in both israel and iran, political leaders and military chiefs have a choice to make. do they escalate their conflict further and risk all—out war or step back? following the logic of recent action and reaction, the next key decision will be made in israel. having successfully countered a barrage of iranian missiles, will the netanyahu government seek new levels of retribution and deterrence? well, my guest is danny danon, former israeli un ambassador and ally of prime minister netanyahu. israel's allies are urgently advising against further escalation, but is israel listening?

danny danon injerusalem, welcome to hardtalk. thank you for having me again, stephen. israel has a vital choice to make right now with regard to iran. does it respond again, up the ante, escalate, or does it not? what do you believe the choice will be and should be? frankly speaking, stephen, i don't think we have a dilemma here. we have to retaliate. the question is how we do it, when we do it, against whom. but i don't think we can sit idly by after the attack we saw two nights ago here in israel, 300 projectiles that came from iran directly into israel.

i'm not familiar with any other sovereign nation that will not retaliate after such an aggressive attack. and we have to make it very clear. iran chose to send those rockets, missiles and uavs from iran. for many months and years, they use their proxies in the region. they built a very massive force around israel, but they decided to escalate. they decided to create a new equation by sending all of those rockets from iran into israel. they decided to escalate, you say. how would you characterise bombing a diplomatic building, a consulate in damascus, which houses iranian officials and, of course, enjoys the status of sovereign iranian territory? well, first, i would say it very clear that we haven't taken responsibility for the attack. second... mr danon, i think it's... let me finish.

i think we're beyond those sort of obfuscations, are we not? second, it wasn't a consulate. you know, when you look at the pictures and the data, it was a building next to a consulate. it wasn't part of an embassy or consulate. and third, you know, even if it happened, can itjustify attack of ballistic missiles into our country, into jerusalem, our capital, into military bases and very sensitive facilities we have in israel? i don't think you can put it there as a rational reaction. even if they believe that we did it and they want to retaliate, you then send ballistic missiles like that. that's something that we haven't seen in the past, not only in the middle east, even in other conflicts. you know, countries don't send ballistic missiles so easily like iran did a few days ago. what we understand from sources in turkey and jordan is that the iranians indicated days before they launched this barrage of drones, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles, they indicated

that it was coming. and, of course, they knew that turkey, for example, would inform the united states and the united states would share information with you. in other words, it looks as though the iranians were seeking a response to your strike on their building in damascus, which was, to use the word, calibrated. would you not see that that is what the iranians were doing? you know, we got the information, and you know we don't need our allies to tell us. the leaders of tehran said it very directly. they said that they will attack israel from iran, and we anticipated the attack and we prepared for that. and as you all know, we were very instrumental in intercepting 99% of those projectiles. it was an amazing result. we invested a lot of funds and energy in building our air defence system.

but still, you have to look at the intentions. the intentions of tehran was to kill israelis, was to target our facilities, and that is something we cannot accept. we have to build our deterrence. that's why my personal position is... well, yeah, the question is how.. ..how you respond both when and where... you're. .. i've talked to you over many years. you're a hawk within the likud party. but there are people inside netanyahu's government who are even more hawkish, more far—right, more extreme in their rhetoric than you. i'm thinking, for example, of security minister itamar ben—gvir, who has said that israel must right now launch a crushing attack. he says containment and proportionality are concepts that passed away on october 7th. in order to create a new level of deterrence, he says that israel, with regard to iran, to quote him, "must go crazy". is that where you are, too?

so, i can tell you that our government is a responsible government. prime minister netanyahu is very experienced. that is why i don't expect that we will take any crazy decisions, make it very clear. it is a sophisticated decision because we don't want a full war with iran. you know, we have no conflict with iran. when you look at the map, stephen, you see that iran is so far away from israel and we have no conflict with them, not about borders, not about energy. the only reason that we are in a conflict because they have a radical ideology againstjews and they are spending billions of dollars trying to destroy the jewish nations, not only in israel — worldwide. so that's why we are in a conflict with iran. so, our goal is not to start a full war, but at the same time, we need to find the smart way to act to what happened here and to make sure

that the leaders of iran will think very carefully next time before they give the orders to send ballistic missiles and cruise missiles into israel. this isn'tjust about you and iran, is it? it's also, as far as israel is concerned, it's about maintaining key strategic alliances with partners. now, joe biden has said that israel should take the win — his phrase — take the win of the fact that you very successfully neutralised the iranian barrage of missiles and not indulge in a new escalation. the same has been said by emmanuel macron in paris, the same from lord cameron, the british foreign secretary, who said israel must be smart, must use its head, not heart. so, the question is — are you going to ignore all of these allies who have just helped you, by the way, to neutralise the iranian missile threat? are you going to ignore them or listen to them? stephen, we respect all the leaders that you mentioned, and we are grateful for the cooperation and the support we received from them.

but let me ask you that — what would those leaders do if the attack was on london city, paris orwashington, dc? what would've been their response if those rockets and missiles from iran would have been targeting communities of their own constituency? i'm sure the language would've been different and the actions would've been different. well, with the greatest of respect, danny danon, lord cameron, the british foreign secretary, was asked just a few hours ago what would the british do if a british diplomatic building were bombed to bits in a foreign capital, and he had to acknowledge that britain would respond very seriously. it comes back to my original point. you on this occasion, when it comes to the timeline, you were responsible for an escalation, which the iranians have responded to. and as i understand it, you didn't even forewarn the americans of what you were going to do in damascus. so it does suggest to me that you and your allies

have a problem here. no, i beg to differ about the equation you just created, stephen. you know, you cannot compare a british diplomat to a leader of the irgc, who come to the region to spread the hate, terror against israel, against the us facilities, you know, same way that the us took action against qassem soleimani. those guys are not good guys. they're not diplomats. don't be mistaken. those are terrorists that come under the support and auspices of iran in order to promote chaos in the region. and by the way, let's admit it, they're doing a good job. look what happened to lebanon. look what happened to damascus. look what they did with hamas in gaza. they are very capable in promoting chaos and instability. so, when we try to block them, no—one can compare it to an attack against an embassy or against a diplomat. but still, when you compare

the amount of weapons that iran used against israel, that's something that i cannot imagine the uk standing quietly if those rockets would have... just a final point on this, your relationship with allies. i have read convincing reports quoting many sources inside the white house saying that overnight saturday, sunday, after it became clear what the iranians had launched against you, mr netanyahu was inclined to launch an immediate retaliatory response and he was persuaded not to byjoe biden, who, according to these reports, said to mr netanyahu quite clearly, he said, "we will not support you in that action." there is a problem for israel here, is there not? you need the americans, not least you need the arms they're giving you to fight your war in gaza. you need the warplanes that helped you shoot down this barrage of iranian drones and missiles.

you cannot ultimately go againstjoe biden if he says, quite clearly, "i am not with you on this." stephen, we respect our allies. we speak with them. we consult with them. but at the end of the day, we take the best decisions for israel. and when you look at the history, whenever we took those decisions, even against the will of the us, they were the right decisions. it was the attack against the nuclear reactor in iraq in the �*80s or the attack against the nuclear reactor in syria. and i think what we saw two nights ago, that we took the right decision. and by the way, you know, with all due respect, and we are grateful for the support we received from the uk, from the us, from other countries in the region to intercept those rockets, but the majority of the work was done by us so we can block those missiles from entering israel. but we are talking with our

allies because we are friends, we have the same enemies, we have the same challenges. we will continue to have that dialogue. but at the end of the day, the decisions that will be taken will be about the safety and security of the people who live here in israel, and we don't expect the us to come in and fight the wars for us. it never happened so far, and we have the capabilities to continue and defend ourselves. this narrative now that we are discussing between ourselves of israel and iran, a confrontation which could go in a very dangerous direction in some ways, it serves israel well, doesn't it? you currently are in a real strategic mess in gaza, and here we are talking about iran and the possibility of an escalating confrontation rather than the fact that israel is clearly not achieving any of its strategic objectives right now inside gaza. absolutely not, stephen.

on the contrary, you know, we are focused on the war against hamas. we haven't forgotten what happened on october 7th. we haven't forgotten the hostages who are being tortured and raped as we speak, ongoing atrocities in gaza. we are focused on that. i think what you see coming from iran, through hezbollah, through the proxies from yemen and iraq and directly from iran, it's a way for them to distract us from our goals. but we are very focused on our goals and our mission to release the hostages and to eradicate hamas. so i don't understand how can you even imagine... well, you're an elected politician. i assume you have some faith in the judgment of the israeli people as an elected politician. poll after poll in israel, i'm looking at a very recent one from channel 12, says that 68% of respondents in this poll think that netanyahu is not handling

the gaza war well. a clear majority think that the government is not doing enough to bring back the hostages, 133, we believe, still being held by hamas in captivity inside gaza. the israeli public is making its ownjudgment. well, you know, i think many israelis want to see results. they want to see us finishing thejob against hamas. it takes us too long. i agree. one of the reasons that it dragged so long, because we listened to the international community who asked us to slow down. and i think that by now, six months after the massacre, we should have finished the job. really? you really believe that if the death toll wasn't what it currently is, over 33,000 according to the gaza—run, the hamas—run health ministry, if you think the death toll was what,

40,000, 50,000, if many more women and children had been killed, you think that would be a sign of a greater success if you hadn't, quote unquote, "slowed down" ? the death toll is on the shoulders of hamas. they started the war on october 7th. you've forgotten, stephen, but we had a ceasefire before that. they came into our communities, kidnapped israelis, burned them alive. so no—one can blame israel for us going after hamas today. but once we started the war, we have to finish the war. and that's what i expect for my government, to go into rafah to finish the job and to allow a better future for the people who live in gaza, not under hamas, not under an entity that took all the resources to build tunnels against israel. and i think also for the future of gaza, we should work faster, finish hamas and allow a new future for gaza. joe biden, in just a few days after october 7th,

called for israel to show wisdom, not to make the mistakes that the us made after 9/11. here you sit with me saying that israel should, quote unquote, "finish thejob", telling me that israel should put all of its forces into rafah, where a million and more people are currently displaced, living in tents. and you say israeli tanks should roll into that entire area. no... and joe biden... hang on, joe biden has made it plain that he regards the netanyahu strategy as a mistake. "i don't agree with the approach." how can you think that what you're recommending is in israel's best interest? so let's make it clear. what you just said, i never said. when i say to operate in rafah, i mean that we have to allow the population to move out of rafah to the centre, exactly like we did... there's nowhere for

those people to go. wait, and only then to manoeuvre into gaza and to fight the hamas radicals over there. we proved that we can do it in northern gaza. it wasn't easy. it was a challenge, but it was successful. the same, we should do in rafah. we cannot leave hamas intact. it's like a cancer. if you leave 25% of hamas in rafah intact, it would take them a few months and they will be all over gaza again, and we will not sit and wait for them to attack us again. so that's why we have no choice... do you not feel that israel is being dragged deeper and deeper into a quagmire which is simply sullying and tarnishing israel's international standing? you know as well as i do that the united nations is now reporting famine in the north of gaza. in that particular area of the strip, one third of all children under two years old are now suffering acute — acute malnutrition. now, this is an area under israeli military control.

you are responsible for this. let's be clear on the facts. we don't prevent any humanitarian aid. hundreds, hundreds of trucks are entering gaza every day. but the problem is that hamas is taking control of the aid and the trucks, and it's very hard to get the aid to the people. so, again, the responsibility for the situation you described is on the shoulders of hamas. and i know that many countries want to send more support and more aid. the problem is not with the amount of aid. the problem is the distribution of the aid. once you get it into gaza and as long as hamas is in charge in gaza, it would be very hard to build a better structure for the civilians in gaza. i think that under international law, given that israel is militarily occupying the north of gaza, you'll find that you are responsible for the conditions of the people in gaza.

and i'lljust quote to you the un's most senior human rights official, volker turk, who recently told the bbc that in his opinion, there is now, quote, "a plausible case that israel is using starvation "as a weapon of war." you're a former international diplomat. that's a lie.... you know what this is doing to israel's reputation. i know exactly who wrote the report, and you can look at what he wrote in the past. those people, they always come against israel. we're doing our best to minimise civilian suffering and casualties in gaza. hamas is doing exactly the opposite. they want to drag the war. and look what happened only two days ago. and i'm not saying my opinion — the us said it very clearly that israel was willing to go a very long way to achieve an agreement, a humanitarian ceasefire in gaza. you can ask the qataris who were involved, the egyptians and the americans. you know what? don't believe us. i know that you don't believe what i'm saying. but ask the american envoy, the head of the cia,

what happened with the negotiations with hamas. they rejected all the ideas completely. they have no desire to negotiate or to ease the suffering of the people of gaza. they want to see more suffering. and i think the only way to move forward is to eradicate hamas, to kill sinwar and his leadership, and to allow for a new leadership in gaza to emerge. the problem is, it seems the only thing you resort to in terms of strategic vision is the destruction, complete elimination of hamas, which many people across the world believe is an impossibility. it's impossible actually to kill every hamas fighter because not only are they in gaza, they're in other parts of the west bank as well, but it's also an idea, and you cannot eliminate an idea. there are very senior israelis like ami ayalon, a former head of shin bet, a former naval commander, a member of your security elite, who says that right now, israel is not offering anything to the palestinians, no level of hope.

and where there is no hope, he says, people have nothing to lose. they will, of course, resort back to violence. so let me answer your assumption. first, we can and we will eradicate the infrastructure of hamas in gaza. and when you look back at history, when the uk and the allies fought nazi germany, you were not able to kill all the nazis who were in europe, but you went after the leadership, after the manufacture system they had, and at the end of the day, they surrendered. that's exactly what will happen in gaza, the same way the us madejapan to surrender and they built a new future for the people injapan, the same way the allies won over nazi germany. and it took a few years to build a new society in germany and in europe. that's what we expect to happen in gaza.

mr danon, with the greatest respect, you give me those examples, and yet israel has no idea what it's going to do with gaza. are you going to hand it over to the palestinian authority? are you going to occupy it indefinitely? are you going to resettle it with jewish settlers? are you going to annex it and turn it into, as you would see it, sovereign israeli territory? let me answer you... you have no idea what you're going to do with it. you bring up...very many ideas from your imagination. but i want to answer you. two things will not happen in gaza. we will not stay in gaza. we have no intention to stay there. and hamas will not stay in gaza. i can promise you that. now, what will happen after? i think the best thing is to allow a local leadership to take over with the support of the moderate arab countries in the region who speak the same language, who can support the reconstruction. what do you mean, "the best thing will be"? that's our goal. there is a complete

contradiction in what you're telling me. you say on the one hand, "we have no intention of staying. "we will not stay." then you tell me, "the best thing is if this happens." but if you are not staying, if you are serious about withdrawing israeli military forces, then how can you dictate what happens next inside gaza? because once we finish with hamas, there will be a room for other forces to emerge. and by the way, we are talking with a few power... ..and organisations about this possibility. but, you know, when people look at what's happening today in gaza and they see that hamas is still in charge of the humanitarian aid and hamas is still hiding in the tunnels, people are not very keen to come and start to work over there. but once we finish hamas, i believe there will be an opening for many, many initiatives, local initiatives and foreign initiatives to support the population there.

danny danon, we have to end there. i thank you very much forjoining me on hardtalk. hello there. it was a very unsettled day on monday, very windy for many of us with widespread gales and a whole mixture of weather conditions. tuesday looks a little bit quieter. it'll still be quite blustery. there'll be sunshine, a few showers around, but it'll stay on the cool side for the time of year. in this cooler air mass, which was introduced across the uk by monday's area of low pressure, will be sitting to the east of the country for tuesday. so it's here where we'll see most of the showers, the strongest of the winds,

the further west you are, closer to this area of high pressure, then it'll be a little bit quieter. so we start off on a chilly note for tuesday morning. quite a bit of sunshine around. a few showers from the word go across northern and eastern areas, and these showers will affect northern scotland, wintriness on the hills. into the afternoon, some heavier showers, perhaps some hail and thunder affecting the midlands into southeast england. and a fairly breezy day to come, not as windy as monday — those are mean wind speeds. temperature wise, probably a little bit better than monday, up to 13 celsius in the south. so with some light winds, some sunshine, it won't feel too bad, but cooler along north sea coasts, single digits there. tuesday night, we continue to see clear spells, further bands of showers, especially across northern scotland, where it'll turn quite windy again and stay cool as well with some snow on the hills there. touch of frost in some sheltered glens, otherwise, it's quite a chilly night, i think, to start wednesday morning. so wednesday itself, we'll have some showers draped across eastern areas. these weather fronts may bring some cloud and rain to the far west of the country.

and once again, we're in a slightly cooler air mass. wednesday could be a little bit cooler than tuesday. so we start off on a chilly note, plenty of sunshine around. there will be showers again across northern and eastern scotland, eastern england, more cloud here. and these weather fronts could bring cloud outbreaks of rain to northern ireland. a bit of a question mark. to how far eastwards it moves, but it could affect parts of wales and south—west england through the afternoon, the best of the brightness through the spine of the country. temperatures range of nine to ii or 12 celsius, so a bit below average. thursday into friday, we see a spell of wet, windy weather across the north of the uk, something drier in the south. and then this area of high pressure wants to build in in time for the weekend. so that will bring a very much needed quieter, drier spell of weather as we push towards the end of the week. and with a bit more sunshine around, light winds, it'll feel a bit warmer as well.

live from london, this is bbc news. israel's war cabinet meets for a second time in 2a hours to discuss its response to iran's drone and missile attack. police in australia say a knife attack that injured at least four people at a church in sydney was an act of terrorism.

and donald trump's historic hush money criminal trial gets under way in new york with the court struggling to find impartialjurors. hello. welcome to the programme. i'm ben thompson. israel's war cabinet has met for a second time in less than 2a hours to discuss how to respond to iran's unprecedented drone and missile attack. the government has not made public whether a decision on a suitable response had been reached at all during the late—night meeting, but reiterated that there will be a response. meanwhile, the white house has described iran's attack on israel over the weekend as a "spectacular and embarrassing failure." nearly all of the more than 300 missiles and drones were shot down.

let us talk about what we know so