09/01/2018 Newsnight

Spot the difference -

new cabinet - old cabinet.

Yes, we struggled as well.

A two-day reshuffle,

and quite a bit of a kerfuffle.

But it leaves government disrupted

but not altogether relaunched.

The Prime Minister has been

struggling with a pretty tough

joint, that is raising questions

about her mastery of some pretty

basic skills.

Was it much ado about nothing?

Or can it reset the Conservative's

overall direction?

With talks between the north

and south, we'll examine the search

for peace on the Korean peninsula.

In the Middle East we will examine

Iran's foreign policy. It's accused

of not searching for peace.

Iranian

expansionism is extraordinarily

dangerous. First of all, they have

Shia groups throughout the region

they can rely on that they can, if

you will, convert, or infiltrate.

Also tonight, Toby Young steps down.

Virgin West Coast says

it will no longer sell

the Daily Mail on its trains.

It seems a culture war

is raging in the UK.

James Delingpole and Paris Lees

will tell us whether it needs to be

conducted with quite

so much vitriol.

Hello.

It's done, after two days,

government has been

reshuffled and reshaped.

124 jobs in government,

including junior ministers and whips

and all the hangers on -

and about a third of those have

been moved or are new.

Including moves for some names

you might recognise,

including Jo Johnson and Rory

Stewart who were shunted from jobs

in their comfort zone,

to jobs elsewhere.

Two important critiques

of the reshuffle are emerging

though - the Prime Minister has said

that it makes government look

like the people it serves,

but that is not quite true

of the cabinet, which is a little

more public school and a bit more

Oxbridge than it was and has

no more women in it.

The other point, made

by the Institute for Government,

is about the disruption to business.

In nearly every department,

half or more of ministers have now

been in their post for less

than a year.

The heart of government, which is

the Cabinet Office will have

an entirely new team.

For what?

Was it all worth it?

Well, Nick Watt our

political editor is here.

Let's talk about the handling today,

because yesterday it came in for

quite a bit of criticism.

It has

been a tale of two reshuffles, there

is a feeling in the Cabinet that

yesterday, which was about the

Cabinet, was not one of the Prime

Minister's most glorious moments

with those ministers resisting her.

I've been hearing scathing words

like chaotic, the Prime Minister has

no authority, and she can't even

sack people. That's the Cabinet.

Today she had a much better story

when she started moving through the

junior and middle ranking levels of

government and Downing Street is

saying that the Prime Minister has

created what they believe is one of

the most diverse governments in the

history of this country, 37 women

ministers and nine ministers from

black and minority ethnic

backgrounds. I talked to a Cabinet

minister who said look at the whips

office, six recently elected women

MPs brought into the whips office.

They were saying it's not that long

ago that there were no women in the

whips office and it was run like a

military operation, orders were

barked. You can't do that in the

modern world so this is a modern

whips office.

There were some

strange moves, I mentioned Rory

Stewart and Jo Johnson, people said

wife move them from jobs that seemed

to be jobs they were Afoa with two

things that are not experts on.

Some

people are spotting a plot on the

backbenches -- they were familiar

with. What the Prime Minister did

was create a praetorian guard around

her and then clipped the wings of

anyone who might possibly be seen as

a potential challenger. Dominic

Raab, given this important job as

housing minister, but that is seen

by these people as a hospital pass.

Will he ever get to grips with this

issue that nobody seems to get to

grips with? Rory Stewart taken out

of the comfort zone of Africa to the

Ministry of Justice, somebody who

made his name as a governor of an

Iraqi province. And Justine

Greening, comprehensive educated

Yorkshire woman, given an offer

yesterday that she couldn't take her

mind off she goes. I've really been

looking at what Theresa May was

trying to achieve in this troubled

reshuffle.

Most prime ministers are reluctant

butchers.

butchers. Margaret Thatcher lamented

how in her Downing Street years she

had been obliged to learn the craft

of carving the joint. So, just how

skilled a butcher is Theresa May?

Well, in this rather elongated

reshuffle, she's been struggling

with a pretty tough joint, and

that's raising questions about her

mastery of some pretty basic prime

ministerial skills. If prime

ministers red reshuffles so much,

what exactly is Theresa May seeking

to achieve here? Well, the answer

lies in one date, June the 8th, the

Prime Minister is seeking to respond

to the Tories' surprise electoral

setback by shifting the dial in

three ways. In the first place, she

wants to restore her own political

authority. Then she wants to show a

more diverse Conservative Party to

the country. And finally, she wants

to respond to the concerns of voters

who gave the Tories such a bloody

nose back in June.

nose back in June. The Prime

Minister gave the impression

yesterday that she was unable to

carve key sections of the joint

after Cabinet ministers challenged

some of her plans. Tory MPs claim

that the reshuffle has exposed grave

weaknesses in her operation, though

MPs now say she did stage a strong

recovery today.

Expectations were

far too high on the run in because I

always thought it would be a

moderate reshuffle, only two or

three jobs needed changing. Every

reshuffle I'd ever seen hits a

problem somewhere when administered

doesn't want to go somewhere and

they want to keep them in the

Cabinet, which happened here. --

when a minister.

Suella Fernandes,

who has coordinated the main

backbench Brexit group takes her

first step on the ministerial ladder

in the Brexit department. Other new

ministers include the QC Lucy

Frazer, who becomes a justice

minister and a former entrepreneur

Rishi Sunak, who joins the housing

ministry. The Prime Minister invited

a record number of women appointed

to the whips office to Downing

Street, and No 10 says Theresa May

has created one of the most diverse

governments ever with 37 women and

nine ministers from minority ethnic

backgrounds.

It's probably the most

diverse governments Britain has ever

had, that's a good thing. But more

importantly, the reshuffle is pretty

much over, senior Cabinet level

right the way through to junior

ministerial roles, we've got some

really good high-quality people.

really good high-quality people.

The

Tories were shaken by the way in

which voters from their mid-40s

downwards preferred Labour in the

election, with concerns over housing

a key grievance amongst younger

voters, there is a renewed focus on

this in a newly rebranded

department. All age groups in that

election will also alarmed by the

confusion over social care, so

Jeremy Hunt takes overall control of

that policy. The challenge will be

to show that these changes amount to

more than shiny new departmental

nameplates. While the Prime Minister

has been panned for tinkering with

her Cabinet, in this reshuffle she

has gone further than the limited

changes she made in the summer. So,

progress since her Midsummer

nightmare when her first priority

was survival. But this is still not

Theresa May's ideal reshuffle. Had

she done better in the general

election there would have been

changes at the most senior level of

the Cabinet. The Prime Minister tied

up the loose ends of her reshuffle

this evening. The troubled Cabinet

changes show Theresa May cannot

altogether escape the shadow of the

election but at junior levels there

was a more decisive Prime Minister

on display. Nick Watt with an Atkins

diet metaphor as well.

I'm joined by Kelly Tolhurst,

Tory MP for Rochester

in Kent and as of today

an assistant government whip.

One of those ones that Nick was

referring to earlier.

And in a moment I'll be speaking

to Camilla Cavendish,

director of the 10 Downing Street

policy unit under David Cameron

and to the journalist Paul Mason.

Good evening to you all. Kelly, can

we start with you? It's interesting

they have put you up, the government

have chosen to put you up to speak

for the government today,

working-class background, not one of

these Oxbridge posh boys in the

Cabinet, do you think this is a time

for the party to try and put forward

a different face?

Well, I think, for

me, I'm a conservative and always

have been and I have become a

Conservative MP, and for me I think

the last two days, especially what

has happened today, has shown really

what the true Conservative

Parliamentary party now is, and they

do include people like myself, and

it's been really good to be given

the opportunity to go into the whips

office this afternoon.

Theresa May

explicitly said one of the

objectives and achievements of this

was to create a government that

looks more like the country serves.

Last count there were more than 30,

30 5% women in the country. Are you

happy with the way that's gone?

I

think we have got record numbers for

us women into government positions

-- 35%. Is more reflective of the

people we serve. It's true we need

to do more but today is a great step

forward and I think with what's

happened in the whips office, it is

a real indicator to show that that's

changing.

In fairness, you don't

really get to speak on any issue in

the whips office. Cabinet average

age, 51, it was 52, not much

changed. In the Cabinet there is

want black or ethnic minority member

of the Cabinet. 48% Oxbridge, 34%

went to a public school. Does it

make sense to sort of shout about

how you are creating a government

that looks like the country serves,

if you've got 34% public school

people in the Cabinet, 48% Oxbridge?

Is that a thing to shout about?

Well, I think we need to look at the

government positions as a whole, and

also look at the people that came in

in 2015 and have come in this year,

and myself, having not been to

university, and had the

opportunities to work hard, and to

become a member of Parliament, there

are more people like me that came in

in 2015 and I think if you look at

this as a whole we are from a more

diverse background, therefore I do

think some of the changes are

reflected.

Is your line that this

will pass through? That the

Conservative Party, at the moment

boasting around done about its

government's representative nurse

when it is half public school?

The

parliament to party has changed

significantly in the last two years

with the 2015 intake and 17. Today's

appointments have made a difference

and I think we are moving forward.

The big mission is about

rejuvenating this government, we

know Brexit has got to be done and

Theresa May wants to move beyond

Brexit. In a couple of sentences,

what is the big idea, apart from

Brexit? What are you going to do?

Well, the government is committed to

delivering Brexit, it's massively

important.

Apart from Brexit?

My

constituency is still the focus but

we have also said, and Theresa May

has been clear, we cannot forget

that domestic agenda and there are

things like the NHS, the

environment.

What are you going to

do?

Well, one of the things we are

doing is focusing, as you know, we

have been speaking about the NHS and

winter crisis over the last couple

of days. It is something we are

looking at.

Kelly, I'm so sorry, but

speaking about the NHS... You are

struggling to say what the big

mission is. There must be some sort

of... Has the party been told this

is what our priority is? Reinventing

capitalism and we are going to do

these 100 things, or build a

powerhouse in the North? Saying we

are going to talk about the NHS.

It's one of the things that matter

to the people of this country and

one of the things about this Cabinet

reshuffle has been about having the

reshuffle and being very clear, the

Prime Minister has been very clear

about what she wants to deliver.

It's not just Brexit, absolutely, it

is still the main focus, but it is

around working towards those things

that matter to people domestic is.

With the greatest respect, I've

tried giving you a chance to say

what the mission is, and the fact

that you are sort of struggling to

say what it is, or am I just being

unfair?

Well, I think maybe you're

being unfair? We've been clear about

what we want to do, there are key

thing is, we can list them for you,

we need to make sure the economy

continues to grow, we want people to

be getting opportunities to have

better paid jobs. We've had the

industrial strategy just recently

announced. That is massively

important for certain areas of the

United Kingdom and the economy. The

NHS is included in that. There are a

number of things that we have been

clear on and our Prime Minister has

been very clear about command the

last two days and changes that have

been made will hopefully drive

forward.

Please stay there. Let me

turn to our other two guests because

the big question is, does this reset

the Conservative Party?

No. I think today was better than

yesterday. What this reflects is, we

have a Prime Minister leading a

minority government. She was never

going to be able to do a reshuffle.

They have to fill in the gaps in the

domestic policy agenda and make good

on the speech she made at the

beginning of this about social

justice and managing that. That

means they have to do much more on

housing. To be great if they could

integrate the NHS and social care.

There are a whole series of

unfinished things that need to be

done, partly because of Brexit but

partly because of drift. Whitehall

have been virtually frozen for 18

months. The question about this we

shuffle is, can some of these

people... Some of the junior people

are really good. Can they unfreeze

the system or is the shadow of

Brexit going to loom over them?

I

congratulate Theresa May for

appointing a diverse junior layer of

the Cabinet. They will find out how

little power you have as a junior

minister but how hard it is to get

things done if you are not part of

the inner elite that runs Britain,

from which the core of the front

bench is drawn. The Oxbridge set of

people. They don't just wield

political power, they wheeled social

power. The whole Toby Young episode.

This is like the BBC.

We did a

survey on this programme and it was

worse when I worked here. This was

an attempt by Joe Johnson to stick

it to student unions and have a good

go at them, like Donald Trump, and

have a go at them on the right wing

agenda. That is the agenda of the

elite Tory Party we are dealing

with. Welcome to reality for all the

black ethnic minority and women who

want to bring the real world into

the Tory world.

Can I just butting

on Matt? That is not the party I

recognised. -- but in on that. I

don't recognise your sort of

analysis on it. As a backbencher I

have had many opportunities to

influence from within.

I don't want

to only talk about this. The

handling of the reshuffle, the fact

that it was perceived to be boxed

yesterday, what does it tell us

about the Downing Street operation?

There was a famous story about Tony

Blair and a guy I have forgotten.

Moving round the whiteboard and his

name came off. He never got into the

Cabinet because his name fell off.

That said, the media management was

a bit surprising. Theresa May as

Home Secretary I always admired. She

did not like all this presentation

stuff will stop when you get into

Number 10 you need to do the stuff

properly. Unfortunately they

oversold the idea that big beasts

would be moved in this be a huge

clear out of the new generation. She

has not brought in Mercer, who is

regarded as a future leader. It

looks a bit limp.

Where does Theresa

May go from here?

The problem she

has is it is an Administration pulls

that you need an overarching, moral

purpose. She cannot write the idea

down which is what does Britain

looks like after Brexit? The cabinet

would split you can do more if you

have a moral purpose. The problem is

identifying just about struggling

people, managing people, is not

identify what you will do for them.

Right now we all know you are

absolutely right to raise the NHS,

it is on everybody's minds. The guy

who is overseen that is not a has

overseen the cancellation of

non-urgent operations was

reappointed with more power because

Theresa May did not have enough

power to sack him. Insofar as people

are seeing politics, no one is

obsessed with who is a junior

minister but they are concerned that

relatives being left on trolleys and

being made to wait in waiting rooms.

That was done by NHS England.

That

is the sort of human shield for the

Government, isn't it?

Because of the

act in 2012 Jeremy Hunt had less

power than he would normally have.

You have to integrate the NHS...

How

long have they been in power to do

that?

It is whether the budget and

the money will move...

Would you

like the idea of combining,

integrating the health and social

care? That was in the name they gave

Jeremy Hunt yesterday. Is it just a

name or something

name or something substantive going

on?

It was right that change was

made. There is a correlation between

the two and the two have to work

together. The biggest challenge we

have as the NHS, as the population

grows and the treatment gets better,

the pressures on the NHS continue.

Going forward we are looking at

those areas combining and the Health

Secretary has an opportunity to make

the changes where he feels he is

needed.

We really do need to leave

it there. Thank you.

It's been a busy day in Panmunjom,

the so-called "peace village"

in the demilitarised zone

on the border of North

and South Korea.

There have been talks

there today, between the two

countries and they appear

to have gone smoothly.

Five officials on each side

attended, apparently

with a CCTV feed to the leaders

of the countries.

Now when enemies want to bury

the hatchet, they often start

with little gestures,

and avoid raising the things

that have divided them.

So it is with the North and South,

not agreeing the big stuff,

that North will throw

away its nuclear weapons.

But agreeing that the North

will take part in the

forthcoming winter Olympics.

There was more to it than that -

but is it a real step to stability?

Our diplomatic editor

Mark Urban reports.

Well, this is something,

surely, a thaw of sorts.

Face to face talks,

the commitment from the North to

send cheerleaders and athletes

to the Winter Olympics, and a

resumption of schemes to reunify

families divided by the Korean War.

Kim Jong-un is on a charm offensive.

The Panmunjom talks are the only

game in town right now.

And I think the South Koreans

would do well to try

to keep them going.

There are a lot of issues that are

Peninsula issues and that the US

should be careful not

to appear to be thwarting.

If there's a perception

in South Korea that the US is

keeping South Korea away

from its northern cousins

for the purpose of family

reunification and issues like

that I don't think

that will help the US.

With just a couple of days

until the opening of the Winter

games in South Korea the venues

are ready in the world is watching.

North Korea now says it

will send delegates,

as it did to the 2006

Olympics and World Cup.

And for the south this

is a timely gesture that

just might unlock the

bigger issues at stake.

I believe we can make

the Pyeongchang Winter Olympics as a

kind of turning point in

the escalating tension on the Korean

peninsula and engaging

in a direct dialogue

and exchanges with

the

North, and further creating

an environment conducive to more

serious negotiation on nuclear

and ballistic missile issues.

But lest we thought

peace was about to break

out, North Korean officials

delivered another message today,

telling southern counterparts that

Kim's nuclear weapons target only

America and not the South.

A version of an old

mantra designed to sow

divisions between America

and its Korean ally.

I think it's a pretty typical ploy.

You have to bear in mind

the North Korean view of South

Korea - South Koreans are great

except that they are dominated by

their puppet master,

the United States, and don't stomach

if only the puppet master

were removed,

South Korea and North Korea

would have a terrific relationship.

But if the Americans are suspicious,

what about Moon Jae-in,

South Korea's President

and long an advocate

of

better relations with the North?

The South Korean President Moon has

for decades been for improved

relations between North and South,

for

engagement between North and South,

which is very much on a different

page than President Trump

and his preference for maximum

pressure on North Korea.

Today's North Korean initiative

hasn't met with universal approval.

Even in the South, where some people

demonstrated against

improved relations.

When the Winter Olympics are over

the nuclear issue will

remain unsolved, the Korean

peninsula on the brink.

We live in divided times: anyone

who peruses social media will see

a clash of values play out daily

in vicious zero sum argument,

on any number of issues.

Today's examples?

One was the right wing

controversialist Toby Young stepping

back from his appointment

on the board of the new English

university regulator,

the Office for Students.

Having spent a decade trying

to be controversial,

he turned out to be too

controversial for

a public appointment.

The second story was

Virgin West Coast trains,

stopping its sales

of the Daily Mail.

"We've decided that this

paper is not compatible

with the Virgin Trains

brand and our beliefs,"

the company said.

It did also point out that it barely

sells any copies anyway.

The Mail called the

decision disgraceful.

While very different,

the two stories are just today's

examples of a culture war

that is currently being fought

on social media and beyond.

What characterises the culture war

is its preoccupation with words

and gestures.

Toby Young for example

is on one side of it -

a self proclaimed provocateur.

To be frank, he probably didn't even

believe half the obnoxious stuff

he wrote, he just wanted

to offend what he saw as

mainstream opinion.

He's the personification

of the conduct of

the culture war under way.

At times he's been

vitriolic, relishing a

fight with those on the other side.

If that can be said of those

on the provocative right,

is it the same on the progressive

side as well?

Over in the US, Google

are being sued by

James Damore, the coder

sacked after writing

a controversial - not very PC -

memo, critiquing

the company's diversity policy.

He said he and others

had been discriminated

against as white males.

Certainly he was vilified

on social media for

saying and thinking the wrong thing.

It's seen by the right as a case

of the left's intolerance.

Every day these kinds

of arguments are

erupting, even where

they don't need to.

Like Virgin - they're not banning

customers from bringing their own

copies of the Daily Mail

on to their trains, obviously,

but just find the decision not

to sell the Mail in terms

of politics rather than commerce

ramped this up

as another divisive issue.

-- justifying the decision.

Again, on social media,

the debate polarised

around extreme positions

expressed strongly.

Each side's undoubtedly sincere

in its thoughts and really

believes the other is a threat

to either decency or free speech.

But is the virulent argument

a healthy sign or a vibrant

debate, or a sign that shared values

have more or less evaporated?

Build that wall.

Build that wall.

Build that wall.

Paris Lees is a broadcaster

and equality campaigner.

James Delingpole is

a columnist at The Spectator.

James, Toby Young. He tries to be

controversial. He cannot be

surprised people say we do not want

to on a public body.

I don't think

Toby Binks, how can I be

controversial today? He just reacts

in the moment -- thinks. We react.

We get an instant thought and think,

I will type this out on Twitter. The

feeling dissipates when to have got

the words out. We do not set out to

be deliberately offensive most of

the time.

Do you think he has been

badly treated?

We are talking about

the separate issues. Does Toby Young

says some spicy things on twitter?

Yes, he does. Should Toby be on the

office for students board, yes he

should. They are completely

different things he has worked in

the educational sector and is a good

man for the job.

Do you see some

value in provocative is trying to

challenge your views and those of

your friends, who probably think

quite alike on most of these issues?

Absolutely. I have written things

which people were deemed to be

provocative in the past. The idea

that Toby Young does not set out to

do that. This man published Julie

Birtles rant about transsexuals as

Dix in chicks clothing. We know 45%

of trans people in the UK have

attempted suicide. Are we saying it

is OK to bully people? No. I'm glad

people are waking up to that.

Can I

ask you about the manners? I'm

looking at some of your stuff or. It

is not very well mannered. Would you

agree?

The terrible thing is that secretly

in the green room before we came on

Paris and I have been getting on

like of dumb at a house on fire.

Forget about Paris.

Probably our

natural mode in her life is we are

delightful people but sometimes

maybe Twitter brings out our kind of

edgier side.

Do you stand by what

you put on Twitter? I will take one

example, when are we allowed to say

that Brendan Cox is a total cars?

That was December, six months after

his wife was assassinated.

He

probably said something to provoke

that, this is just my policy, I

cannot speak for Paris. My policy is

if somebody says something really,

really stupid then I am going to

call them on it.

Can't you be well

mannered? Understand where they are

coming from and correct them. One

thing that characterises all of this

is people going from zero to

shouting and angry and swearing

without the steps in between.

In the

great scheme of things, how bad is

calling somebody that?

This is

something I've been thinking about

recently in the sense of being

complicit in this. People would

regard me as quite a hostile angry

person. You know, I've called people

that they get before and said things

that maybe I've regretted, and I

think that actually it is going a

bit far actually and I think people

are getting really polarised and I

think we all need to look at our

role within that and how we have let

it get this bad.

The key thing,

you've taken great joy today in the

fact the Daily Mail isn't on Virgin

Trains.

It's fantastic.

You are sort

of cheering and clapping. Have you

ever tried to reach out to any of

the readers, it's one of the most

widely read papers in the UK, to

save let me understand where you are

coming from as well as you

understand where I'm coming from?

I

have co-founded all about trans when

we take young trans people to meet

people in the media, often times

people that produce shows like this.

That's you trying to get them to

understand you, I've asked whether

you have tried to understand them.

Of course, when we come to meet them

we are trying to see what their

level of understanding is.

But what

about your understanding of them?

Of

course we are trying to understand

where they are coming from and

trying to further the conversation

and realise what their awareness is.

Let me put the same question to you,

James. Do you ever seriously try and

engage with anyone who thinks

differently to you?

We need to

differentiate between on a personal

level, should we all get along, you

know, when we meet somebody at

Glastonbury, having a joint with

them, yeah, peace and love, man. At

its very, very silly to imagine that

if only we all agreed and got along

somewhere in the squishy middle the

world would be a better place. There

are certain issues in the world

where there are very different

views. On the economy, for example,

on the size of government, on what

to do about immigration. You are

never going to get this neutral

point in the middle where the

rightness and truth is.

I'm sorry,

we have to leave it, you've had a

constructive debate. We overran on

the first discussion. Thank you,

both.

This could be a decisive

year for Iran.

It started with protests that spread

across the country -

and although the authorities say

they are waning, they have taken

some extreme steps to try and douse

down the flames of discontent -

blocking access to the messaging

app, Telegram and making

thousands of arrests.

Now, one trigger for those protests

was a leaked government budget

which cuts subsidies and hikes up

fuel prices, while significantly

increasing military spending.

Iran is ramping up financial support

to proxies across the region,

which has fuelled the anger of some

Iranians concerned about the state

of their own economy -

and fuelled anxieties across much

of the world.

BBC Persian's Jiyar Gol

now investigates.

In towns and cities across Iran,

poverty, unemployment and corruption

has drawn tens of thousands

to the streets to protest

against the Islamic regime.

These are not the only

reasons for the protests.

There is also disquiet

about the billions spent on Iran's

foreign adventurism.

"No to interference

in Lebanon," they are chancing.

"No to Gaza."

-- chanting.

"Leave Syria."

"Think of us."

The supreme leader lives like a god.

We, the people, live like beggars.

Over the past three decades,

Iran has spent billions

of dollars in an attempt

to increase its influence

in the region.

Tehran now controls a route

all the way to the Mediterranean

via Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.

And Iran is involved

in a devastating proxy war

with Saudi Arabia in Yemen.

The Iranian expansionism

is extraordinarily dangerous.

First of all, they have

Shia groups throughout

the region they can rely on,

that they can, if you will,

convert or infiltrate.

And the man responsible

for Iran's military

operations in the Middle East

is General Qasem Soleimani,

the commander of the elite

Qods Force, a unit of

Iran's Revolutionary Guard,

which operates on foreign soil,

organising training

and funding militia groups.

A man feared by many

and labelled as a supporter

of terrorism by the US,

General Solemani, who once

operated in the shadows,

is now one of the most powerful

commanders in the region.

He played Al-Qaeda.

He was the man in charge

all the way through.

He was always one

step ahead of them.

He used them.

They helped him, in his regional

designs on where he wanted to go

with the Qods Force and Iran.

To understand the power

and influence of General Solemani

and the Qods Force, you have to go

to the Iran/Iraq border.

In 2001, when the US

attacked Afghanistan,

many Al-Qaeda members came to this

mountainous area to

establish a foothold.

They set up bases but, two years

later, they were bombed by the US.

This man is one of the prominent

members of the local Sufi Order,

a peaceful branch of Islam.

He claims Iran assisted

this Sunni extremists

He claims Iran assisted

the Sunni extremists

who survived the bombings.

But, why would a Sunni extremist

group like Al-Qaeda,

an arch enemy of Shia Iran,

cooperate with Qasem Soleimani?

Cathy Scott-Clark has interviewed

former Al-Qaeda members,

who lived Iran, about their dealings

with Qods Force.

Iran was an enemy of America.

Iran was nearby.

The people who negotiated

from the Al-Qaeda side believed that

Iran, the Qods Force,

saw this as an opportunity,

a) to know where the

Al-Qaeda members were.

If you know where they are,

and you are controlling them,

then you can use them.

CIA documents declassified

in November which were recovered

from Osama Bin Laden's compound

in Pakistan shed a new light on how

Iran helped Al-Qaeda

against the US in Iraq.

Some of those documents suggest

Iran has had a pragmatic

relationship with Al-Qaeda.

The documents suggest Iran

and Al-Qaeda had been helping each

other in Syria and Iraq.

In 2011, when President Obama pulled

out from Iraq, I was in Baghdad.

The next day, the picture of Iran's

supreme leader was posted

in Baghdad's main square.

Most Shia militias were more

loyal to Qasem Soleimani

than the Iraqi government.

Vali Nasr is an academic and former

foreign policy adviser to President

Obama's Administration on Iran.

Part of why Iran has been

so successful in the region

is because they've played this game

of manoeuvring between different

factions, relying on the one

that is most naturally

their constituency but yet build

relations with the other side,

play them against one another.

In October, Qasem Soleimani's

father passed away.

We examined the footage

and pictures of the funeral,

just to understand what kind

of people attended the funeral.

For example, one of them was

the leader of Shia militias in Iran.

Another person was a

representative of Hamas.

Many other people attended

to express their condolences

in person to him.

It shows how powerful

and influential he is.

General Soleimani financed,

trained and equipped thousands

of Shia militias to support Iran's

allies in Syria and Iraq,

including Lebanese Hezbollah,

a group which is also

on the US terrorist list.

Its leader says Iran pays the bill.

It's been estimated that Iran has

spent $6 billion annually

on the Syrian regime,

basically, to keep it afloat.

This is a conservative

estimate on the proxy group,

the Lebanese Hezbollah.

Iran is estimated to be

allocating $1 billion

a year to the group,

mostly according to Israeli

intelligence forces.

General Soleimani says,

if Iran does not engage with enemies

outside the country's borders,

it will have to fight them

in the streets of Tehran.

As he tells his fighters

on the Syrian front line,

he is committed to expanding

Iran's regional influence.

But, at home, protesters

on the streets are tearing down

General Soleimani's banner.

They are warning the tens

of billions of dollars spent

propping up Assad in Syria

and financing Shia militias

across the Middle East must be

invested in their country

and their future.

We asked to speak to the Iranian

government about this report

but they declined to comment.

That's all we have time for. We

expected James Delingpole and Paris

Lees to be at each other's throats

but I think they are fixing dinner

together in the green room. Gemili

will be here tomorrow. Have a very

good night.