17/06/2013 Newsnight

They are never knowingly undersold the leaders of the G8 nations, not

least by themselves, but they show no sign of being able to agree what

to do about the civil war destroying Syria.

Why can they agree on trade but not mass killing?

We're at the summit. differences between them are

profound and abrasive. And the signs are they may be getting even

deeper. Is the war spreading into

neighbouring countries. We report from Lebanon. If it conditions like

this we are going in a war of 100 years. Between who?Between Sunni

and Shi'ite. The Internet can bring pornography into every home,

everyone condemns its accessability, why are we so unable to control it?

Are there any limits to the They may between them represent

countries worth half the total world economy, but they can't agree

on what to do about the civil war in Syria. President Obama has

already said the United States will give weapons to some of the rebels.

President Putin says that is giving guns to cannibals, yet his country

arms the Assad regime, and President Assad himself said arming

the rebels would promote interflal terrorism. It is a divide

reminiscent of the Cold War, and there seems no chance of agreement.

Our correspondent is there. You know the drill with these

summits, the idea is you bring world statesmen to a remote spot

and have a very informal discussion. They even stop wearing their ties.

Now the British, who are chairing this meeting wanted this obviously

to focus on economic issues, the three Ts of their presidency, trade,

taxes and transparency. They also knew in the run up to the summit

that there was a big desire to talk about Syria and try to do something

to keep alive this idea that there might be a peace conference. The

called Geneva 2 conference. But they also knew that the different

people, the key players coming here today were moving further apart on

the issues at the very time that they were converging on Enniskillen.

The circus has come to town. G8 leaders arriving in this corner of

Northern Ireland, along with their political trick cyclist, spinners

and even the odd clown. And in Enniskillen there are honours as

well as responsibilities that fall to the ring master.

Greeting President Obama is one of those more pleasant duties. The two

leaders visited a school and talked about the overcoming of the dark

days of the troubles. They announced the launch of trade talks

between the EU and the US. whole point of the meeting here is

to fire up our economies and drive growth and prosperity around the

world. To do things that make a real difference to people's lives.

There is no more powerful way to achieve that than by boosting trade.

But there have been less pleasant duties too. Mr Cameron welcomed

President Putin at Downing Street yesterday for talks aimed at

bridging their differences over Syria. Or at least giving some

fresh impetuous for talks. It is no secret that President Putin and I

have had our disagreements on some of these issues. TRANSLATION:

regards the supplies of weapons to the Assad Government and as regards

to who has the blood of the children and peaceful citizens of

Syria, I believe you will not deny that the blood is on the hands of

both parties, both of the parties. Instead, they ended up trading

accusations publicly about fuelling the conflict. My heart sank when I

heard those words about blood on their hands being requoted back at

the Prime Minister. Because I remember him using those words at

the United Nations General Assembly and at the time I simply didn't

understand why he was choosing to condemn the Russians rather than

talk to the Russians. Because what we have seen in the months since

that speech by the Prime Minister is a growing recognition that if we

are going to see a negotiated political settlement in Syria it

has to inevitably involve the Russians. The Syrian war was

discussed over dinner this evening. Downing Street didn't want it to

overshadow the economic issues here. But after the last 24 hours, that

was hard. Mr Cameron found himself defending even the possibility of

arming the Syrian opposition. believe it is right to be helping,

assisting, advising those elements in Syria that want a free,

democratic and peculiaristic Syria for the future. We shouldn't accept

what President Assad wants us to accept, which is the only

alternative to him is extremist terrorism, that is not the case.

That is insulting to the millions of Syrians who want a peaceful and

democratic future for their country. There were hopes the summit would

bring the parties closer together in trying to organise a Syrian

peace conference in Geneva. But the differences that have been exposed

are so wide, from America arming the opposition, to Russia the Assad

regime, and other countries like Germany being opposed to all

military supplies into the area, that now there is a very real

danger that this may become the summit at which it was realised it

was impossible for the Geneva talks to go ahead. In this placid nobody

will want to -- place nobody will want to concede a failure of that

kind. This is a moment of grave danger for Syria and the future.

There is a degree of ambiguity in terms of the careful public words

that have emerged from the White House in the run-up to the G8

meeting. That is why there is a heavy burden of responsibility upon

the leaders gathered around the table in Enniskillen this evening,

to try to find common ground. And to try to brot life into the

process. --To breathe life into the process. This circus will

tomorrow ask its stars for a remember voermance, it will tackle

the question of tax dodging by big business, something they ought to

be able to pull in the same direction. If they can do that,

there should be some credit left for the ring master who brought

them here. Brook Newmark is a Conservative MP

who has visited Syria on many occasions and supports supply of

weapons to the rebels. And my other guest is against the supply of

weapons. What possible business is it of ours'? There is a strategic

interest, we have heard earlier on this is an explosion not an

implosion, it is affecting Lebanon, Iraq and neighbouring countries.

The second thing is the humanitarian issue. We are seeing a

regime going around butchering its own people to stay in power.

Clearly it is our business then? it is not, it would be madness to

arm the rebels. The whole host of reason, including the fact that you

put more weapons into the civil war you will add to the casualties and

the suffering. How do you track and trace the weapons in a very fluid

situation on the ground, how do you stop these weapons falling into the

hands of extremists. Can you answer that? I can, I think there are

probably about 100,000 Free Syrian Army members, there is about 5,000

Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic extremists. The reason why people

are flaknig away from the FSA to the Islamists is because they are

better armed. The FSA if they are better armed aren't going to be

handing over weapons, frankly, to the Islamic extremists. What do you

make of that argument? Our track record of arming groups in this

region has not been good, whether the mujahideen in the 1980s or

Saddam Hussein when he attacked Iran. Jabhat al-Nusra is linked to

qaed, we would be throwing arms into -- Al-Qaeda, and we would be

throwing arms into that situation. You can't say we are not going to

support the legitimate majority in Syria by saying we are throwing

weapons in there. Not only would it inflate violence within Syria, but

there is a real danger because Syria is a proxy war, Sunni versus

Shia, Iran versus Saudi Arabia, the west versus Russian, the more

weapons you put into that conflict the more you extend it beyond the

boundaries. So we watch the tragedy unfold? No do something much more,

two things, push the humanitarian aid. You go to visit the camps in

Jordan, they are in desperate need of basic amenities. Secondly, on

the diplomatic front, why not more there. For example why is the west

excluding Iran from Geneva 2. Iran is a major player in the area and

we are saying you can't turn up, despite the fact they are a key

player in the area. Geneva 2 being the peace conference? At the end of

the month, organised by the Russians and we are excluding the

Iranians, it doesn't make sense. If you are serious about diplomacy.

You like the Iranians at the table too? Yes, otherwise there will be a

spoiler at the end of the day. You can't have an overall peace without

all the key players being there. But I just want to go back to

John's point that if we do nothing, and doing nothing is not an option,

this will go on. Why isn't it an option? Because this war

unfortunately will go on for a decade or more as we saw in Lebanon.

The only way to bring Assad to the negotiating table at Geneva 2 is to

raise the ante effectively by legitimate arming of the troops.

Our track record of promoting democracy through intervention is

abysmally poor. Look at where democracy is flourishing in North

Africa, we have been hardly involved. Look at our involvement,

we have paid a heavy price in Iraq and Afghanistan, in lives and

treasure. There wasn't a civil war in Iraq before we went in there.

Our track record is very poor, we have to be very careful. Is there

an extent to which in any decision like this Tony Blair poisoned the

well? To a certain extent he did. There is no doubt about it, we went

to war in Iraq on a false premise, there were no WMD. At the same time

we have to still look at each case individually, but our track record,

generally, if you look at history, we have got involved in the west in

a number of conflicts around the world, and it has an embeding

affect, it reinforces the existing regime. There is no co-indense that

communism survived longer where the west intervened, China, Korea, we

have to learn that soft power, diplomacy and humanitarian aid,

particularly when it comes to Syria. For two-and-a-half years we have

been pursuing that. I have been a big supporter of the diplomatic

track. I very much believe in engagment. Why is Iran being

excluded? You and I are agreed on that. He has said that.I have said

that unfortunately soft power has failed for two years by the UN. I

believe that the only way and following Qusair, the recent battle

with Hezbollah support, Assad captured a strategic town that

Assad thinks he can win. While he thinks he can win he will not come

to the negotiating table. I'm saying unless we arm the opposition

as a means to bringing Bashar al- Assad and the regime to the

negotiating table, this war will go on and he will destroy his people

into the ground. It beggers belief the view that you can pour more

arms into a civil war and it won't cause more casualties and suffering,

it will, I promise you. outcomes are bad f we do nothing

there will still be loss of life. You and I agree there is more to be

done on the diplomatic and had you tantarian front. Can I --

Humanitarian front. Can I ask you, if we were to supply weapons to

either side would it require a vote of parliament in favour?

understanding is both the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister

have given a commitment for a full debate. Whether there will be a

vote? Should it require? I can answer that question, we have

pressed the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House on this, we had

a categorical answer, whether on the policy of arming the rebels or

providing lethal aid to the weapons, it is not just a debate it is a

full vote of the House of Commons. Thank you very much indeed. No-one

is talking about sending troops into Syria. Not publicly at least,

and not yet at least. There is one country with forces there, though

they are not Government forces. Fighters from Hezbollah, the Shia

state within a state in neighbouring Lebanon make no secret

of their involvement, which race raise -- raises the question of how

much longer will this be a civil war. We have been to Lebanon to

find out why it is turning into a wider sectarian conflict between

Shia and Sunni Muslims. The road to war in Syria runs at

Lebanon's valley. To the east the hills that mark the border. It is a

road built by Iran and that's no surprise. The valley is a vital

corridor for the alliance between Iran, Syria and Lebanon's Hezbollah

militia. Now that alliance is dragging Lebanon itself into the

war. This valley has long been a channel for smuggling arms into

Syria, now it is becoming a battlefield itself. In the town of

Hemel, they are still putting out the fire from a rocket attack. The

local headman said it came from inside Lebanon. He's from haez, and

he believes it is a re-- Hezbollah, and he believes it is a reprisal

from the Hezbollah allies for the support he has been giving to

Assad's forces. TRANSLATION: They have suffered a big loss in Syria,

they are frustrated, so they are attacking border villages that help

the Syrian army. They don't understand who they are dealing

with. We have gone through many wars, and God willing, we will win.

Young Hezbollah fighters who have died in Syria are celebrated all

along the valley. Among them is this man, aged 24. He grew up in

this house and was training to be a medical technician. Now, in his

family's eyes, he's a martyr. TRANSLATION: We were very, very

proud of him, everyone thought well of him, his friends, his teachers,

they all said his behaviour was exemplary. It was the same at home.

Especially with me. The battle of Qusair in which Mohammed died,

pitted the Syrian regime and Hezbollah against rebels, who

Hezbollah refer to as religious extremists. The confrontation was

face-to-face. There were only five metres between him and the

religious extremists. Of course with machine guns and everything,

that is how our son was hit, with bullets and martyred. Martyrdom is

nothing new for Hezbollah in the valley. The mausoleum of the

militia's former leader, dominates the nearby village. He was killed

by Israel in 1992. But it is harder to explain why Hezbollah members

are now being martyred in a fight with gel low Arabs in Syria.

Hezbollah has been revered throughout the Arab world for its

resistance to Israel. Now it risks losing that prestige with its open

military support for President Assad's regime in Syria. A

complicated pattern of reasons hides behind that gamble. Without

Assad, Hezbollah's military supplies from Iran would be

disrupted. It fears too the forces that would replace him. Hezbollah

is a Shi'ite organisation, its supporters don't see the Syrian

rebels as freedom fighters. They see them as Sunni zealots, who

won't accept other forms of Islam. Religious extremists. To Mo Hampson

med's family, the threat of religious extremists after the fall

of the dictatorship feels very real. TRANSLATION: We have seen what they

have done in Iraq, the daily bombings. The United States came to

Iraq in 2003 to install a democratic system. What we saw were

regular Al-Qaeda attacks with 200 killed. They believe Mohammed died

to protect them, because a rebel victory in Qusair would have put

religious extremists uncomfortably close to Lebanon. TRANSLATION:

martyr Mohammed was not desperate to die, he was engaged to be

married, he was building himself a house. He loved life. He went to

fight because he knew these Muslim extremists would come one day to

his house, his family and his friends, and slaughter them as they

did in Qusair. Echoing across the roof tops of Lebanon you can hear

the ever-harsher sound of sectarian division from the other side too.

This is Tripoli, a largely Sunni city on the coast. And the Imam at

Friday prayers is demanding action to help the rebels of Syria.

He tells worshipsers it means standing up to Shi'ite hatred,

Shi'ite terrorism, Shi'ite extremism. Listening as a young man

this man, who has just returned from fighting with the rebels in

Qusair. And there is plenty more here who will fight if they get a

direct call. In Islam there is no borders. There is no borders, there

is belief. There is belief. It is a brotherhood, it is a network. That

network whether you are in Chechnya, Somalia, or in Syria, or in Tripoli,

or next door, it is all the same. And these young kids the older ones

they are all in it. For them the rebellion is driven not by violent

extremism, which they denounce, but by moral outrage. TRANSLATION:

can I say about an oppressive regime that kills women, children

and defenceless people who are only getting more weapons now? But in

Qusair he was fighting, not only Syrian troops, but also Iranians

and fellow Lebanese from Hezbollah. TRANSLATION: We caught many of them

and killed them after interrogating them. We killed them with their IDs

on, carrying their key to heaven. Fluttering above the black flag of

Jihad marks the building with his father lives and holds court. He's

one of the leaders in Lebanon of the strict and fast-growing Salafi

school of laem. He has called unambiguously for the young Lebanon

fighters to go with the Syrian rebels. If they lose it would be a

catastrophe for the Sunni, the beginning of a Shi'ite power grab

in the Middle East. TRANSLATION: Othello move on to besiege Saudi

Arabia and other countries in the gulf. To control the sacred places

and the riches of that region. To rule the Islamic world if they can

and become a world superpower. Tripoli, Lebanon's second-largest

city has for years seen sporadic violence between Sunnis and

Alawites locally, the sect that President Assad belongs to. Now the

Lebanese army has stopped the fighting. But nobody knows for how

long. As the civil war in Syria becomes ever more sectarian, it is

deepening the old Sunni-Shia divide, right across the Middle East. And

many fear that Lebanon, this most fragile of states, will crack under

the strain. In the Sunni districts of Tripoli,

as elsewhere across the Arab world, Hezbollah, which means the party of

God, is now referred to as the party of Satan. Its leader, made

efforts at a rally last week to calm sectarian passions in Lebanon.

His party needs stability on its home ground. But Hezbollah will

fight on in Syria. TRANSLATION: They are in a very new situation in

the Middle East. We didn't see the situation from many hundred years.

If it continues like this we are going noo a war of 100 years. --

into a war of 100 years. Between who? Between Sunni and Shia in this

region. This man is planning to return to Syria when the schrapnal

wounds have healed. TRANSLATION: God willing I will go back and

fight and win or when God takes me to him. Mohammed's sister believes

Shi'ites are being targeted just as the Prophet Mohammed's grandson,

one of the Shi'ite's great leaders, was in the 7th century AD. The way

that Imam Hussein, is the same way the Syrians are trying to kill us.

All this happened 1300 years ago, but really the same thing is

happening now? Yes. The same story is renewed. As the war spills over

into eastern Lebanon, many on both sides in the region now think they

are in a battle for survival. And outside powers are doing little to

dampen their fears. Now the Culture Secretary Maria Miller gets to

spend part of tomorrow contemplating pornography. The

Prime Minister has already pleaded with internet companies to do more

to protect children and Google has taken a little money out of its

petty cash to help. 20 years ago no-one imagined it

would become so common place and no-one now knows how to protect

people from pornography's more malign influences.

We report. There is a constant barrage of

sexually explicit texts and links, and e-mails that are coming from

their peer groups or friends. There is a consistent barrage of porn

that they are exposed to on a daily basis. Chloe spent years as a

secondary school teacher. She was shocked when she saw what some of

her pupils were watching on-line. There were depictions of grand rape,

multiple penetration, slapping, hitting, spitting, choking. I'm not

for a moment saying all boys are watching this, certainly some are.

And the general consensus was that they kind of thought it was funny.

Or possibly they thought it was a bit worrying. But I do think that

possibly I think with anything the more you see something the more you

are exposed to something the more it is normalised. It is something

that troubled every parent, including the Prime Minister, with

so much pornography available on the Internet. So few controls, it

is possible even for quite young children to stumble upon explicit

material. This isn't new, last year the provider TalkTalk promised

every customer would have parental controls if they wanted them.

Search engines and browsers too offer safe settings. They restrict

sites, often using key words, that could be a problem too. Sometimes

they block too much. If you were to take Google Safe Search as an

example, and search for the word "hardcore". Which is quite extreme

term but applies to music as well? It is extreme example to prove a

point and millions of websites are blocked on the entire internet.

Paul Walsh, an entrepeneur based in the US has developed what he calls

a more sophisticated alternative, it doesn't block innocent sites.

What is wrong with the parental controls at the moment? They are

complicated to implement, they block too many normal websites.

They have kids saying I want to access this website because it is

blocked. It turns out to be a perfectly innocent website. Parents

have to manually add every single safe website that is secure to the

parental controls. It is just complicated and they block way too

many innocent websites. They get tired of that. In recent days

ministers have raised this issue. The summit was originally called to

discuss images of child abuse on- line. When a child is sexually

abused, it affects them for life. According to the Internet watch

foundation, the number of images of child abuse is growing fast. It is

estimated there could be hundred of millions of images in circulation

now, most of young children. Ministers have been writing in

newspapers and making speeches, which seemed to me to be conflating

too quite distinct issues, one is what do we do about the amount of

apparently legal, adult pornography available on the Internet that

children can get access to. A big and serious problem. With what we

do about child abuse images which are illegal. The quantities we are

now talking about are gigantic. We have to focus on that. That is the

really pressing problem. It would be a huge shame if ministers' time

are taken up with these other admittedly important, but nothing

like as important as they are in relation to child abuse images.

Tonight the Prime Minister's adviser on childhood and

pornography said firms could be asked to pay more to strengthen the

foundation, to make it a really well-funded and robust group. And

she said she was confident the four biggest internet service providers

would implement a filter system to prestrict access for children by

the end of the year. To discuss what changes should be

made to on-line access we have Lizzie Patch whose 11-year-old son

watched porn on his phone, an incident that left him traumatised,

a researcher from the London School of economics, and the editor of PC

Pro magazine. How serious a problem do you judge this to be? I think

that it is a serious problem. I think it is a very complex problem

as well. Go on?In that my son he watched what he watched on the

phone because what it boiled down to an element of peer pressure, he

wanted to fit in, he was told if he watched the video which was pretty

readily available, he would be cool. It was funny. And having just gone

up from primary school into secondary school he wanted to be

seen to be fitting in with the cool boys. He was 11 years old. And he

watched something that really distressed him? Yes it did. It did

distress him. Yes. How do you protect children from that sort of

thing? I think there are things we can do. One of the things I think

is really important to stress from the start is the difference between

what's illegal and what is legal. What is illegal offline is also

illegal on-line and as your report made clear you know there are

protections in place, but they are not working effectively enough at

the moment. So we need to strengthen and ensure that those

are better enforced. It is not just about what is legal and illegal, it

is what b what is appropriate or inappropriate, what you and I might

watch is not suitable for an 11- year-old in many cases? So we

should absolutely deal with the illegal. But that is already

illegal? We don't need a new law if it is already illegal do we? What

is legal for adult circulation, but judged harmful for children, well

it could be judged that's, it is clearly inappropriate, so we need

some protections. I think where the anxiety comes into play is deciding

to treat the material harmful to children with the same kind of

enforcement as that which is illegal. Why are the Internet

companies involved so pathetic about this? I think pathetic is

harsh. I think they are reluctant to get involved because it boils

down to censorship. Yes it does. Somebody has to make a decision

about what is acceptable for young children and what is not. At some

point either side of that line will create a media storm. Why would it

not be possible, for example, for the default settings in all areas

of the internet to be at the parental control level instead of

you having to switch on the parental control? It is where do

you start drawing the line. The Internet companies have not only

filters for pornography but violent sites, for religious sites, hatred

sites. Where does the BNP fit into that, for example. There is a whole

host of debatable grey areas where companies are going to start to

provide censorship, and should that be the default setting? I would

argue not? You would say that all of this should be available, to

anyone of any age? I would say internet filters should be

available to parent should they choose to use them. I'm reluctant

to see a default censorship. They are not deprived if there is that

setting they have to reset that themselves? Then you have to go to

an ISP and say I would like to see this, there is a psychological

barrier there. There is all kinds of issues involved with free speech

that having an internet censored by default brings. Would you like the

default setting be parental controls? As I said at the

beginning I actually think it is a much more complex situation than

that. I think because I'm parent who has had this experience people

have made an assumption that I would probably want to look it all

and switch the Internet off and kill everyone involved. I don't. I

think it is. That is a relief.I think it is a value judgment. And

it is a difficult value judgment to make. Parental controls are

available. And they are on our home computers and smartphones. But

beyond that I think that you know children, young people they leave

the house. They go to their friends' houses, they meet down

town, my son said himself having been told about this site had he

not seen it where he did, he would have gone somewhere else. It is

available. So from my point of view it is about talking to young people.

It is about education and it is about giving the vocabulary to deal

with it. You are not in favour of any restrictions further than what

we have based on the availability of it? I'm in favour of

restrictions of violent and abusive content and child porn, of course.

I don't imagine many people aren't in favour of that. But beyond that

I think it is tricky, I think we have to start talking to our young

people about what they are seeing. I would agree that there should be

a lot more conversations between parents and children. I would also

say teachers and children. We could do a better job, I think with sex

education in introducing questions about internet and technology as

part of that conversation that doesn't happen. I don't think there

are many children who feel at the moment that is being dealt with

very well at school. And sex education sometimes is a bit of a

joke. Some how recognising what those problems are, talking to

children about where they might come across, where they get their

ideas about sex from, where they see what the possibilities are. We

are worried about what those pressures on them are. We are

worried about the peer pressures, but they could be more

interventions. Many parents find it difficult enough just having the

conversation about the birds and the bees leave alone a conversation

about pornography. But that's pretty tricky stuff for a lot of

people? I think the conversation they could have would be about well

more about perhaps children learning to feel confident about

what they think about their bodies and what they think could happen to

their bodies. More about respect. More about what those situations

are when they feel pressured by others. What happens in that peer

culture. They don't have to necessarily say have you seen this,

let's talk about what this means. But they could find ways of

approaching so that they at least show their children they understand

that they are open to those conversations that they understand

the technology as well. What will come out, you would guess from this

meeting tomorrow with Maria Miller and various companies in this

field? I would guess tomorrow they are going to agree to do what they

have been agreeing to do for a long time, which is to provide internet

filters to customers on an active choice basis, where you say you

want them or you don't. The Government have been pushing very

hard for this to be turned on by default. But the problem is it

lulls parents into a false sense of security in many instances. The

TalkTalk filters were appalling, we tested them last year, you could go

on for a basic Google search for pornographic images and they flew

straight out. There is a danger with the default and the parents

thinking that is a safe internet connection. Often they are not.

are very much of the same point of view the only way to deal with this

omnipresent phenomenon in our lives is for people to accept it is there

and to some how encourage everyone to filter? That is not the only

solution at all. The education and the parenting is absolutely part of

the story. A lot more could be done with filters. The education itself

is an acknowledgement that it is omnipresent? If you think about how

we have dealt in society with pornography in the last decades, we

have had a number of solution, we have thought it partly something

that, sex education could be dealt with atle school. We do think of it

as parenting problem. We also have found ways of restricting

children's access. So I would disagree about the question of what

the filters should do. Not because I think they are working brilliant

low, but I think they could be made to work much better. I don't

actually think it would be dreadful to have them switched on

automatically as long as people were told how clearly to turn them

off. If there wasn't a child in the house and if that was an easy thing

to do. The problem, so I think you know it is making those filters

better, making parents have confidence and trust in them, which

they absolutely don't have at the moment. Then maybe some kind of

independent oversight. I think your test was interesting. What we

haven't really got at the moment is a trusted body that would do the

kind of testing that would say OK this filter works, this works for

violence but not pornography, these are the kinds of errors that get

made, do you trust them. What do you want to decide.

The new low- elected President of Iran was sounding more positive

about relations between his country and the west than we have heard a

senior figure in that country begged today. He said he wants a

more positive relationship for his country with the rest of the world.

Liberal and Conservative, they are relative terms, but could his

victory in the elections open the door a chink at least, earlier he

gave his first press conference, suggesting he wanted to be more

open with the west. TRANSLATION: I said earlier, the Government

wants to resolve all the problems that we have issues with, but only

the ones we recognise. It needs to be with mutual respect for Iranian

rights and bilateral interests. We should be able to solve problems

with logic and moderation, the British Government is not excluded

from this general principle. Now we have my guests. Rana Rahimpour and

Nazenin Ansari. How much of a change do you think

we are likely to see then? I think you will see changes of form,

definitely, in the beginning. Also content in the sense that you will

see more of a change perhaps Hassan Rohani will come to Europe, travel.

There is definitely a sense of welcoming all over, not only in

Iran, but also elsewhere, a sense of hope. That there has been a

change, a change of attitude, a change of behaviour. Whether that

will translate into policies, that remains to be seen. Are you simply

waiting and seeing? I think I am quite positive, because we are, the

mood in Iran is quite positive, people are very hopeful, contrary

to how they felt in the last four years. The treatment of the

Government has changed drastically, people were aed load to celebrate

on the streets and -- allowed to celebrate on the streets and at

times chant slogans asking for the release of political prisoners.

This was very interesting, what little one saw from far away. The

last elections we had demonstrations and police and the

whole mood of Iran seems different? It is a huge surprise, even to

Hassan Rohani himself, he wasn't expecting to win, at least in the

first round. We still don't understand why. There are different

reasons. It might be because I think the Supreme Leader was

affected huge low by what's happened in 2009. I think it was

damaging for the regime and since then the Arab Spring has happened,

the situation in Turkey and in Syria, he might have got the

feeling that he needs to ease the situation very slightly though for

the opposition. So he probably won't see the situation that is

happening in Turkey. What sort of a bloke is he? From what we know of

Hassan Rohani, he went robes at 12 years old, a cleric all his life.

He was the man who was in charge of the army, he served in the

parliament but he has been the representative of Mr Khamenei on

the supreme National Security Council. He was in charge of the

Supreme National Security Council when actually the order was given

to attack the student opposition. And at Glasgow Caledonian

University as well? That happened when Mr Jack Straw was Foreign

Minister. You make it sound like it was a sin? The entire mood at that

time was different. There was the constructed engagment with Iran, Mr

Straw went to Iran so many times. He speaks English with a slight gas

weej accent? He should, he has a P -- Glaswegian accent?He should, he

has a HHD. He under--A PhD. understood the questions today in

English, so it shows he understands England. The key decisions are not

in the hands of the President, all the things like the nuclear

programme and things that cause difficulty there? They are not, but

now they are in the bar againing position, he has the backing of 50%

of the Iranian population. He's the most powerful elected politician in

the country. Unlike the Supreme Leader. He is in a position that he

might be able to convince the Supreme Leader to change the course

of Iranian foreign policy. Will he be that influential? Well you know

once again we have to be realistic, we didn't have a free and fair

election. We have a rule by divine right. But at the same time he was

the man when Iran signed the additional protocol. He has to

deliver, he's the man who signed it, he's the man who basically

throughout in the past actually the election time he was bragging this

and that, that Iran was able to reach an engagment understanding

with the west. So under his rule it has to. You have already given us

that journalist cop-out only time will tell. And only time will tell.

But how will we judge whether he is a really new broom? In the first

instance I think what the people expect is a, number one, the least

he can do is release the political prisoners specifically Mr Mousa Mr

Karubi and others that is the least he can do. I think that is a great

expectation. It is not the least. It is a lot to ask him to do,

especially at this stage. He always said he is a moderate. I know the

reason he became the President was because of the support of the

opposition and the reformists. I know they want him to do this. But

as he said today in the press conference, he needs time. He needs

to get the other branches of power with long-term point of vow, it is

a judiciary that is independent from his Government. I think we

need to be realistic. There is hope and there is a chance of change.

But to expect him to be able to release political prisoners

overnight. I think the guy is still surprised he's the President.

him a few nights, maybe. Thank you both very much.

That's it, the deep space telescope was switched off today by the

European Space Agency, it is drifting aimlessly about a million-

and-a-quarter miles away in space. The condition is called being