13/01/2018 Dateline London

Hello, and a very warm

welcome to Dateline London.

This week we discuss the future

of the Iranian nuclear deal,

as President Trump says he'll

tolerate it for just a few more

months.

What impact will that

have inside the country,

where xxx are in prison?

And as two key British Cabinet

ministers made Brexit pleas

in Germany, was anyone

in the EU listening?

My guests this week: the French

journalist Agnes Poirier,

from the magazine Marrianne,

the American writer and broadcaster

Jeffrey Kofman, the Iranian writer,

broadcaster, and journalist

Amir Taheri, and the British

political commentator

and writer Adam Raphael.

Welcome to you all.

The Iran nuclear deal survives,

at least for a few more months.

President Trump has declared

he will extend sanctions relief

for Iran just once more,

giving European countries

what he called 'a last chance'

to fix 'terrible flaws'

in the 2015 deal.

For example, the White House wants

signatories to agree permanent

restrictions on Iran's uranium

enrichment - currently they expire

in a sunset clause in 2025.

And the administration has announced

14 new targeted sanctions

against individuals and entities.

Amir, all other signatories say

this deal is working,

... So what does this stance from

President Trump mean, do you think?

Years trying to link the deal to two

other issues, one being the missile

programme, which is mentioned in the

United Nations resolution but not in

the deal. Don't forget that the deal

is just a verbal deal, nobody signed

it. Nobody is really legally

committed to it. It is just a

political move. The second thing is,

he wants to leak it -- link it to

human rights, which is why the

Iranian Chief justice has been

sanctioned under the new decision by

President Trump. He has made some

headway with President Macron of

France, who has also mentioned these

two issues will stop the idea is to

force Iran continue negotiations for

a new package so that the nuclear

issue is not treated in isolation.

The idea is that you cannot have a

regime behaving differently, to be

nice on the nuclear issue but bad on

the missile issue and the human

rights issue, holding 36 Western

hostages, for example, without

charging most of them. There is a

package of problem, and I think if

Trump succeeds, it would need a run

to solve all of that problem. It is

a country with a lot of problems

with the outside world, and it is

wise to tackle all of them together.

Jeffrey, is President Trump saying

this because of all the factors that

Amir is highlighting? Or is it also

a visceral reaction to a deal that

was signed under President Obama?

It

is clear that it is the latter.

These are complex issues that take a

lot of study. We know he is not a

man who likes to study. These are

gut reaction. It is, they are bad,

Obama like them, therefore I don't.

There is no chess, this is checkers.

The people around him agree that

this is one foreign policy area

where they seem united.

There is a

consensus that Iran has got away

with a lot, that there has been

kowtowing to them to try to

accommodate, and I think there is a

sense that Iran needs to be held to

account, which is why there is some

support for this. The complexity of

this, and when you add in the

demonstrations we have seen in a run

in the last months or weeks, that

come in conservative areas, they add

a layer of complexity that makes it

more difficult to navigate this.

When Iran says it will respond

forcefully to any attempts to get it

to negotiate something new, what

does that mean? What is your take?

It doesn't mean anything, it's just

bragging and sabre rattling, because

Iran is really in a very weak

position at the moment. The trick

that the Americans are playing, and

let's now do a bit of Trump bashing.

I don't think Trump understands the

situation. But the American

administration is making a comeback,

regardless of Trump. Grip it is a

little too soft. The fact is, he was

America acting unilaterally. All the

European powers are horrified by

what is going on. --

it is a little

too soft. You cannot hope to be the

leader of the Western world if you

behave in the way that America is

doing. Outside the missile deal and

what have you, there is the whole

situation in the Middle East. Of

course, I can understand why

Europeans and Americans are worried

by Iran's role in Syria, in Yemen.

There was a whole series, but the

way to approach it is surely not in

the sort of incredibly blunt,

aggressive way, ignoring all his

allies. I'm a little worried by your

soft approach to Trump here.

I don't

want to participate in Trump

bashing. I don't care about Trump.

What I am saying is that he has not

acted unilaterally. He has renewed

the suspension of sanctions. So far,

he hasn't done anything.

He has

given 120 days.

He is free to

suggest, and he is suggesting, let's

bring a package of issues we have

with Iran, and instead of parking

them on one side because we want to

fudge the issue, let's face them. It

is good for Iran, too, because Iran

has not benefited from this deal at

all, contrary to what people think.

With his 120 day deadline, what do

the European signatories do now?

What is their response?

They think

there is no better alternative to

this agreement that was so long in

the making, in the preparing. If

Trump and the American

administration was so authentically

genuine about actually making it

better, because the issues, as you

very well said, are complex, and

there are other questions to be

debated. It should be done behind

closed doors, as it had been done.

It is a question for diplomacy. The

25 countries that participated, it

took about 10-15 years to get to the

point with Iran that we reached, and

then suddenly, there is all this

bragging, as you are saying, which

is so counter-productive, especially

when you are dealing with Iran. If

we want to take it further, why not?

It is not by behaving...

He hasn't

done anything.

He has given this

ultimatum or four months.

Because an

ultimatum is a diplomatic term. It

must be done through diplomatic

channels. He has said, this may be

the last time I signed it.

That

doesn't sound like an ultimatum?

You

have to have a back-up plan.

Now I

become the defender of Trump!

It's

not the intention. We want your

analysis.

I have nothing to do with

Trump or anything, I am Iranian. He

is suggesting that Iran is the cause

of many problems.

We don't deny

that!

To that point, then... What

could change inside Iran?

As I said,

Macron has agreed. The British at

the moment our row because they are

obsessed with Brexit. The Italians

have no Government, nor do the

Germans. So, he is saying, let's

bring in run to the negotiating

table. About the Middle East, the

intervention in other Arab

countries, support for terrorism,

holding Western hostages. All these

things, and it would be good for

Iran, too. Once the underbrush is

cleared, then they can really lift

sanctions on Iran. They haven't

lifted sanctions on Iran. The

Iranian embassy in London cannot

open a bank account in London. It is

forced to pay its staff in cash. Did

you realise that? This is what Trump

is saying. You say you don't like

it, Trump is crazy, he is a sexual

predator or whatever...

That is not

what we're here to discuss. Will it

help ordinary people in Iran? We

talked a lot about the protests, a

lot of it to do with the economy,

several thousand people still

imprisoned, perhaps more. To your

point, what could what could benefit

the very young population, all those

people who don't have a job, those

fundamentals of life, how could that

change?

The problem with Iran is

that you have two countries. It is

Iran is a revolution, and Iran as a

nation state. One day, Iran must

decide to become a nation again and

not be a vehicle for exporting

revolution. In that case, Iran has

no problem with anybody. It is the

only country in the Middle East with

defined borders, the only one. The

only country in the Middle East that

has not been at war with anybody for

400 years, apart from the Iraqi

invasion. We have no problem with

anybody. The problem we have is

because we want to make the rest of

the Middle East... We don't share a

border or compete over markets or

access to raw materials. We have 2

million Iranians living in the

United States. We always had good

relations with them, but we have

become the number one enemy of the

United States because of the

revolutionary side of us. Israel

have been our friends for ever,

since we freed the Jews, and now we

have become enemies of Israel. I

never heard anybody say anything bad

about Jews in Iran, and there is no

anti-Semitism in Iran, and now we

become the most anti-Israeli. This

doesn't represent a run. If it can't

come back as a nation, with its

culture, history, resources, its 80

million population, it would be a

fantastic thing for everybody.

There

will be an enormous Twitter debate

about all of this, but we will be

coming back in future, for sure.

There is more to discuss this week,

and we must move on. We already

mentioned Brexit. You can't ignore

it this week.

Two British Cabinet ministers

who stayed in place after this

week's Government reshuffle headed

to Germany midweek to make

separate pleas about Brexit.

The Chancellor, Philip Hammond,

and the Secretary of State

for Exiting the EU, David Davis,

urged their respective

audiences to remember

the importance of London's

financial services sector.

They told a German newspaper it

makes no sense to put in place

unnecessary barriers to trade

after Britain has left the EU.

Agnes, Britain seems to want

a bespoke trade deal,

was anyone listening?

Agnes, they certainly give the sense

that Britain might want a bespoke

deal. Do you think anyone in Germany

was listening this because Mike

they

were pretty busy in Germany this

week. I don't know why they chose

that particular week to go. And it

was supposed to be a three-day charm

offensive. That was a hell of a

three-day charm offensive, because

they ended up telling the German

newspapers that EU leaders should

not want to continue punishing, that

they were paranoid and backward

looking.

They said, remember the

financial crisis, and we don't want

another one, therefore it behoves

all European countries to remain as

one in terms of financial services.

Philip Hammond said something new,

which is bewildering, but at least

it's something new to bring to the

Brexit debate, saying, actually, it

is for Europe to make an offer, to

tell us what you can bring to the

table. It is not necessarily for

Britain to tell you, Europe, what we

want. Then it is what we call a

conversation between deaf and mute

people. The German business leaders

they met in Berlin said, hang on a

minute, we don't know what Britain

wants. One day, it is a Norway-

style agreement, another time it is

Canada plus, plus, plus, trade

agreement with financial services.

They would say they did go to

Germany knowing what they wanted -

stability in financial services, one

of the things that brings the most

money into the UK.

It is key to the

British economy, but then Michel

Barnier, who is the face and voice

of the 27 EU member states, for the

moment, he said that the City of

London and the banks operating there

will lose their passporting writes.

That hasn't changed, so now it is a

question for the British Government

and therefore the Tory Party to come

together and decide what they want

in order to have just one line will

stop they go to Brussels and say,

OK, this is the kind of agreement.

It is a total mess, isn't it? The

new thing is that we now seem to be

willing to pay to secure additional

rights for our financial services,

so we would have to pay a financial

penalty. Whether any of this can be

sold in the British Parliament or to

the British people, I have no idea.

But it is a fantastic mess. What is

interesting to me is that, day by

day, reality begins to intrude into

these negotiations. So, the French

are only too keen to take over our

financial services. I can see Mr

Macron rubbing his hands at this

very moment. The fact is, this

country, it's not mad, in my view,

never has been and won't be now, and

the Conservative Party, in theory,

should represent the interests of

business. That is what it has

traditionally been about. Bad

business won't put up with the sort

of line that the Conservative Party

now appears to be destined for. I

think the party will have to start

adjusting, and indeed the parliament

and the Prime Minister, we are going

to go in for a most fantastic up. I

am pessimistic about what is going

on.

What does that mean, what will

they do? Will it be business coming

back and saying, we need clarity

because we can't plan without it?

Agnes makes a good point because

there is no clarity in the

Government or unity in the

Conservative Party. Until they can

reach an agreed view, it is

impossible to put forward an agreed

position. We really are in a mess

here, and I can understand the

irritability, and indeed the

impatience, of our European

partners, former partners, with the

British position. And it is caused

by a political crisis within the

Government. It is so easy to muddle

up the Conservative Party and the

nation, but they are to separate

things. If you talk to

conservatives, they regard them as

the same, and that is one of the

real problem is that we face.

Somehow, the Tory Party has got to

sort itself out, and it's got to

actually begin to realise what it is

about and what can unify it.

Otherwise, we are in a total mess. I

am very pessimistic.

I sometimes

have that pessimism. Sometimes, I

wonder if this is just the

disorganised chaos of the political

process. Sometimes, when we are in

the midst of these kind of storms,

you think, my gosh, it is going to

hell in a hand basket, but this is

often how politics works, and it

takes this kind of brinkmanship,

uncertainty and bargaining can

sometimes lead to a resolution. The

concern is that we have just over a

year to resolve this.

Less than that

- October, because you have a

six-month ratification process. We

are talking until October.

This

autumn.

Yes.

There are two other

teams that Kaymer. One is that the

pound went to its highest level the

referendum. It was $1.37. Something

like that. Partly in response to

apparent statements, or indications,

from France and Holland... Spain,

pardon me. That they would be open

to a soft Brexit, which somehow

encouraged the markets here and gave

business sense that there may be a

way out. Then this very unexpected

comment from Nigel Farage, saying,

maybe we should have a second

referendum, which I think really is

extraordinary, the idea that the man

who really initiated this whole

momentum now wants to go back to the

people, potentially, for another

one. Me thinks it has to do more

with him than with Brexit, now that

his own contact in the White House,

Steve Bannon, has been brushed aside

and he has to find a new role in

life. There are so many currents

now, and it does become incredibly

difficult to wonder whether this

will lead to something stable, or

whether we will count these days

down and still be talking in this

disorganised fashion.

I want to pick

up on something that you were saying

about the Conservative Party. We had

a reshuffle this week that was quite

extraordinary, and you talk to

people at Westminster all the time.

International viewers who didn't

follow it, we had a Health Secretary

who apparently was going to be given

another job and managed to persuade

the Prime Minister not only to stay

in this job but to add another title

to it. Another cabinet minister who

was told she was going somewhere

else dug her heels in, spent three

hours in Downing Street and came out

on the backbenches instead. What

does this tell us about Theresa

May's authority, how much of it was

tied up with Brexit? It has been an

extraordinary week.

Shambolic is the

only thing you can make of this

reshuffle. Normally it is a time of

the utmost prime ministerial power.

Unfortunately, this one, I don't

know, really... She's badly served

by some of the people around her.

There appears to be no proper

preparation for a reshuffle. The

idea that somehow... Jeremy Pied has

been a close colleague of hers for

over five years. And for longer than

that. She must have known exactly

where his position was, or she

should have done. The idea that

somehow, coal, on the day, he says,

I'm digging in, just this total lack

of preparation, so you feel that it

is unprofessional, but she doesn't

have the skills to manage her party,

that she is very, very weak indeed,

and she is only propped up there

because they can't agree between

themselves, the Tory Party at the

moment because they have in such

crisis, on who should be her

successor. I Tim Jeffery's point

that politics often does seem to be

a very convoluted, fractional fell,

and in the end it all resolves

itself. We are going through a

period of politics in this country

which is really unusual, and yes,

there may be a resolution at the end

of the day, but my goodness, it will

be difficult to get to.

The view

from the consulate of Britain is

sadness. This reshuffle is

shambolic, but it feels as if we

should send a rescue mission to

Downing Street. Here is a political

prisoner who is trapped by her own

troops was not send the SAS! Do

something. But it's sad, in the end.

We can laugh, but it's sad, because

as a result, Britain is in a state

of paralysis.

All right.

We can't leave without discussing

the enormous offence he has

caused with comments made

during a bi-partisan Oval Office

meeting about immigration laws.

Donald Trump himself

denies using the offensive

word beginning with S,

though concedes the language

he used to describe

various African countries,

and others, was 'tough'.

Jeffrey, the UN didn't say

the language was tough,

they said it was racist.

Jane, are you putting me in a

position of using a word on the BBC

that... ?

Entirely your choice!

I

don't know what the censors think

about it. This is the President of

the United States. I did not think I

would have to repeat this word on

air as a journalist. He called these

countries the word beginning with S.

It is so deeply offensive. Whatever

you think of the man, it is

unthinkable that you can defend that

kind of talk from a world leader. I

think it is also offensive when you

think of the tradition of America,

give us your poor, your tired, your

huddled masses. Let's be honest,

most of America was settled from

countries that were at the time...

Could have been described with the

same word. Whether it be the

European countries in the 19th

century or just after the war,

Ireland in the 19th-century - these

countries were, by Donald Trump's

definition, much the same. That is

what has built the great country. So

it is just mind-numbing to know how

to respond.

We are used to a year of

bellicose language from Donald

Trump, to his extraordinary use of

social media in the small hours of

morning - should we be surprised or

is there something more worrying

about it?

First of all, Trump denies

having said that.

That precise word.

He said he used tough language, but

there are multiple people who were

in the room.

You have to give him

the benefit of the doubt.

I think

not, because a Democratic senator

was there.

So we give the Democratic

senator the benefit of the doubt.

Those who know American language

know that this is S word is part of

the routine vocabulary of Americans,

but when it comes to foreigners,

including the Portuguese

secretary-general of the UN, sounds

terrible. The French, Germans and

other countries have certain words.

Except the president doesn't say

that word.

It is part of the

language of daily life, and American

literature is full of capital F

words and capital S words.

He has

form in this area, when he described

racist in South Carolina, saying

there was a fault on both sides. He

comes with form.

I don't want to

defend Trump. It is none of my

business. I am saying that we have

to put things in context, and I am

against ideas that become

fashionable. A fashionable idea is

to hit Trump, so I'm against it. If

tomorrow the fashionable idea is...

It is not fashion, it is fact. We

have the president of the free

world. It is absolute indignity

personified. I think we should stop

talking about him until the American

people remove him from power in a

peaceful, democratic way.

That is

their business.

It is not fair to

dismiss this as fashionable. What he

did was to dismiss... He used that

word against El Salvador, Haiti and

Africa, and said, we need more

Norwegians. That is, by any

definition, a white supremacist

agenda of, we need more Scandinavian

- looking people, fewer of those

others. When you reduce this to what

it really means, that is what he was

saying.

Gentlemen, ladies, we will

leave our largely civilised

discussion there. Nice to see you

all again.

That's all we have

time for this week.

Do join us again next week -

same time, same place.

But for now, thank you for

watching, and goodbye.