World Cup and Supporter Reporter

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK What do Beatles member Sepaul McCartney, YouTube megastar, Mrter Beast, and former Facebook executive Cheryl Sandberg all have in common? They're all being discussed in the new season of Good Bad Billionaire, the podcast which explores the lives and fortunes of the world's super rich. That's Good Bad Billionaire from the BBC World Service. Listen now, search for Good Bad Billionaire wherever you get your BBC podcasts Hello. So the government has finally announced that it is banning social media for under sixteenens, probably from next year What is the clip that's gone viral? No, notot the video of Kir Starmer dressed suspiciously like Andy Burnham. No, not a tweet by Elon Musk saying this is another attack on freedom of speech by an authoritarian government in the UK. It is A school girl being interviewed by reporter Fiona Lamden in Lancashire. What was your screen time over the weekend? Nine hours. Nine hours. So suddenly you're going to have a lot more time to fill. And what will you do? Stare at a wall okay. I think she might have been joking But who knows? We will find out the details of what the government actually is planning when it comes to teenagers and social media though, on this episode, Newscast. Newscast. Newscast from the BBC. Humanity's next great voyage begins. We are in the midst of a rupture. Nostalgia will not bring back the old audence. sixty se. Yeah It's supposed to be me as a doctor. D he has also a special conotation.. Thinking about it like a panto helped. Do we play music now? what do we say? Hello, it's Adam in the Newscast studio and shortly I will be catching up with Chief international correspondent Lis Dusette because there is big news about the conflict between Iran and the US. a so called peace deal has been signed between the two sides, but there's a lot more to it than meets the eye. Or is it less to it that meets the eye? becausecause we actually don't know what the details are and lots of people are saying it's not actually a full on peace deal. Lis will bring us up to speed. But first of all, the main subject we're going to discuss on this episode of newewscast, Kir Starmer summoned the press to downowning Street at breakfast time to announce the government's response to its consultation on new regulations for social media for teenagers and young people. The main headlinine is that from about spring next year, we think there is going to be a ban on under sixteenens using a whole load of social media apps. And the government's also looking into various other restrictions for other age groups, including things like anonymous messaging on games apps and that infinite scroll, which means you can just keep scrolling and scrolling and scrolling scrolling And also they're looking at the idea of a curfew where apps are not available for teenagers after a certain time And clearly the government have been inspired by Australia where they introduced a ban on social media for teenagers a few months ago and the entire world is watching to see how that's going. although the government here say they're actually going even further than Australia. So to help us understand what might be coming down the social media technology pipeline, we're joined by the BBC's technology editor here in the studio, Zoe Kleman Hello And she's reuniting across the airwavways with Henry's eff at Westminster. Hello Henry. Hello. Yes, Eie and I were in Downing Street very early this morning. and I think when Both of us are in the same place it reflects that Technology and politics are coinciding in a very big way right now. And Henry, just in terms of the choreography, this was a thing that the government's done before, which is tryed to crash breakfast news on BBC one at the peak viewing time ten past eight. Yeah, and they've done it a handful of times. I mean actually, the most recent example I can remember is Rachel Reeves The Chancellor essentially all but announcing that she was going to put up income tax, which she then didn't do which sparked all sorts of political fallout. But look, I mean, it's a natural communication strategy, isn't it? Especially given that this is targeted as an announcement but at parents. and it's a time of day when lots of parents are engaging with the news and you got the government big coverage. though Of course, this is an announcement of such significance they could have announced it at any time of day, probably in any format. and a lot of people would have stood up and paid attention And oey, we will dig into the details. And there's quite a lot of details, although maybe not as much detail as we'd like. but do you want to just sort of frame what K Starmer was trying to achieve with all of this So he's gone for the under sixteen social media ban, which I think everybody knew he was going to do. There's been an enormous pressure from campaigners, from bereaved parents, from Parents in general, actually, who are very worried about what's going on with their children when they're online and whether they're safe enough. And the government's been very clear for ages, hasn't it? that it's not a matter of what sry it's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. And I think obviously there's a little bit of broader politics at play that Henry can talk far more about, but it seems like the moment is now for Siri Dara to perhaps set this out as his legacy. So what are we seeing? We're seeing social media ban for under sixteenens. This is all very closely modelled on the Australia ban. so if you've been following that that's pretty much what we're going to get here as well. However We are going further. It's been described as Australia plus and here's why because some of the measures will target under eightens. So we're going for sixteen and seventeen year olds as well in some of the additional stuff that they want to bring in And so in terms of the ban, are they setting out particular apps that this will apply to or is it a more kind of generalized of describing And the reason I asked that question is that Jess Phillips was on newscast last week and she was saying, Ohh, a problem with the Australian system is it's just a list of particular apps. And she would have preferred something where you just talk about kind of the service that's being offered online. So we are following the Australia list. There are ten apps that are on it and they include, well, all the ones you'd expect really, you know Instagram, TikTok YouTube is on it X, you know all of the big ones basically. And then there's also Snapchat as well, thank you. But there are there's also a list of apps that are not on it and some of those have been quite surprising as well. So gaming is not included. so Roblox is not part of the ban. Messaging apps are not part of the ban. So WhatsApp is also not included. Discord, which is a gaming forum also not part of the ban. So it's as interesting to see who's in as who's out. Yeah, and some of those other titles like Roblox, they might be affected by some of the other measures that are going to come in later like the ban on anonymous people being able to message a teenager And what are they going to do about infinite scrolling? Well we don't know yet. I suspect something is coming for infinite scrolling and that might even be an under eighteen measure. And that is the idea that you know the whole doom sccrolling thing that keeps you there because you never ever run out of content to see, they want to get rid of that for children in order to get them off the apps sooner, I suppose.. So we will see later on, you know too what extent they're going to go for that. But it is very much about stripping out functionality. And the big one, of course, is they're going to ban children from live streaming And that is on any platform. So even on Rodlox, for example, where they're allowed to be, they won't be able to live stream on it at all And Henry, in terms of the process of making this the law, we know that the government can actually move quite quickly or relatively quickly in terms of how parliament works because they've given themselves some powers in advance to implement this. Yes. So actually, we think the main provisions that the government has announced can be introduced by what's called secondary legislation. That's to say It won't follow the full parliamentary process going through multiple stages in the House of Commons and then multiple stages in the House of Lords. It won't require its own Parliament called the Social media Under Sixteen's Restrictions Act or something like that. And that is why Sak Stama, I think was, you know, reasonably It was reasonable for him to be confident in saying, in answer to Zoe's question, in fact that he expects this to be in force in the spring of twenty twenty seven I think given the parliamentary process around this, as well as actually the level of political consensus that there now is When he says that, We can be pretty sure, at least if he is still Prime Minister, that that is the timetable the goovernment is going to end up being able to deliver this over. And let's hear a bit of the Prime Minister in his own words in Downing Street on Monday morning Today is a big moment for our country This is a big step Real change for our children and our future Because today I can announce that the government will ban access to social media for all children under the age of sixteen I feel the Primeinter wants to get the message that he's been decisive there. So, justust in terms of the choreography of the event, who's actually doing the applauding there? Becauseuse I'm guessing that's not Westminster journalists doing that? No, it wasn't us. I was actually sitting behind a group of campaigners, including bereaved parents, and they were applauding. I took their photo on the steps of number ten before we went in, and they were absolutely jubilant because they've been fighting for this for years And they say they feel like it's been a David and Goliath battle against these multib billion dollar tech companies in the US. and they have really struggled to in their opinion, you know, protect children. One of them said when they all met K Starma last week, you know we don't want anyone else to join our group because it is a very tragic group they're and they are absolutely delighted that this has happened. I have to say though, before you go into number ten, as you will know, you have to surrender your phones. and I had massive anxiety about being separated from my phones and I thought maybe this is a little insight into how the nation's thirteen to sixteen year olds are feeling right now. We'll feel from spring next year and then the other things being phased in afterwards. Zoe just in terms of the practicalities of how this will work You suddenly realize like the easy bit is saying this is what's going to be implemented. The much harder bit is actually working out than how it will happen. because isn't one of the logical conclusions of this that everyone, no matter what age you are, if you want to access TikTok or Snapchat or YouTube, you will have to prove your age to show that you're not under sixteen I think it's quite possible that we will see something like that. Certainly. The age verification has been criticised in Australia and one of the reasons for that I think is that it's not essential, so it kicks in if something is flagged rather than kicking in for absolutely everybody. and I think that might be how some children have managed to hold on to their accounts. see a tougher version of it. So in Australia, it's not an automatic thing where you have to, I don't know, do a three D scan of your face to get access to TikTok. So my understanding is that it's not essential that some children haven't hit it or they'd manage to get around it. I mean, there are always ways as we know around everything. I thought it was really interesting that the Prime Minister compa this to laws around drinking alcohol, which of course is for over eighteenens. And he said,, we do know that people under eighteen also drink, but we know that the law prevents it on lots of occasions, and that's why we do it. We haven't given up on the drinking laws. And so I think he' being realistic about it that it's not likely to completely solve this problem, but it might help And Henry, in terms of how these regulations are designed, it'll be interesting to see, do they go down the route of basically just putting a very strict duty on the providers of these services that they've got to stop under sixteenens being on them if they're covered by the ban, or they've got to stop under eightens using certain tools if that's what then gets restricted or whether the government is very, very precise about what's going to go on here Yeah, and clearly that is where thingsings get a bit trickier for the government and that is where there's ample scope for the political consensus that has formed on the broad principle to fracture just in the last half an hour or so S a Davy, the leader of the liberal Democats whose party has been pushing for a ban is saying that he is worried that the government has come up with a half baked policy that won't keep children safe I mean I think the argument he's essentially making is that the government has rushed this out for political purposes and Therefore hasn't quite thought through the answers to questions like the one you just posed me. And reform have been making the point. I think it was Robert Genereick was doing a speech today saying that he and Nigel Farage think the better answer would be kind of dumb phones for under sixteen s. So actually you just can't access the apps at all via the device Yes, that's right. and Uh You know, there will be a range of other positions. I think the Conservative Party, which probably launched off kind of politics of this when Kemmy Baadennock backed to a full ban sort of first thing this year I think they've been perhaps the least begrudging as it were, of the other political parties who've been pushing for a version of this and have said they'll support the government all this, although they're very cynical about the reasons that Sakirist Stama has announced it now. just to reemphasize The goovernment doesn't have to follow a full act of parliament on this. They have though it's easy to forget it a massive majority in Parliament and The vast majority of labour MP's as far as I can tell are a supporterive of what Ss KS Star has announced today, and that's not necessarily something we've always been able to say. Zoe, I won't get you to sum up the response of every single tech company in the world, but some of the themes emerging from resp So first of all, they all say that they are committed to protecting children as you would expect. and a lot of them point out that they have already introduced parental controls and blocked access to things that have been found to be harmful. The vibe I get from them is that they will be supportive if they feel that it's fair to all of them and I'm not convced that they I do feel that it's fair today. I think they were expecting a bit more. I think they were also expecting Apple and Google to have to do the age verification at phone level. and that doesn't seem to have happened. So now they're going to have to find a way to do it. and it's going to have to be a better way than what they're doing in Australia. And I think from what I'm hearing, that's come as a bit of a surprise Certainly to some of them. Well, because the argument for doing it at device level is that what you would basically prove your age on your phone and then that gives you access to the services as opposed to having to prove your age to every app that you want to use. Exactly right. So the idea is, you know, if you are aged between thirteen and fifteen and you go on the app store, you won't even see the apps. They won't be there. They'll be blocked from you at device level. And of course, the other argument is, you know if you remove children's access to these apps, well where do they go instead? There are some smaller less regulated Zero protection places out there for chat forums, gaming platforms, you know that there is a concern that the tech companies say, well, you know at least on these big ones, you know that we are under scrutiny and we are doing a lot. whereas on these other ones, nobody's looking at them and nobody knows about them, is that a bigger threat? Teenenagers who have accounts on these apps now just have them switched off one day in spring next year. Well, that's what happened in Australia, isn't it they just hit a wall they did manage to get over that all kind of. Yes. And in terms of the Australian experience, I keep hearing, oh, the evidence is very mixed and I'm not sure what the evidence on either side actually is other than to say it's mixed So I guess well, in its favor, the ESafety Commission says that nearly five million children's accounts were disabled when the ban was introduced in December. That's a lot Less good is the fact that seven out of ten children that had accounts then still seem to have at least some of them now Seven out of ten. That's what the reports say. Yes. So been it has obviously done something and millions of accounts being disabled is not insignificant, is it? However, it does also appear that lots of children have found ways to avoid it. either they're using something like VPN's or they just haven't hit the age verification for whatever reason And Henry, I'm just thinking back to that clip of Starmer that we played. I mean he's not a guy that gets excited or passionate about things really other than Asenal But this is something he seems very excited about. But then you think, well actually that suits him politically because if he's fighting for his political life this is probably quite a good weapon to have at his arsenal in that fight. Yeah, there was language in a portion of the sort of opening speech about not backing down and delivering this however hard it might be which I don't think was really specifically about this issue. I think it was about the broader political predicament that he finds himself in and It's been clear for some time that the government is going to end up in this place. It's been clear for some time that the government was going to make the announcement of whatever this policy turned out to be before the summer. But why did they do it today? Well they did it today because this is the start of what could prove a really pivotal week for the Prime Minister. and I don't just mean that he's going to the G seven suummit of World leadeaders in France later today, important though that is. It's because when he comes back, He will find out on Thursday night, Friday morning whether Andy Burnham, currently the mayor of Greater Manchester, is going to be the MP for Makerfield. And if he is, then events could move quite quickly and the Prime Minister will U need an argument to fall back upon as he makes the case to labour MPs for why they should leave him in office and make no mistake, this announcement today will form part of that arument And of course for Andy Burnham to make it to Westminster to then potentially challenge Ker Starmer as Prime Minister, he has to win the Makerfield by election, which will be decided by voters in Makerfield on Thursday. Andy Burnerham will have to be Robert Kenyon of Reform UK to be the new MP for Makerfield. And in terms of the candidates, you know what I'm going to say next? There's a list of all of the candidates in the Makerfield by election on the BBC News website He's playing with fire as well here because tech and AI companies are a big part of the government's plan for economic growth in the UK. They have invested millions, billions of dollars, not only in their UK headquarters, which are generally in London, but also infrastructure and building data centres, that sort of thing And on the one hand, you've got him sort of telling them off and reining them in and having and you rightly saying that they're not protecting children. That's a big thing to throw at a company, isn't it? And on the other hand, we're trying to welcome them to the country. And as one former government adviser put it to me, there is no plan B. We need the money, right? We need them to be here. We need them to think that this is a good place for the UK for these companies to come and grow and thrive. So he's got to really walk a very fine line, I think, in order to manage to deliver both of those messages. And I guess the question is will we see them quietly start voting with their feet in the future if they feel that actually they're not getting the market here that they used to have. And the other obstacle that he faces and will face later on stay in a few hours' time is in the shape of Donald Trump, who is very protective of his US tech companies and has railed before against foreign countries, as he says, trying to regulate his tech businesses and I don't know what's going to make of this. I know he's been kind of busy, but he might not be very happy about it. More on that shortly. But also Zoe, there's an example of a bit of tech protectionism from Donald Trump already this weekend and that didn't he say under national security rules, Anthropic cannot use their new AI model Mythos in other countries because he wants to keep it for the states. Yes, absolutely. This is really significantos If you believe Anthropic, this incredibly powerful tool that can spot weaknesses in security systems before anybody, any human does, and in tests it found one that had been hidden in a system for twenty seven years. There's a slightly more measured review of it from the AI Safety Institute, but it is still a very good tool and companies, banks, financial institutions worldwide are clamoring to get hold of it because they want to see how secure their systems are. restestricting it to the US China creates a two tier security system for the world, doesn't it? Those that get metthos and those that don't? It is a very powerful message to send. And it's interesting that actually there's no UK banks at the moment that have access to it already. And Henry, just a last philosophical point, and this is a ridiculous question to ask you, especially after you've been up since four o'clock this morning, but it's about timelines and politics. And I was just thinking, oh wow, this social media ban has come around in the UK really, really quickly. Obviously not quickly enough for lots of campaigners and people who've lost their children in horrible circumstances But you compare that to the online safety bill which is our kind of set piece bit of legislation for handling the online world, which took years and years and years to come into force, started under David Cameron But then part of me was thinking, well, hang on, when I was a baby journalist on NewsRound, we were doing cyber bullying in two thousand four. So actually it's taken twenty two years to get to this point. So I'm not sure is this proof of politics moving quite fast in the modern age or politics moving quite slowly in the modern age, or is it a product of actually politics will just generate what it needs at the time. Do see what I mean? It's an absolutely brilliant point. and I've Well I've I've beenking I mean, I've been asking myself a similar question over the course of the day because As you say,, there's been a sort of tone in some of the reaction from those who've been campaigning for this of well, alas the government has listened and done this I completely understand given the harrowing experiences that many of them have had, why it feels like this is only at last. But in terms of where the political consensus was and where the political consensus now is in Westminster I mean, I think it's one of the fastest shifts I've seen in my time co in my decade or so covering politics. because Genuinely a year ago, Sakhir Stama was making the argument privately to labour MPs that as the parent of teenagage children himself he had experienced he had seen them experience the benefits of social media. and sure, there were labour MPs who were frustrated that that was his view, but he was not some sort of their apparration. And he came to me because of how fast the political consensus moved. And there's all sorts of reasons that we could talk about another time about why that might have been the case. but I think You should never underestimate the fact that MPs are peopleople too And many MPs are parents too. and just as there appears to have been a shift over years, perhaps rather than months among parents about the ills of social media for children rather than the benefits. you know, I think the same thing has happened in Parliament because they're kind of downstream of that broader societal trend And Zoe, I'll give you a bite of that question as well. I'm just wondering, as you walked into that Edwardian townhouse from which our country is run and where I would not be surprised if there's still a working fax machine. Did you think, Oh, I'm here in a place that is actually finally getting to grips and getting approximately to the same speed that the tech is developing? I'm going to answer that question with a parenting reference. I'm a parent myself. and you know when your kids are smalls The years go really fast you can't believe they're suddenly five, and yet equally sometimes some days you can't believe it's not lunchime yet. I think those two things are true. Let's move basalon and quickly. Facebook didn't launch in the UK until two thousand five, which is twenty one years ago. So we've had twenty one years of people growing up with this. You know somebody in the briefing with me made me feel very old by saying that they couldn't have got through school without YouTube. I didn't have YouTube. I was in school. But know two thousand five It's an important resource for lots of people and yet it's also become this double edged sword, hasn't it? and a cause of harm? And I think regulators always struggle to keep up with tech because it moves so much more quickly than they do. I mean, how many years have you and I sat here discussing the online safety actct and then it launched and oh my goodness, it doesn't have AI chatbots in it twenty sixteen when that all started, we didn't know what they were. So that's always going to be a struggle, I think. But I think there's another point here, which is about society The way in which people behave online is arguably a societal problem Easy' actually a technology problem. I had a message this morning which began right diagnosis wrong cure And we will still see and I'm now going to be treading on dangerous ground here parents on their devices in restaurants while their kids in four years time are not on necessarily on their devices, while they won't be on social media, they can still be on their devices I tried to have a g at my son for his screen time and he threw it right back at me and said, Mum, what's yours? Right. Newscast is turning into a parenting podcast now, which is great for me. So, thank you very much. Thank you. And Henry, good to catch up. Thank you. What do Beatles member, S Paul McCartney, YouTube mega star Mr. Beast, and former Facebook executive Cheryl Sandberg all have in common. They're all being discussed in the new season of Good Bad Billionaire, the podcast which explores the lives and fortunes of the world's super rich. That's Good Bad Billionaire from the BBC World Service. Listen now, search for Good Bad Billionaire wherever you get your BBC podcasts Now on Monday, we all woke up to the news that the US and Iran had signed a so called memorandum of understanding, which means they will have a sixty day ceasefire in their conflict, and which paves the way for more negotiations about lots of the thorny issues between the two countries, whether it's the access to that crucial waterway, the Strait of Hormuz, whether it's the future of Iran's nuclear program billions of dollars of Iranian money that is frozen in financial institutions around the country There's lots to think about here. and all of this was happening as Donald Trump was hosting a UFC ultimate fighting championship cage fighting contest on the lawn of the White House. So quite a juxtaposition there. And the person who's going to talk us through it all the BBC's chief international correspondent, Lis Duset. Hello Lis Really good to join you. I, I' seen you for a while. It's really ye. Am I on your like No, you've been on your travels. Okay for various reasons which we can discuss offline. So just tell me how this story has unfolded in the last twenty four hours? Well as a measure of this moment, the reports came through that Iran did not want the deal to happen on Sunday, june fourteenth because that was President Trump's eightieth birthday. So they didn't want to give him a birthday present. Right. So you saw when it happened. It happened just in the last hours as President Trump was that cage fight was going under Wb trashing it out on the White House lawn. And then it was the next day in Iran, so Iran could say, well, we didn't do it on President Trump's birthday.ight. I mean, that was part of the timing. But there was also the fact that there was Heizbollah had fired We think it was drones. Israel retaliated in Beirut. There was a concern that this would that would derail the progress. Then there was a flurry of negotiations with the Qatari mediors and the Iranians, Iran is said to have asked for something from President Trump not to retaliate Adam, there's always this kind of messiness in the final stages of a deal. But what we're seeing in this one is on another scale. And even now, as we speak as we recording now two o'clock in the afternoon, there's been an announcement from Washington announced from Teran that they have reached an agreement. Pakistan, one of the mediators, has also said there's an agreement on all fronts But we're not sure what Israel iss going to do in Lebanon and we don't have all the details about what actually has been agreed. Well yeah, Hence, Site, when we were just watching our colleagues on the news channel on the TV here in the studio and on the caption, the words peace deal are surrounded by inverted commas It's a misnomer to call it a peace deal. It's about ending the war, ending the hot war. The hostilities remain. All of the toughest of issues are still to be negotiated. This is, I know it doesn't sound good in a news headline, a memorandum of undernderstanding, a framework for further negotiations, what will be the fate of Iran's nuclear deal How will the strait of Hormz, how will that be controlled? Is it really going to be free flow, Iran doesn't see it in that way. What's going to happen? Ballistic missiles don't seem to be from what we know, doesn't seem to be on the agenda. The US said they wanted it. There certainly those Iran's neighbors who' come under ballistic missile, Israel wants those on, what about Iran's proxies and partners? So there's still a lot. There's still a lot that could go wrong, but let us emphasize how important it is that there is, call it a peace deal and invert it Cas call it an into the war, I think there was a collective sigh of relief because people have been warning that you know energy experts, financial advisors, if it went through the summer, the global energy shock, the global shock in food prices, the hunger crisis would have been on an even deeper scale. So it seems then that what they've agreed that's definitive is another sixty days of ceasefire And then they're going to sign a piece of paper in Geneva on Friday that commits both sides to basically having more talks about some of the issues that you mentioned there on that list So that's basically all we've actually really got today. But again, those details haven't been confirmed, but as we record the The prevailing view is that it will happen on Friday, that it will be in Geneva. JD Vance, the U.S. Vice president said that it's likely to be him. He even suggested President Trump who be on this side of the world. We don't know how long he said he could also come. We understand it will be the lead negotiator for Iran, Mohamed Bagar Ghalibov, who's the speaker of the Parliament. We don't know what's going to happen in the meantime. President Trump, in one of his trruth social posts, basically said the oil's going to flow, get your engines going. But it's going to take a lot longer to open up the straight in Fore news. Andam I'll just mention Well, two points that are we still don't really have confirmed confirmation about what actually has been agreed, at least in this first phase is that there was a report that Iran has agreed that for the next sixty days that traffic through the Strait of Hormuz will be toll free and that there will then be what's called the regional dialogue to decide about the kind of what kind of system will be put in place patrol the traffic, et cetera to monitor the situation. But Iran is already in talks with Oman. and whether you call them tolls, President Trump said no tolls or services, Turkey has a similar arrangement.oy, I heard one of these academics at the University in Tehran who's sort of closely aligned to the regime saying, Ohh, well, we could have a pilotage fee because countries like Denmark make you get a pilot on board your ship to go past their coastline that's not's going to be cause. Iran does not. That's a red line for Iran. It's not going to give up But is for it, not just a gift of geography, but a gift of this war, the fact that it can maintain some control over the Strait of Oormmz. The other one is about the cash. President Trump, other American officials say there will be no cash for Iran. There will be no American money. because there's all these frozen assets. billion said, estimated around the world in banks, other central banks and in reserves Some of it is Iran's oil sales. but we understand that Iran wants cash upfront. It wants and this is because it's in a dire economic and financial strait for all of its bravado, but also just doesn't trust Trump and President Trump. Whether or not whatever you think of Iran, Iran, it's like they say just because you're paranoid doesn't mean people are are get you to get you. President Trump pulled out of the first landmark nuclear deal, which was agreed in twenty fifteen under President Obama. In the last previous rounds of negotiations, negotiations, which were proceeding were shattered buy American back wars with Israel. So They are they don't want surprises again. They want proof that America is going to be to carry through this time. And for them part of it is show me the money And as part of it is a deal that locks in the United States. And then what do we know about the fate of Lebanon and all of this So the statement by One of the chief mediators, Pakistan, the Prime Minister Shabba Sharif said that it was a war. It was a ceasefire on all fronts, including Lebanon. The foreign Minister of Iran Abassadaki said all areas of Lebanon, in other words, Beirut and southern Lebanon. But from Israel today, across the political spectrum, there is criticism saying the United States cannot dictate our policy The deffense minister has said we are going to continue to operate in Lebanon, no territorial limits, no time limits. The very hard the far right wing minister, Ben Gaver, a national security minister, has been even more categorical. We are not going to agree to this. But before I joined you, Adam, it's very interesting I read a report by of a very well respected observer in Lebanon who said that as a result of this deal There' going to be there's hope that there can be discussions among regional players to come up with a political kind of process that they can deal politically with the issue of Hezbollah's guns. Because the Lebanese government has said they want to disarm Heizbollah, but it's very hard for them to do it when Beirut is coming under fire, when southern Lebanon has been moreore than a million and a half people have been on the run, so much more than three thousand people killed. It's just not propitious for those kinds of discussions. So this just I just read this as so maybe a little bit of light in this dark but certainly one of the many weak pillars of this is what's going to happen in the Lebanese front. and Iran has continually made it clear, this is not just a bargaining chip. It's not going to cast away Heizbollah. Its links to Hezbollah go right back to the creation of Hezbollah in nineteen eighty two. And now the links are personal, they're political, their families marry each other. they're religious, they're institutional And they're just not they're hand in glove and they're not going to simply cast them away. And did you see the interview Donald Trump did with the New York Times on Sunday? So it sounds quite bizarre how it happened. L his family were getting ready for his birthday dinner in the White House. He was getting ready to go and see the ultimate fighting championship out on the lawn. He calls up the New York Times for half an hour and part of that conversation is him thinking very big thoughts like, o Maybe in future, the security guarantees that the US provides its Gulf allies should come with an actual price tag or a share of the economic activity in the Gulf going forward. And that was me thinking, okay, is that classic Donald Trump just kind of riffing on something and not having any constraints on what he uses his imagination to do? orr is this part of his sales pitch to the American people for why they've basically ended up with a situation that's maybe slightly worse than the situation before the war. He's trying to justify all of this to his voters. There certainly is a chorus of criticism saying what was this war all about? Was there really an imminent threat from Iran? President Trump continues to say that had there not been a war that Iran would have acquired would have used a nuclear weapon and Israel would be destroyed in two hours.'s says when he lashes out against Prime Minister Netanyahu, that has been extraordinary. This is really a turning point moment between these two very close political allies and in the history between the United States and Israel. But President Trump is under pressure to prove that spending billions of dollars burning through all of those American munitions in a war where he never achieved what he set out in that first eight minute video, which was that they would destroy Iran militarily and that once the war was over, people should rise up and take control of their government. would be the best chance in their lifetimes. So that hasn't happened. But more importantly, we're going to hear this a lot from President Trump. We already are New York Times mentioned how often he mentioned it when they spoke with him that it's a better deal than Obama. twenty fifteen deal Ian agreree to three point six seven percent enrichment. undernder this new one, it has to be better than that. In fact there will be a suspension enrichment, they've got to decide how many years that would be. What's going to happen to the highly enriched uranium? In twenty fifteen, the uranium was only enriched to around twenty percent, ninety seven percent if that was sent to Russia. Now it's sixty percent and Iran is refusing to give it to the United States it's getting closer to the So many are saying for a while. And also that even though a lot of the oil that the Americans use does relly doesn't come to you the straighter from yours prices are set globally. and American voters are starting to feel it at the petrol pump and in the supermarkets. And just the fact of there being a war. he is, after all, the president who vowed to be the president who stopped wars didn't didn't start them. and he's he's kind of you know, dismissed it. Oh, I don't care what the people suffering. Oh prices oil prices aren't so high, But he's going to have to and he's a he's a master at this in terms of wordsmith spinning this to be the victory. He'll talk about it as he already is about the greatest peace deal in forty seven years between Iran and the United States. But when you get down to the reality have it, the people of Iran who wanted to see fundamental change, they're worse off than before. the people of the United States have taken a hit and people worldwide have suffered and some very, very painfully. because of this, because of rising food prices, oil prices, shortages of food Fertilizer, shortages of fertilizer Shortages of a lot of what we rely on for our daily lives And what about those other countries in the Gulf like the United Arab Emirates, for example, or Qatar and Oman, places that were on the receiving end of the Iranian retaliation And people have been saying, oh, that's their business model as countries as destinations for foreign investment or foreign immigration and highly skilled workers. That's gone now because of this. Is that how they feel or are they sort of breathing a sigh of relief they're like, oh actually, we've got through this. It's back to business as usual kind of Months ago when you and I sat here just after february twenty eighth, you I'm not always right, but I described it as a before and after moment. that the region would never be the same and Iran would never be the same. And this is what has happened. And I predicted that when the war ended, there'd be big posters in the underground saying, come to Dubai and Dubai, buy as much as you can. That model has been shattered And the United Arab Emirates has gone from being furious because more than fifty percent of the attacks during those months of hot warar were against the UAE. And Iran has been focusing on the UE because the UAE nailed its colors to the flag of Israel and the U.S. made it absolutely clear which side it was on in Israel. And Iran took note of that. They need to have stability. They cannot change the geography. There have been reports of high level negotiated discussions between the Emirati leaders and Iranian leaders. There was even a report which was denied that the UAE gave a huge sum of money to Iran to say, please stop attacking us. We've got to find a way to live together. And there will be a split in the Gulf. Qatar as well was furious. They felt betrayed. It's for that reason that they were not involved in the initial mediation, why it was Pakistan and then Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt. But of late, in fact, in these last I mentioned earlier, intense diplomacy, Qataris who have more experience on this file negotiating They have now recognized that they can't literally say, we're not going to be part of this. We're not having nothing to do with this. They have to. They have to find a way to live together. And of course, what Iran's long term ambition is and it keeps repeating it, is that the Gulf states have to understand that those American military bases make them less secure, not more secure. And its long term vision of the region is a region where Iran is going to be take more of a role. Now that's not certainly not how its neighbors see it. and I don't think they're going to want to say to the Americans, you can go away now because these relationships are their defense, you know, their arms deals, transfers of technology, The ties that bind are deep and crucial, but it's going to be these are big big questions for the future, but there will have to be talks. And the region will want to have a say The region will also be unhappy that ballistic missiles don't seem to be on the agenda And is your agenda going to Geneva on Friday What flight should we take Adam? I'll be watching the Makerfield Biia election. Yes. Is this going to be interesting on Friday?. We'll see what happens but maybe you'll interview me on Friday from Geneva. They'll beakingair notes. Yes,es yes, which is to be could be existential for some people here in Britain, but it's the deal onnce it's eed, for all of the complications that we discussed, it's really, really important that it has happened, for all of its weaknesses and fragility. It's got to start moving in that direction, too many people in too many countries and for people who don't have the wherewithal to survive these shocks are really suffering No, for something completely different, have you been watching the World Cup? I do love watching the World Cup. I think a long time ago, I covered I was a commentator on the World Cup in Africa. Africaup yees, when I first started in the BBC. We dr some p. No, no, I just went supplies and. the celebration of In of course, Canada, which is where I come from. Canada, Mexico, the US, Canada tied its first game a draw I saw Scotland being Haiti, so it's starting to get I've been busy with this story understandably the reason I ask is because we're doing a thing called Supporter Reporter where we're trying to find a newscaster in every single country represented at the world. Oh So we've got forty eight to find. Do you have a Canadian I think I think we do. Yeahah. Okay. You put yourself forward Oh you need There we go, tick, tick in the Canada column. So we've got a message from Robert who actually emailed us when we started this feature a few months ago. He says, I listen to newewscast every day. I'm English. But I live in Ecuador. Oh. He says domestically he's an Iippswich town supporter. But what he's most pleased about is that all the matches are generally in his time zone. Oh Lucky year, Robert. And we've had another message from Class Bertelson, who's in Stockholm in Sweden, who says, listening to newscast on the speaker on the balcony in Solna, which is a suburb of Stockholm, awaiting Sweden's first match with their English manager, Graham Potter At the ungodly hour of four AM on Monday. Work is going to be fun This is cllass. There's been a lot of controversy around this World Cup about very high prices about the United States borrowing from Somalia, some of the players and coaches in Iran. But there's the hope that once the beautiful game starts being the center of attention, that all of this will fade away. And we've seen that. We saw in Qatar, for example, there was a lot of controversy then So this is a hope because I really am a big believer that sport can bring people together. And it's something you know, given all we've been discussing, these are moments of joy, joy and bliss and happiness. I like to see happiness. Well, let's see what happens when Iran play their first match because that's against New Zealand qu soon isn't it? Yeah Yes. Right Last, thank you very much. Good to see you, Adam. And if you would like to be our supporter reporter for all the other countries that are not Canada, Ecuador