US-Israel war with Iran: Strikes continue

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK. the newsroom, and the trading floor. That's longer than most podcast hosts have been alive. But even though I've got questions, join me, Merrin's Upset Web, every week for my show, Merrin Talks Money, from Bloomberg Podcasts, where I have in-depth conversations with fund managers, strategists, and experts about how markets really work. And join me for a separate episode where I answer listener questions on how to make those markets work for you. Follow Merrin Talks Money on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen. Hello and welcome to NewsHour from the BBC World Service, coming to you live from London. I'm Rajini Vaidyanathan. The war in the Middle East has entered a third day and appears to be ramping up into a major international conflict across multiple countries. Hundreds are reported to have been killed as the US and Israel continue to hit Iran, with the Israeli military saying that it's striking the heart of Tehran, where large explosions are being heard. Well, the IDF has also expanded its campaign to neighbouring Lebanon. It says the head of Hezbollah's intelligence has been killed in Beirut. This was the sound of fighting in the Lebanese capital. Meanwhile, Tehran has been retaliating with fresh attacks on Israel and across the Persian Gulf, including missile strikes on Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was killed in the early hours of the war. Well, in the last hour, the US Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, has been updating the media. Let's have a listen to some of what he had to say. The mission of Operation Epic Fury is laser focused. Destroy Iranian offensive missiles, destroy Iranian missile production, destroy their Navy and other security infrastructure, and they will never have nuclear weapons. We're hitting them surgically, overwhelmingly and unapologetically. With every passing day, our capabilities get stronger and Iran's get weaker. We set the terms of this war from start to finish. Our ambitions are not utopian. They are realistic, scoped to our interests and the defense of our people and our allies. Speaking of people, we hope the Iranian people take advantage of this incredible opportunity. President Trump has been clear. Now is your time. Well, Pete Hegseth was keen to emphasize that the United States wasn't entering an open-ended war. This is not Iraq. This is not endless. I was there for both. Our generation knows better and so does this president. He called the last 20 years of nation-building wars dumb. And he's right. This is the opposite. This operation is a clear, devastating, decisive mission. Destroy the missile threat, destroy the Navy, no nukes. Israel has clear missions as well, for which we are grateful. Capable partners, as we've said since the beginning, capable partners are good partners. Unlike so many of our traditional allies who wring their hands and clutch their pearls, hemming and hawing about the use of force. America, regardless of what so-called international institutions say, is unleashing the most lethal and precise air power campaign in history. B-2s, fighters, drones, missiles, and of course, classified effects. All on our terms, with maximum authorities. No stupid rules of engagement, no nation-building quagmire, no democracy-building exercise, no politically correct wars. We fight to win and we don't waste time or lives. Well, Pete Hegseth went on to acknowledge the four American troops killed in the war so far. Well, listening across that was our correspondent in Washington, Helena Humphrey. Good to talk to you, Helena. Well, the Defence Secretary there was standing alongside the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Dan Kane. What more did we hear from a military perspective about the operation on Iran? Well, Regina, I think it's worth pointing out that this in and of itself, this press briefing was a really key moment because this was the first time that we're hearing from the Trump administration in a live setting in over 48 hours. That chance for reporters to ask questions, including about the military strategy in all of this. I think the tone from the Defence Secretary, Pete Hegseth, was one of absolute resolve, determination from the Trump administration. He had said that we are hitting Iran unapologetically. We also heard from General Cain, as you were saying, they're standing shoulder to shoulder saying that we have hit 1,000 targets. And he said that in doing so, US forces have been able to achieve air superiority over Iran. Now, I was mentioning some of those questions that reporters have had over the weekend since these strikes were launched, including the length and breadth of this conflict. President Trump had been calling members of the media and he had been sort of saying this could take four to five weeks. We did then hear the Defence Secretary Hegseth saying that actually when it comes to the timeline, it could move up, it could move down. It's up to President Trump. He has said that he has all of the latitude. And he said to the media who are screaming, could this be an endless war? He said this is not Iraq and that the administration says that they are finishing the job. No real clarity on timelines. timelines. Are we any clearer on what the goal of this war is and what the US wants to achieve? Well, I think you're right to ask that question, because over the weekend, again, we've had kind of oscillating aims stated. We heard from Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of Defence, once again on that point saying, quote, this is not a regime change war. He had said instead that, you know, this is also about disabling missiles, a threat through proxies across the region. And he was repeating that line that we'd heard from President Trump over the weekend, calling on the Iranian people to rise up. Now, you know, of course, many military analysts will point out that it is difficult to see regime change when you just have aerial support with an air campaign. In terms of a justification for this conflict, Pete Hegseth said that they are had tried to lie their way to a nuclear bomb. And essentially, the argument from the administration is that Iran was not negotiating in good faith on a nuclear deal following Operation Midnight Hammer and those strikes in June of last year. Okay, Helena Humphrey in Washington, thank you very much for the moment. Well, as we've been hearing, Israel has continued its attacks on Iran. Well, we can't get through to anyone in Iran at the moment. But a resident in the city of Karaj sent a text to the BBC that we have voiced up. Last night, it was horrendous. All day. It started at 7am. Between 8 and 8.30, I counted, there were 17 explosions. People are worried and waiting to see what will happen next. And one worry is that after all of this, US might still get a deal with Iran and the regime stays in place. But people are also hopeful. Last night, I could hear the supporters of the regime out and about, and they are angry. And there are a lot of security forces out there on the streets, trying to scare people. There are long queues outside petrol stations and bakeries. Prices were already high, but since the war started, again, they have gone up. Streets are mostly empty. And they keep cutting off the internet. And frankly, people have had enough. That's a resident in Karaj, just reminding us of some of the challenges in the country as that war enters its third day. Well, I'm joined now from the US by Nilo Tabrizi, an author and investigative journalist. Welcome to NewsHour. We heard one voice there that was a message that was sent to us. What other voices have you heard from? What's the latest from Iran? Yes, I had a source get in touch with me from Esfahan who let me know that they're also experiencing connectivity issues. From the day the strike started, probably about 7 a.m. Eastern time, I wasn't able to contact many sources. So it seems as if anyone who has Starlink or other circumvention methods is able to access the Internet. My source in Esfahan told me that it's a little bit calmer compared to Tehran that's under heavy strikes, but that at every corner there are armed guards and that suppression is already starting. In fact, my source told me that this morning they got text messages from a phone number associated with the state warning people to not come out and protest. And what else are we hearing about what's been hit, particularly in Tehran, which has been a real target for Israel today? Yes, Tehran, it's difficult to put into words because strikes have been so vast. While the United States and Israel have said that they're targeted, we do know that civilian infrastructure has been hit. So, for example, the state TV building was apparently targeted yesterday. But as in Tehran, as in many cities in Iran, you know, these places that are being targeted are in deeply residential areas. So we are seeing civilian casualties. I do want to talk about as well the school that was hit in Minab in the southern Hormuzgan province in Iran. This was an elementary school that was hit the first day. I started seeing reports about it around 6 a.m. Eastern time. And immediately I wanted to know what was around there, why was the school possibly hit. And we were able to, I was able to verify footage of the school and be able to locate exactly on the map where it was and verify that indeed the strike on the school happened that day. The images are really, really gruesome. We're seeing people outside of the school. The videos have, you know, shrieks and cries throughout. There were images of hands in the rubble, small backpacks stained with blood, school homework. It's really difficult to take in. And there's many questions surrounding the school, and many of us are trying to understand why the school was hit. A source that I spoke to pointed that this school is near a IRGC Navy base. Of course, no matter what, you know, young school children, that's not an appropriate or legal strike. That's distinctly civilian, as far as we can tell so far. But one source I was trying to understand, was this human error? Why did this happen? One source of mine said that perhaps, yes, this was human error because the school is quite close to the IRGC Navy barracks. It's right there. But if you look on Google Earth, as far back as eight years ago, there are brightly colored walls very visible in the school. So even for me, I look at it and it's so obviously a school. These brightly colored walls absolutely distinguish it from being a regular base. Yeah, I mean, the UN has described it as a grave violation of humanitarian law. And I think the US Central Command says it was looking into reports, but as you say, a striking example of the civilians who are being killed in this conflict. Absolutely. And the day that the school was struck, the Red Crescent Society spokesperson said that the death toll was at 108 and yesterday had risen to 153 So this is a really significant event And as far as we know right now the death tolls in Iran are somewhere around 200 which is expected to rise. So just understanding that at least 153 deaths overall coming from this one school, this is a really important incident that we all need to be investigating and interrogating to understand exactly what happened, you know, why such a grave misfire happened that killed so many young children. Can I just ask you in the next 30 seconds or so, who's running the country at the moment? We know that the Ayatollah was killed at the weekend, but who's in charge? That's a question on many people's minds. We still are trying to understand who's going to be the next supreme leader, how the transition of power will go. We do know that there's a small three-person council that's interim that's leading the country, but the Islamic Republic has been planning for this. It's a regime that's bent on survival. And it's prepared to absorb this type of shock. I mean, even after the airstrikes this summer, they had already put in multiple people to replace commanders that were taken out from the strikes in the summer. So they've been preparing for this type of transition. And I'm sure we will know more soon. Okay, Nilo Tabrizi, thank you very much for sharing the latest on what's happening inside Iran. You're listening to the BBC World Service and this is NewsHour. A reminder of our main headlines this hour. The United States and six Gulf nations have warned that Iran's retaliatory strikes on civilian targets in several countries represent a dangerous escalation. And European countries are increasingly being drawn into the conflict. Britain has said it's responding after at least one drone crashed into a British military base in Cyprus early on Monday. Well, in 20 minutes from now, we'll hear from Israel's President Isaac Herzog. The fact that your base in Akrotir in Cyprus was attacked for the first time by missiles from Iran, what does it mean? They think you're a friend or a foe. If you're a foe, then everybody should get together and fight these evil forces and break this empire of evil once and for all and bring different hope for the region and for the Middle East and for the future of the world. That's exactly what we do. This is Rajini Vaidyanathan with NewsHour coming to you live from the BBC in London. Already in only a few days, the conflict in the Middle East has spread. Now, a region known for relative stability, the Persian Gulf, has also been affected. That's the sound of an Iranian rocket hitting the Palm Jumeirah Hotel in Dubai. Well, retaliatory strikes from Iran have also hit Doha, an oil refinery in Saudi Arabia, and an Omani oil tanker. Well, the US and six Persian Gulf states have issued a joint statement saying that these strikes represent a dangerous escalation which undermines stability. Well, that statement from America, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Jordan and the UAE describes the targeting of non-combatant states as reckless behaviour. Well, let's go straight to Doha and join my colleague there, the BBC's Barbara Plett Usher. Barbara, first of all, just bring us up to date on the latest in terms of what's happening in strikes in that region where you are. Well, the latest, Rajini, is that the Qataris have shut down their liquefied natural gas production after saying that Iran targeted two of their facilities with drone strikes, which is quite a step, really, because that has sent gas prices in Europe and Asia, really hiked them up by more than 30 percent. Significant development. And this happened after that oil refinery in Saudi Arabia was hit again by drones. There was limited damage, a fire caused by debris from the drones having been intercepted. It was shut down briefly, but I understand it has resumed production again. What we're looking at here, it seems, is the first strikes on energy infrastructure in the Gulf. And that is something that the Arab leaders here had really been worrying about, that the Iranians would not only target U.S. military bases, but other civilian infrastructure and particularly directly target oil and gas facilities. We did see the, you know, airports under attack by drones and also some some residential areas, not always directly targeted, but sometimes hit by the debris from falling from intercepted missiles. But I think that the the energy infrastructure now that that has been that that has been targeted is an escalation. And it's interesting, this statement, of course, from the US and these other nations, describing the targeting of their countries as reckless, Barbara. Yes, there was a statement together with the State Department, as you said, describing it as unwarranted and reckless because these countries were not involved in the conflict. They deliberately said that they would not let the US military bases on their territory be used for strikes against Iran. But the Iranians are not making that distinction, it seems. There's also been a joint statement put out by the Gulf Cooperation Council in which it described the Iranian attacks as treacherous and said that the Gulf countries would protect their citizens and respond if they felt it was necessary. And so very briefly, Barbara, is there a sense that things are just going to escalate in the region where you are? Well, if you look at over the past two days, Now it's the third day of war. We have seen an escalation. I think everybody knows that the munitions are finite. The number of missiles, the number of drones are finite. So at some point they will run out. And also the other side, the Israelis and the Americans, their air defense missiles, their stocks will be depleted as well. But I think we have some ways to go and it looks like it is intensifying. OK, Barbara Pletasha in Doha, thank you very much for bringing us the latest where you are. Well, as we are saying, the war is, of course, escalating. And as it does, the Iranian-backed militia and political party Hezbollah has entered the conflict. It launched rockets and drones at Israel to avenge the killing of Iran's supreme leader, accusing Israel of ceasefire violations. Israel's military responded by bombing several sites across Lebanon, including the southern suburbs of Beirut, killing the head of the Hezbollah parliamentary group, Mohamed Raab. This woman in Beirut, Fatima Haroun, has been displaced by the fighting. They said Israel hit Dahir, so we didn't know how we got dressed and escaped. Everyone was screaming, in the streets, fleeing. We got in the car and there was so much traffic. We started driving around in the streets. It's terrifying. It isn't easy at all for one to leave their house. We came to the beach. My brother's family went looking for a school for us to stay in, and I came here to wait for them. Well, let's go straight to Beirut and join the BBC's Wirra Davies, who is there. So first of all, Wirra, what's been happening where you are? Well, we've had several couple of strikes in the last half hour or so. There's been the constant sound of Israeli drone overhead for most of the day today. The Israelis have made it abundantly clear that now Hezbollah has made the decision to join the fray, that they will go after Hezbollah. They've named specific individuals, specific financial organizations linked to Hezbollah. The Israelis have issued new warnings for people to leave parts of Beirut as Hezbollah has joined the fray. I think the fact that Hezbollah has decided to launch attacks and retaliate itself for what happened in Iran should be of no surprise, because, of course, the Islamic regime in Iran is Hezbollah's ideological ally and also its military backer. And Hezbollah's leadership, even though the group had been severely weakened after a year-long war with Israel, they had made it clear that they would attack or they would take action if the Americans and the Israelis did what they did in Iran. Yeah, and I'm just looking at some live images, actually, which just show smoke plumes across the skyline in Beirut. There's been quite a lot of casualties as well. Yeah, the Lebanese health ministry say that at least 31 people have been killed, both here in Beirut and also in the south of the country, near the Israeli border where Hezbollah has historically been militarily dominant. Now, of course, that area was very badly hit and damaged during the recent war with Israel. Many of the borderline villages were destroyed, but a significant number of Hezbollah supporters and also fighters are thought to remain down there. Now, I think one significant development today is that the Lebanese government, you know, Lebanon's government is made of many different factions. Most of those do not want to get involved in the new regional conflict. They have now said that Hezbollah will not be allowed to operate as a military armed movement in the country. That is quite a significant step because hitherto other Lebanese factions have supported Hezbollah's or acknowledged Hezbollah's resistance capabilities. That has now officially been stopped by the Lebanese government. Whether it will mean anything on the ground is difficult to see, but clearly it's an indication that other people in Lebanon clearly don't want to join what is now an expanding regional conflict. And just very briefly, we're also hearing reports that a lot of people are now internally displaced as a result of this latest flare-up. Yeah, particularly from the south of the country. There are tens of thousands of people minding these new Israeli warnings, leaving many parts of southern Lebanon, heading towards the capital, away from areas where Israel is going to attack. OK, that's the BBC's Wiradev is live for us in Beirut. Thank you very much for joining us. There's plenty more on the latest developments on the BBC News website where we continue to run a live page. It has the latest on what we've heard from the US Secretary of Defence, Pete Hegseth. It also has updates from various BBC correspondents around the region, including updates from our correspondents in Beirut and beyond. And the US has just urged its citizens to leave Lebanon immediately. It's just posted that on X. This is not the future we were promised. Like, how about that for a tagline for the show? From the BBC, this is The Interface. The show that explores how tech is rewiring your week and your world. This isn't about quarterly earnings or about tech reviews. It's about what technology is actually doing to your work and your politics, your everyday life. And all the bizarre ways people are using the internet. Listen on BBC.com or wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome back to NewsHour Global oil and gas prices have risen sharply as producers insurers and shipping firms react to the regional conflict in the Middle East Iran's threats to attack foreign vessels in the Strait of Hormuz, a key waterway in the region, have effectively brought transit there to a standstill. Saudi Arabia's state oil company Aramco's reported to have shut down its largest refinery following a drone attack. For a broader sense of the broader impact, I spoke earlier to Lebanese energy economist and the CEO of Crystal Energy, Dr. Carol Nackley. I'm not surprised to see oil and gas prices increasing when the markets opened this morning. But this did not start suddenly today. We started seeing an increase in prices as soon as the world started to hear about the American military buildup in the region in the Middle East, which is the biggest producing and exporting region for oil and gas. And what we saw is the American military buildup was the biggest since the war in Iraq a couple of decades ago. So definitely the market has been preparing for a worst case scenario, which is happening today. And this morning we saw the prices increasing and we're not sure whether we have seen the end of it because lots of scenarios are still unfolding and becoming clearer. And we are really now watching closely to see whether energy infrastructure is going to become the next important targets for retaliation from the Iranian side. And just tell us what countries you are watching, because we're seeing many Gulf states being hit. in retaliatory strikes in terms of looking and monitoring how that might impact ongoing oil and energy prices? I'm watching the entire region because we're talking, I mean, of course, you do have Saudi Arabia, the biggest oil producer, you have Qatar, the biggest gas producer, but they all rely heavily on the Strait of Hormuz to get their oil and gas from that region to the rest of the world via tankers. And therefore, when the war is taking place and the Iranians are threatening or they are closing part of the Strait of Hormuz and some oil tankers are being attacked, that is going to cause major disruptions to available supplies to the global market and putting more pressure on prices. That said, if we see now energy producing infrastructure in countries such as Saudi Arabia being seriously attacked and damaged, then we are going to see further upward pressure on prices because they are the biggest producer in that part of the world. Let's talk about Saudi Arabia then, because it's temporarily closed its largest refinery after a drone strike. So how much will that single incident actually impact prices? It all depends on how long the refinery is going to be closed for and whether the Saudis are able to replace whatever production comes from that refinery with something else. So we are now in a mode of wait and see. But mind you, a few years ago, a Saudi refinery was also attacked and that was resolved immediately within a matter of days and not weeks. But the situation today is different. So far, I have to say that even though oil prices increased, they are still moderate compared to previous crises where we saw prices jumping to above $100 a barrel. That's Dr. Carol Natclay giving us the latest on oil prices in the region. You're listening to NewsHour from the BBC. I'm Rajini Vaidyanathan. Well, as we've been reporting, Israel's military says it's begun an additional broad strike on the Iranian capital, Tehran, against what it describes as terror regime targets. Meanwhile, Iran continues to attack Israeli targets. Well, let's get the latest from our correspondent in Tel Aviv, Hugo Boshaga. Good to talk to you, Hugo. Right now, I can see that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is actually speaking. He's visited the city or town, I should say, of Beit Shemesh, which of course is where nine people were killed and some 27 were injured after an Iranian missile hit. What more can you tell us? yeah regini so uh the attack that happened yesterday in Beit Shemesh was the deadliest attack in this conflict so far nine people were killed there when a missile struck a residential neighborhood uh we visited you know the location that was hit a synagogue and an underground bomb shelter where people were sheltering so there was a lot of destruction obviously this is a country with a very sophisticated air defense system and also a very sophisticated early warning system to alert people of the threat posed by incoming missiles. But what we saw yesterday was the damage that a single missile can cause. So, so far across Israel, at least 10 people have been killed in this conflict because of these attacks, not necessarily because of direct impact of missiles, but also because of debris falling from the sky as a result of interceptions by the country's military. Hugo, what's the mood in the country to this war? Well, I mean, this is just the latest war for the population here in Israel. We're still waiting to see how the public are reacting in terms of, you know, if they support what is happening. There hasn't been a public poll yet. before the war there was a poll here showing that around 60 percent of the population were in favor of some kind of military action against iran and i think it's fair to say that a lot of people here agree with the prime minister benjamin netanyahu when he talks about the threat to israel posed by iran he obviously you know he has spent decades talking about the existential threat posed by iran as he describes it and has defended the idea of regime change. Having said that, obviously it is another war. There's a lot of disruption to normal life here. A state of emergency is in place. Only essential services are allowed to remain open. Schools are closed. The airspace is closed. We have to deal with air raid alerts and explosions in the sky because of interruptions. So I think perhaps there is the acceptance that there will be some kind of suffering here. But this could obviously change if we start to see more missiles penetrating the air defences and obviously more people being killed. Okay, the BBC's Hugo Boushega there in Tel Aviv for us. Thank you very much for bringing us up to date. Well, the BBC's Anna Foster has been speaking to Israel's head of state, President Isaac Herzog. She asked what success in this war would look like for him. So I would say that we are in a historic juncture where the future of the Middle East depends on the success of this operation, this war. Because what emerges in front of our eyes are two coalitions that have been there and known to all of us, those who deal with the Middle East, for the last 20 years. But now they've come above board. One is the empire of evil from Tehran, spreading havoc, terror. So, as Prime Minister Starmer said, 20 potential lethal attacks in Britain only in the last year. So think about what they've done all over the world. And on the other hand, a coalition of nations who wants to move forward in the Middle East, of course supported by the United States of America, Israel and its neighbors in the Gulf, moving forward towards a different future in the region. And the question is, it depends on therefore two things. Can one undermine the capability of Iran to develop nuclear arms and ballistic missiles and proxies will bring forward havoc and terror? And the other issue, of course, whether the regime will be changed. These are two tests to the way we are moving forward. We were told a year ago that Iran's nuclear project had been sent to oblivion during the 12-day war. This is the second preemptive war that Israel has launched on Iran. Was the nuclear program not destroyed? Why were we told it was? This time it's also in conjunction with the United States of America because the information was clear. They had other sites. And we know that and we share this information also with many of our partners. This is the tragedy of it all. And that's the bird's eye view of the whole situation. The Iranian regime under Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has spent billions and billions of its people's money to move towards weapons of mass destruction and havoc and terror because they do not accommodate any other religion. They do not accommodate a moderate Islam. They do not accommodate Christians of any kind. And they do not accommodate Jews. and in their long-term vision of a jihadist regime of this nature, they want to wipe us off the map, all of us. And therefore, there comes a moment that nations have to rise up and say, stop, enough is enough. This tale cannot go on anymore. We want to change the reality in the Middle East to a better future. If you're trying to achieve peace in the Middle East, there were negotiations going on, the same as there were last year when the 12-day war started. There were negotiations happening. There was a meeting in Geneva just days ago. Abbas Aragchi, the Iranian foreign minister, said that both sides left Geneva with an understanding that we would seal a deal the next time we meet. He talked about Mr. Trump ultimately ordering bombing of the negotiating table. Why start a war when those conversations were happening? Okay, it's an absolute lie. I spoke myself to people who were in the room, And what they said, give you just one example. The Iranians said, oh, we are willing, of course, to put a lid on our enrichment program and we won't move towards the bomb. But we need all sorts of requirements for all sorts of reasons, from scientific to research to other, which would have brought them to five times the agreement that was done a few years back, the JCPOA, meaning way above 20% enrichment, which is a farce and a joke to anyone who understands in nuclear enrichment. They are very devious in the way they negotiate. They have a target and an objective. They want to get to the bomb and they want to destroy long term. But what I'm keen to establish, President Herzog, and I don't want to interrupt you, but I know that our time together is limited. And what I'm keen to establish here is what level of destruction in Iran you are trying to reach. There are questions about the legality of this war. Under international law, you can only attack preemptively if you fear an immediate use of force by the other side, which we haven't seen the evidence for that. We are not attacking, not us, nor the Americans, anything civilian. We are attacking places where there are launchers of huge missiles. But there have been civilian deaths. Wait a minute. We have created havoc and death and destruction also in Israel and the entire region. Of course, there are attacks on the command and control centers of the Iranian army and besiege. By the way, these attacks, let's not forget, just a few weeks ago, the Iranian regime mowed about 32,000 to 50,000 of those citizens just like that. Just killed anybody who went to the street. But we do need to acknowledge the civilian deaths, I don't want us to move too far away from the point here. Yeah, but we should not, Anna, we should not be naive. I don't think we're being naive by asking what evidence... You quoted an expert on international law explaining why things cannot be done. It's like waiting again and again for another attack by the Iranians. I asked you if you had evidence of an immediate use of force against Israel by Iran. Do you have that evidence? I asked if you had evidence of an immediate use of force by Iran against Israel I explain to you If they carried out 20 attacks in Britain or perpetrated 20 attacks in Britain you think they didn attack Israel They've tried to attack Israel from all corners of the earth in the last two years. But do you have evidence of an immediate use of force? But that's not the reason in international law. In international law, you use self-defense when you know that you're enemy. is perpetrating and planning movement towards a bomb that wants to annihilate you. Because he says, they say, this bomb is in order to annihilate. And President Herzog, the law says that has to be immediate. We need to remove Israel from the face of the militia. And you're not addressing that point. Of course I'm addressing it, because we have a huge amount of proof, which we are sharing, of course, with our British allies and every other ally. The fact that your base in Akrotir in Cyprus was attacked for the first time by missiles from Iran. What does it mean? They think you're a friend or a foe. If you're a foe, then everybody should get together and fight these evil forces and break this empire of evil once and for all and bring different hope for the region and for the Middle East and for the future of the world. That's exactly what we're doing. That's Anna Foster, my colleague there, speaking to Israel's President Isaac Herzog. Now, how are the US's traditional allies in Europe responding to this war? Well, in the last few minutes, we've been hearing from the French President Emmanuel Macron, who said that the Iran conflict risks possible conflagration. And he said that France is ready to increase its number of nuclear warheads. warheads. Earlier, he did also say that France was ready to help its Middle Eastern allies targeted in Iranian retaliation. Meanwhile, Cyprus has placed its security forces on the highest alert following a drone crashing into a base and Greece is sending military vessels and aircraft to support its fellow EU country. But let's look at the UK closely because, of course, it is traditionally the biggest European ally of the US. Well, I'm joined now by our UK correspondent, Rob Watson. There's been a bit of frustration, hasn't there, Rob, from the Trump administration, the president saying he was very disappointed with Prime Minister Starmer in a newspaper interview today. And also a bit of a dig from the Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth in that press conference saying that the US's traditional allies wring their hands and clutch their pearls. Quite a lot of tension then, would you say? Yes, absolutely extraordinary, Regina, if you just sort of step back from a minute and think about this, the idea of a US president saying he was disappointed in a UK prime minister that he couldn't remember, could imagine this happening at any other time. And of course, such incredibly pointed criticism from the US defence secretary, unimaginable. And I reckon that, of course, just tells you about the high stakes here and the tension that there is between London and Washington, because being no doubt about it, Sir Keir Starmer would have preferred that this operation did not go ahead. And Rob, just very briefly, in about 20, 30 seconds, the Labour Party, the government, I should say, says it's allowing UK bases to be used by the US. It is, but it's saying for defensive purposes, so that is to strike at Iranian missile launchers, but that it would not be taking part in any offensive action or supporting any offensive action. And I think the key line from Sir Keir Starmer on Sunday night was to say Britain has learned the lessons from Iraq. In other words, he's saying to Labour supporters, we know that it would be unpopular for us to be involved in anything like regime change or wars in the Middle East. OK, Rob Watson, our UK correspondent. Thank you very much for that update there. This is Rajini Vaidyanathan with NewsHour, coming to you live from the BBC in London. Well, let's get more on the US perspective on this conflict. And we said earlier that the Secretary of Defence, Pete Hegseth, has been giving a press conference clarifying America's aims and strategy for the war. Well, destroying Iran's conventional means of defence to prevent the development of a nuclear capability is one thing that they've talked about. No regime change, but the regime must change was the quote. But how clear and achievable is all of this as an aim? Well, Richard Haas is the president emeritus of the US-based foreign policy think tank, the Council for Foreign Relations. I asked him what he thought the end game was for the Trump administration. That's a hard question to answer because the president, shall we say, I'll be generous here, has been inconsistent. It's not clear whether the end game, as he often says, is regime change in Iran, which is problematic as an endgame for the simple reason we can't design a military operation to bring it about, or whether the endgame is something significant but more modest, the disruption of the Iranian leadership, the degradation of their military capabilities. And then more important, the endgame is not something the United States can unilaterally dictate. It may take one to begin a war, but it takes all the participants to end it. You talk about some of the mixed messages that we've had from the president. The president saying this could last four weeks, it could be five weeks, on one hand saying that he had potential successes to the Supreme Leader in mind and then saying that the best candidates had been killed. There's a lot of contradictory messaging coming from the president at the moment, isn't there? Unfortunately, yes. And that's been in some ways a hallmark of what we've done so far. I'm sorry to say that. The word that comes to mind, it's not a word I like using is undisciplined. The analysis comparing in some ways the situation in Venezuela to Iran, I think, totally misunderstands the fabric of Iranian society and the political establishment there. A lack of clarity as to why this war was undertaken when it was undertaken. And now, as you mentioned, all the mixed messaging as to war aims. What is our definition of success? What are we trying to accomplish? So none of that is clear. And I simply think that's exactly the wrong way to go about something, particularly when it's what I would call a war of choice. This was not a war that had to be fought at this time. So the burden is on the president to make the case for it. And I think he's increasing the political risk to himself. Political risk. But what about the regional risk and the more broad risks? Absolutely. I've been thinking about it. When you take a step back and you look at the Middle East over the decades, one of the interesting shifts has been the center of gravity has moved away from the countries like Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon that we used to think about the Middle East. And it's moved towards the Gulf, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, and so forth, as well as Iran, because by and large, these countries have been more successful. They have not been as ravaged by war. And what's so worrisome about this development, what's potentially a violent and destructive and even open-ended war, is that the advantage of the Gulf could be lost here. And that would be a real tragedy for those countries and the people of the region. The BBC has spoken to Israel's President Isaac Herzog, who believes this is not a war of choice, but a war of necessity. I simply disagree. Now, Israel also may have different calculations than the United States. For the United States, this was clearly a war of choice. The United States does not have, I would argue, vital national interests at stake. And more important, we had other policy options. We could have used economic sanctions. We could have used negotiations. Israel may have a lower threshold about an Iranian threat that it's prepared to tolerate or live with. But I still think Israel had options. The nuclear threat to Israel had been dramatically diminished. The proxy threat to Israel had been dramatically diminished. The one threat to Israel that had not been dramatically diminished was obviously the ballistic missile threat. And it wasn't clear to me that at this moment Israel had to use military force against it. But again, the Israeli calculation is different potentially than the American calculation. Let's go back to the American calculation then, because you say there were other options, but sanctions have already been in place. And diplomacy was the path, but it didn't get anywhere. I mean, there were talks right up until the eve of that military action. Well, economic sanctions had been introduced, yes, but there are more that could have been done. We could have, for example, gone after tankers. The United States had other options. And with respect, sanctions don't always work, though, do they? We've seen this in other parts of the world. I am painfully aware of that, but sanctions tend to do better when they are enforced. And second of all, when they have specific goals. Also, the Iranian economy is the Achilles heel of this regime. So if there was any – and they don't – you know, a measure of working can't be whether they work in an hour of a day. But could you put increasing pressure on the Iranian regime? And would that over time perhaps produce defections or changes in policy? I would have said, yes, Iran is heavily dependent on oil exports. So there is more we clearly could and I would argue should have done there. Negotiations, yes, negotiations didn't succeed. But the question is, what's your goal for the negotiations? If your goal for negotiations was so wildly ambitious, we've got to deal with every aspect of nuclear capability, every aspect of ballistic missiles, every aspect of support for proxies and so forth. Well, no, then negotiations are going to fail. If, however, you're willing to define your goals somewhat more narrowly, then I think negotiations might have succeeded. And more broadly, America has been in wars in the Middle East, of course, in decades past. We're still at the beginning of this one. But where do you see this going? And how serious do you think the consequences are if there isn't a clear endgame? Well, two things. One is you're right that we have been involved in many Middle Eastern wars. When you look at the last 35 years since the Cold War ended, that's been a characteristic of this era of history. I really question the wisdom of that, particularly wars of choice like this one in the 2003 Iraq War. Why the United States would want to make this part of the world, this region, the center of so much of its energy and its efforts, given the threats we face from Russia and Europe, the potential threats we face from China and the Indo-Pacific, is baffling to me. Indeed, this entire war is inconsistent with this administration's national security strategy. Where this goes, again, we would like to keep this limited with the United States, but it's not clear we can. Iran gets a vote. And wars don't always end with formal peace treaties and clean endings. This could go on for some time. We could have a situation of, if you will, no peace, no war. It won't be a formal end. There won't be a negotiation, but there could be sporadic intermittent attacks. So I think we have to be open to the idea of not simply an intense war, but an aftermath of a much messier Middle East. I think that's a real possibility. And also the situation in Iran. We shouldn't assume that that somehow resolves itself. So we have poked the hornet's nest here. And we'll see how it plays out. That's Richard Haas there from the Council of Foreign Relations based in the United States. A reminder that you can get loads more on the BBC News website about the conflict in the Middle East. Thanks for listening to this edition of NewsHour. questions. Join me, Merrin's Upset Web, every week for my show Merrin Talks Money from Bloomberg Podcasts, where I have in-depth conversations with fund managers, strategists, and experts about how markets really work. And join me for a separate episode where I answer listener questions on how to make those markets work for you. Follow Merrin Talks Money on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen.