitly said the children of immigrants coming from all over the world would be treated as full citizens. That was their intention and that's what they said. So it's very consequential to our nation of immigrants. Why do you think that most other countries, especially not those in the West, have chosen not to go down this route? Well, some countries have abandoned birthright citizenship in response to pressures from political pressures resulting from immigration. So England pulled back on its birthright citizenship rule, but it'll also add that countries like France are much more lenient than the United States would be if this executive order became the law. So if you're born in France and remain there, you become automatically a citizen even if your parents aren't documented. That's not what this executive order says. It's much harsher than that. Those children in the United States would never be citizens. And that would create a whole second class essentially of citizens, of the children of people who are undocumented? Yes, it would create a permanent caste of individuals living in the United States with no political power, who could be deported at any time and easily exploited. And that's exactly what the Reconstruction Congress didn't want when it added birthright citizenship to the Constitution as part of the 14th Amendment. That was Professor Amanda Frost there from the University of Virginia. You're listening to the BBC World Service. This is NewsHour. You're listening to NewsHour with me, Leila Nathoo. We're live from the BBC World Service in London. Now, the lineup for this summer's World Cup in Canada, Mexico and the US is now complete after the final six nations qualified overnight. The Democratic Republic of Congo team secured their spot for the first time since 1974 and Iraq booked their place in the competition after a 40-year gap. My colleague, Mike Williams, has been speaking to one Iraqi fan, Hasan Bilal, who travelled to the city of Monterey in northern Mexico to watch his team defeat Bolivia to one last night. There's no words to describe this, mate. This is one of my biggest dreams in my life. Against all odds, recent events in the Middle East have been really, really tough. Players have had to go through a very tumultuous journey, but it doesn't matter. We're going to the World Cup. I'm so happy for everyone back home. It's been really difficult recently and they finally have something to look forward to. Us Iraqis, unfortunately, in the media, were often portrayed negatively, but were associated with Saddam Hussein with the 2003 invasion, ISIS, terrorism. No one really in the way, the beautiful side of Iraq, the dancing, the party and the food, the football. Well, from jubilation for Iraqis to devastation for Italy, who for the third time in a row failed to qualify for the World Cup after losing on penalties to Bosnia? Here's some reaction from Italian fans. We won the Euro Cup 2021. So, we were not too bad, but it's like we're not ready for the good match. We're not ready when it matters. We're not ready when you need to give that extra. You're not ready when you have the pressure on. What can say? The system is rotten, completely rotten. Is it the system that's rotten or the team didn't show up? The football system. We knew that the team, as its limits, but like this, not going to the World Cup three times in a row, Sweden, North Macedonia and Bosnia. What else can I say? Well, Daniele Fiscikela is an Italian football journalist who I spoke to earlier. I asked him what he made of those comments. Dispondent and deluded, of course, but I is the feeling of a nation on the wake of something that perhaps up until 12 years ago would have been unthinkable, four-time champions, Italy missing out on a World Cup. And now, unfortunately, we're getting accustomed to. And what stings the most is the fact that this is an extended World Cup with 48 teams. It's never been so large yet. We didn't manage to make it, but unfortunately, if you are Italy and end up on a penalty shootout, a home against, at the home of a nation ranked 66 in the world, Bosnia and Herzegovina, which, by the way, they deserve to qualify. But I think if you end up there, that means things have gone wrong along the way and mistakes have been made long before last night. What has gone wrong along the way for Italy to end up in this position? The decline started probably when Italy were at the pinnacle when they won the World Cup in 2006. The world of football was modernizing at pace and Italy were not able to keep pace with the changes. They haven't changed the way football is taught in school through the youth systems as well. And Serie A, the Italy top flight, has been losing competitiveness, has been losing its edge against other leagues like the Premier League, for example. And unfortunately, the focus on getting results quickly has overtaken the project. However, there have been also some bad choices in recent years. Italy have changed five managers in less than five years, and they always seem to find a solution off the cuff rather than following a project. But most of all, I think the problem lies with the fact that Italian players and young Italian players are not playing in the Italy top flight anymore. Only three out of ten in Serie A are Italians. And unfortunately, they resulted in a very poor qualifying campaign. Do you think now, because of these consecutive misses of getting into the World Cup, there's essentially a whole generation of young Italians who haven't grown up seeing Italy play on the world stage in that competition? What's that doing for the place of football in Italian society? The football is becoming less and less popular. And I think that it's a fair representation of where the alliances of young people are. Italy are excelling in many other sports, from award number one in tennis with Janix Sinner to Kimi Antonelli winning two Formula One Grand Prix. Even the Italy cricket team has been at the World Cup recently. We're not a cricket nation by any stretch of imagination. The baseball team, the Winter Olympics. And I think this is good. This is healthy. It shows that, of course, young people are approaching other sports that perhaps offer better infrastructure and better project, whereas football is lagging behind. But it's a systemic issue. If you do go and watch football in Italy, the stadiums are crumbling. They're old. And to build new stadiums, it takes such an amount, such an effort and such bureaucracies that sometimes investors just want to step away. And that obviously doesn't increase participation. And the problem is that the World Cup is such a defining moment for generations. These are really moments where everyone comes together and they define our lives and they have been deprived of that. But most of all, Italy is an aging population. The berth rate is one of the lowest in the world. So there are even fewer young people as well. And of course, unless there is a proper project to bring them into the most popular sport, I'm afraid Italy, we're going to be in the echelons of the Bosnia, of the North Macedonia or the Sweden of these words, the three nations that knocked us out. And that up until a few years ago, we would have considered the wrongly lesser nations. Do you think that Italians will still tune into the World Cup this summer? It's such a massive feature of the season otherwise, isn't it? It depends which sort of fans we're looking at. The casual fans, no, I don't think they would. They probably tune into the latter stages. But there is really no other sympathy for any other nation that competes in the World Cup. So I'm talking about your mild to detached fans. No, they wouldn't. So I'm not sure that the sense of collectiveness of watching the World Cup is going to be replicated. You think about people doing the wall charts or doing the sweepstakes at work. There's nothing like this. So it's not just a tournament. It goes really beyond. And unfortunately, at the moment in Italy, it's more about the inquest and which heads have to roll and which person need to resign rather than thinking who's playing when at the World Cup. That was Daniele Fizzichella there, an Italian football journalist talking to me earlier, reflecting on his country's failure to qualify for the World Cup for the third time in a row and what that means for Italian football. Well, that is all from us here at News Hour. From me, Leila Nath, you and all of the team at the BBC World Service. Thanks for listening.