♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ announcer: funding for presentation of this program is provided by... woman: a successful business owner sells his company and restores his father's historic jazz club with his son.

a raymond james financial advisor get to know you, your passions, and the way you bring people together. life well planned. brett: you know as someone coming out of college it can be very nerve-racking not knowing what to expect, whether you'll like your job or not, whether you'll make friends, whether you'll fit in, and here i feel like it's so welcoming and such an inclusive place to work, you just feel like you're valued. narrator: funding was also provided by, the freeman foundation, the judy and peter blum kovler foundation, upholding freedom by strengthening democracies at home and abroad. announcer: and now, bbc news. geeta: hello. i'm geeta guru-murthy, this is the context on bbc news. >> president trump was to end

the war, destroying iran's nuclear capabilities. >> the u.s. has failed in their intended objective. sec. levitt: we were watching closely and none of the indications are that the uranium was moved. >> everyone expresses the same worry, that the cease-fire will not hold, that this war will eru pt again. ♪ geeta: hello and welcome. the u.s. defense secretary pete hegseth has described america's military strike against iran's nuclear program as "historically successful. speaking at a news conference in washington coming at a robust and at times angry speech. he also talked about the early intelligence reports on the

strikes. it comes after the iran's supreme leader appeared on state television, saying the u.s. attacks failed to achieve anything significant. here is some of what pete hegseth had to say. sec. access: president trump dictated one of the most successful event in history, and it was a resounding success with a cease-fire agreement and the end of a 12-day wore. there's been a lot of discussion about what happened and what did not happen. step back for a second. because of the size of military action, president trump created the conditions to end the war, decimating, choosing your word, obliterating, destroying i ran's nuclear capabilities. geeta: while iran's supreme leader made his first state appearance on state tv since the 12 day war, he said donald trump has exaggerated the impact of strikes on the nuclear

facilities. ayatollah khamenei: the president of the united states exaggerated events in unusual ways, and it turns out he needed this exaggeration. anyone who has heard these words is understood there is no truth behind them. the u.s. has failed to take action and has not achieved their intended objective. geeta: our chief international correspondent lyse doucet is in tehran, and she has coverage of the news used on the bbc persian service, broadcast in iran. lyse: well, it was a defiant speech, an angry speech. he declared that the islamic republic of iran will never surrender to the united states. he accused the united states of being hostile to iran. ever since the iranian revolution of 1979, it has to be said that the 86-year-old ayatollah has never trusted the united states, even when they

were in negotiations over a nuclear deal. after the events of the past few weeks, that this trust runs very very deep. and we happened to watch his speech in a destroyed section of the state tv compound that has been targeted by an israeli missile. he said they were taking aim at the propaganda arm of the islamic regime. in the main studio, which should have aired the supreme leader's speech, is now just a black hole, completely reduced to ash, when a fire swept through a vest section of that complex. that does seem to symbolize the darkness of this moment now facing iran. however to find the supreme leader, the final authority here on all matters, is in public, and private, he is facing some of the most difficult and dangerous decisions of his nearly 40 years at the helm.

and everyone we meet here, whether they support the government or not, they expressed enormous relief that there is a cease-fire. it's in its third day. it is holding. but they also worry that war will erupt again. still, you can feel obesity slowly returning at least on the service -- surface to its normal rhythm. iranians telling us as hard as it was to stay away, they know it will be hard here, but they wanted here with their neighbors and families as they are all worried what the future will bring. geeta: lyse doucet for us in tehran. jon, what has been the reaction a few hours on from what we learn from that, from the tone of it? jon: well, it was pretty

forthright, wasn't it, and certainly not backing down on the administration's view that mission accomplished. pete hegseth said they obliterated iran's nuclear program. we had a lot of detail about what the attack involved. but what we did not get is the evidence, excuse me, of the damage that a cause. what we know is that the huge bunker-busting bombs were dropped. we know that it hit exactly where the americans want to hit come on the nuclear complex. we know they exploded where they meant to explode, several meters below the ground. we don't know the damage done to it we have the head of the iaea, the international atomic energy agency vector at, say today that they believe the centrifuges were no longer working. but we don't know the extent to the damage, and crucially, we

did not get any proof today that the 400 or so kilos of enriched uranium that i ran needs to develop a bomb, whether that was at the site when it was hit. geeta: jon, i just want to ask you one more point on gaza, because we had some news in the past hour that the u.s. state department has approved $30 million in funding for the gaza humanitarian foundation. what more is known about that? jon: well, this announcement, yeah. came from the state department. $30 million for this very controversial organization, which is backed by the united states and israel, but has been slammed as a death trap by some you in officials. in over the past couple of months, since may, more than 400 palestinians have been shot and killed while trying to get aid from those limited distribution centers run by this foundation. we've seen truly desperate

stanza palestinians scrambling to get through, running across large open areas of land to get to these trucks, many of them getting killed and injured. but the administration here, $30 million urging other countries to do the same. geeta: jon donnison, thank you very much indeed for that. emily harding, director of the national strategic studies program. she also worked for the cia, where she led programs in the middle east and also work at i ran close the international security council. just on the grieving that we are today from defense secretary and also the joint chiefs of staff, did you take away anything new from that? because the sense was, from what i could -- from what i could see, the modeling that they have shows this was a strike of

enormous force, but with there specific information about the damage done? emily: there is certainly an astonishment amount of information they provided pit they wanted to correct the leak over the initial intelligence report that the damage had been limited. i think it was interesting the way general kane laid out the initial intelligence report and the report with a lot more detail and information. in the first report, it seems like it was based on just brand-new information, very limited information, and was put out with low confidence. that is a pretty normal practice for the intelligence community. once you have more information and can process it, then you can put together a much more comprehensive assessment. that seems like that's what they wanted to present today. it's quite telling how exactly the operation went at the objective they meant to accomplish. geeta: in terms of the detail that they gave him they talked

about how it was carried out, but did they actually show that they knew for sure what level of damage has been done to that facility? emily: they did not, and i suspect they won't for quite a while, for a couple of reasons. number one, what they said about battle damage assessment and how the military does not grade homework, that's standard practice. if the military is carrying out an operation, you don't want them reporting back what they did and that being the end of it. the intelligence community does need time to it iran is a very hard target. you cannot walk up to it and take pictures of the site. it will take quite a while to put together that information to get a more complete picture. the other piece is why general kane said at the end, which is there's a lot of capabilities that the united states has come of that allies have, that they are trying to get that information, and if you tell the press, unfortunately, what you found them it also reveals your hand to the people that would try to shut down those intelligence collection

opportunities, so you get no more insight in the future. so they should be selective about what exactly the release, come out and be very honest about what exactly was accomplish with these strikes and how much of the iranian nuclear program is left. geeta: is the technology available to actually work out how much damage is deep beneath the ground and no one can access the top of the site? emily: so this is the question, and what they are going to be looking at is not only the energy and the platform which will really look at the roof and what is going on outside the site as iranians try to excavate, but they will be doing things like calling on any human sources they can, trying to figure out the discussions going on inside the iranian regime to try to figure out what the iranians know about what they have left. you will be looking at normal patterns of behavior, if something existed, how would they be treating it. if it they did not what they excavating it.

they pull these things together and try to come up with a complete picture. geeta: yet in the meantime, you hear donald trump and the administration saying they are trying to move ahead in a positive way of dealing with the regime. but if iran still has the capacity and the knowledge, the sense is that they will move really quickly to produce things, a nuclear weaponized capacity, surely, and then you have the regime in place that israel and others will be very worried about. emily: absolutely, and that is the worst case scenario, honestly. as i've said several times over the past few days, this is not something you can do halfway. this is too much of an incentive for the iranian government to want to sprint to a bomb, if they think it is possible that israel will come back and try this again, even in a few years. but if they have enough capability left over to try to create that weapon. it is critically important that we collect that information, we

figure out what they have left, what capabilities they have left them and if they do have a remainder of the capability to make a weapon, that we address it, along with our partners in the region. geeta: how would you expect that to be addressed? long-term, many people have made the point here in the u.k., the foreign secretary, that you cannot erase knowledge, and that with diplomacy, politics is the only long-term solution. emily: it is certainly the ideal solution. you are right. you cannot bomb knowledge. iran will know how to make advance centrifuges. just because they lost one does not mean they cannot rebuild them. uranium is findable. one of the key things in the supply chain is secretary rubio point out is that a conversion was hit, and that's how they could figure out how to continue with your program. it is important that we answer that question, and then diplomacy is still the best way to go about it. i think i ranch and understand it has lost this particular 12-day-- iran should understand that it has lost its particular

12-date war, and the best way to go forward is to negotiate and rejoin the region. geeta: trust within the united states from around the world, and what the administration is telling us about the efficacy of this operation. stark at the comments were at the press briefing, whether he has come under any pressure. let me play a brief clip of that. like that one is easy. no. no i have not, no i would not. my job is to offer a range of options to the president and the national commander authority to -- to deliver the risks associated with each of those and then take the orders of the national commander authority and go execute them. i've never been pressured by the president or the secretary to do anything other than tell them exactly what i'm thinking, and that's exactly what i've done. geeta: the joint chiefs of staff there.

that is absolutely crucial, isn't it? the independence of any statement we get from the intelligence and the military world. emily: it really is, for two reasons, first of all, the faith and trust of the american people and their allies. you want to know, something critically important as whether or not i ran to get a chemical weapon. if the president is not hearing the truth, that he cannot make the best decisions with the information that he has. and nobody should shrink back from telling him the truth. some of the battle damage is to come back was not such a great assessment, then he needs to hear it. he may not like it, but he needs to hear it, because that is how he can make the best decisions. geeta: regime change force from an outside intervention in particular, israel, do you think that is likely? emily: i think it is unlikely. i think it's also, generally speaking, does not work.

the iranian people have been dissatisfied with their own government for a very long time, and i cannot think that they will think this will end particularly well. but trying to push that from the outside really will result in a backlash. the iranian people are going to make their own decisions about who they want to govern them. geeta: emily harding, very thankful for your time. around the world and across the u.k., this is bbc news. ♪ ♪

♪ geeta: now, sir keir starmer has confirmed he is in talks with rebels refusing to back his plans to reform welfare spending. the government's plan includes restricting eligibility for payments and limiting the sickness related element of universal credits. more than 120 labour mp's have backed an amendment to block the bill from passing.

they are trying to resolve this. but keir starmer's operation has been criticized, hasn't it, damien? damien: it has. and in the last 15, 20 minutes, there's been a lot of talk about concessions may well be imminent, and we can hear more about that. so we will wait to see. but the view is that keir starmer has been kind of forced into this. the government had been talking up until yesterday saying it was going to press ahead with these benefit cuts, these big reforms to the welfare bill, to try to bring that bill down, at least prevent it rising as fast as it has been. now, it seems that in the face of more than 120 labour mp's, who have been adamant that they were not going to support this and would block the legislation when it is due to come before

parliament, that forced the prime minister's hand. and it seems what is being discussed is a pretty big climb down come if we get the details. that would mean what is being talked about is those existing claimants of benefits under the old plan would see because, quite a lot of them. some would not. that would be what is being talked about now amongst the people here is that those existing claimants protected, they keep the benefits as they are, and the changes would only apply to new claimants. that's not confirmed. we are waiting to hear on that. but it would mark a significant u-turn by the government, and also i think the question would be, isn't enough to buy off the rebels to secure the positions of the government can move forward? that is what sir keir starmer is saying today. he still wants to move ahead on tuesday. it may be enough for the veto. geeta: we will certainly try, thanks so much indeed.

while sir keir starmer's labour party is working on that, a new poll shows that if an election takes place today, the reform party of nigel farage would get the most seats in parliament. that's the first major poll since last year's election. reform would be the largest party with more seats than labour and conservatives combined. voter same characteristics to help with projections. the forecast of an estimate of what could happen if the election was held today. i'm joined by a professor, british polling scientist, thanks very much for being with us. what do you make of this poll? how significant is that, john ? >> well, it should not come as a surprise to anyone who has followed british politics to any degree at all.

the heavily pro brexit party led by nigel faraj, who was one of the principal cheerleaders of brexit back in 2016. that party has been consistently ahead of everybody else, creating what is frankly an unprecedented situation in british politics. that said, however, some remember back in the general election last year, reform got 15% of the votes but only got five seats. the election system seems to treat them rather harshly. so the question is, now that reform are ahead in the opinion polls, just how well would they do? this poll gives us some loose. -- clues. basically is saying actually in this poll, the estimated need to reform over labour is only about half the average lead in most of the polls. but despite that, this poll is saying well, look, now that

reform are ahead, the fact that their votes are spread across the country, which is a big disadvantage if you are in coming, it also shows one other crucial thing, which is it underlies how unprecedented the challenge we now have in britain to the traditional dominance by conservative and labour. first of all, this poll, like many others, it's only about 40% of people in britain who have a preference we are saying they would vote for either of those two parties. that is the first time in party history. secondly, what we also see in this poll, where is the conservative vote falling most? in the constituencies they are trying to defend. where is labor defending most? in the places last year. and that means when it comes to the projected outcome in this poll, reform are very clearly ahead, i'll be well short of what would be required to winning over a majority.

geeta: in terms of where we are today, with the welfare problem that labour are facing, there are speculations that the prime minister has been very focused on reform, and part of the reasoning for the welfare cut was not just financial, massive financial pressures, but also that it might appeal to potential reform voters. and some within the labour party said that move emulating reform on immigration and other areas, some say no, the labour party has got to really focus on it. so, the travails of all the main parties, of course, are now very much linked, aren't they? and we see that in policy. prof. curtice: yes. two points in response to that. the truth is that reforms are taking more votes of the conservative dime off labour and, again, you can see in this poll where reforms tend to particularly well. labour, in contrast, yes, they

are losing some votes to reform, but they are also losing more to the greed of the democrats, and you can see the details of this poll, the greens and the democrats who are doing the damage, not necessarily reform. a lot of it is the getting those of conservatives and therefore being able to overtake the party. so will point what is labour's problem is losing votes everywhere, albeit, yes, reforms, and the second thing to say about the link between this today, prime minister will have authority for as long as the mp's think that they are pursuing a path that is likely to result in those mp's reelection. that presumption on behalf of labour mp's, which was they are a year ago, when he led to a very strong victory, that perception i think it is now much weaker. they've already blamed the prime

minister for one welfare cut, which was cutting funding from pensioners, to help them pay their fuel bill, and i think now they are also very clear, many of them, that if the government were to pursue his current plan, this would also be costly to their party, and therefore to them. geeta: and when you say that the result of this poll shows that reform obviously, we are now at majority, the assumption is finding a new leader for conservatives is they could potentially form some sort of coalition with them. well the challenge then be from labour, the dem-green coalition, what else will the numbers tell us in terms of the government? prof. curtice: the intriguing thing about this particular poll, it suggested actually the whole thing will be basically there would be about 315 conservatives, and reform mp's, there will be about 315, labour,

liberal democrats, and mp's from the scottish national party. the balance will be held by the 18 mp's elected from northern ireland, who might form a conservative band, the democratic union in particular, others would prefer a labour market. one of the other things that this poll is reminding us is that british politics is now in another way unprecedented. we got five political parties. geeta: john curtice, thank you so much, john. very grateful. just to let you know, announcer: funding for presentation of this program is provided by... financial services firm, raymond james. funding was also provided by, the freeman foundation, the judy and peter blum kovler foundation,

upholding freedom by strengthening democracies at home and abroad. ♪ ♪ -bbc journalists here in ukraine. -across southern israel. -here in michigan. -beirut. -china. -italy. -russia. -paris. narrator: wherever news breaks, we're there. news anchor: live from washington, this is "bbc news." announcer: get the free pbs app now and stream the best of pbs.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ announcer: funding for presentation of this program is provided by... woman: a successful business owner sells his company and restores his father's historic jazz club with his son.