Trump: US to leave Iran in '2 or 3 weeks'

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK. Available now on the documentary from the BBC World Service. Since the 1970s, India's sent thousands of babies abroad to be adopted into Western families. Stephanie from France is one of them. I'm Tanya Dutta. Join us on Stephanie's quest to find her roots in India's Shadow Children. Listen now by searching for the documentary wherever you get to your BBC podcasts. This is the Global News Podcast from the BBC World Service. Hi, Alex Ritson and in the early hours of Wednesday, the 1st of April, these are our main stories. Iran says it will end the war with the US but only in return for security guarantees. Donald Trump says it will be over in two to three weeks. Mixed reactions as Britain confirms King Charles will make a state visit to America. And ballroom blues for President Trump as a judge stops work on the White House extension. Also in this podcast, the depleted North Sea oil and gas fields being turned into huge offshore carbon dioxide storage sites. And as the team is preparing, I think everybody's pretty excited and understands a significance of this launch, this first chapter on our way back to the moon. The final preparations for the first manned moon mission for more than 50 years. There's been some optimism after Iranian state media reported President Masoud Pizestekyan saying his country is willing to end the war with the US and Israel in return for security guarantees. And Donald Trump has also said the war will end in two to three weeks, but there are conflicting accounts on the status of peace talks and few tangible signs of progress. Speaking in the Oval Office, President Trump said the end to US operations in Iran is not dependent on reaching a deal with Tehran but rather meeting Washington's war goals. He also reiterated his call for countries struggling with fuel shortages to go get their own oil from these straight-of-hormous. We'll be leaving very soon and in France or some other country once again, oil or gas. They'll go up through the straight. They'll be able to fend for themselves. I think it'll be very safe actually, but we have nothing to do with that because we hit them hard, we got rid of a lot of the radicalized lunatics along the straight. We have had regime change. Now regime change was not one of the things I had as a goal. I had one goal. They will have no nuclear weapon. And that goal has been attained. They will not have nuclear weapons, but we're finishing the job within maybe two weeks, maybe a couple of days longer. The comments come after a day of heavy strikes on Iran and follow a warning from the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps that it would retaliate against US tech giants if more Iranian leaders are killed. And in the past few hours, it's understood a tanker has been hit by an unknown projectile off the coast of Qatar. The crew are reported to be safe. Our North America correspondent Gary O'Donohue gave me this assessment of President Trump's strategy. I mean, it does really depend what day it is. What the war aims are for Donald Trump. He's talked about bombing until Iran has no longer the capacity for nuclear weapons, which obviously doesn't have any way at the moment. He's also said that the war is coming to an end. And I think a lot of people will find that quite surprising because we're in a situation where the state of war moves are still effectively closed. All this nuclear material is still buried under the ground inside Iran. And the Islamic Republic remains in place. And so for in terms of war aims, one might wonder, can that really be what victory looks like? Can he just walk away and leave the rest of the world to sort out the straighter form? Well, I think they believe they can. They insist always that he has accepted this today that America isn't dependent on that oil, etc. Although that's always belied by the fact that gasoline has just gone over an average of $4 a gallon here for the first time since August 2022. The market means that it is still subject to what's going on elsewhere. The rhetoric is along those lines, but it's not clear that that can really be something they believe. And of course, can they walk away without achieving the goal of retrieving the nuclear material? 440 kilos of 60% enriched uranium? Can they walk away with the regime in tax even if they, as they say, they have removed the top few echelons? The interesting thing is that in the last few days Donald Trump has said we've achieved regime change. So you can see the beginnings, I think, of a narrative that says, whether or not anyone believes it or not, that says we've achieved what we set out to do. How's all this going down with ordinary Americans? This is a very partisan war. The numbers are really quite striking. You've got around three quarters of Republicans who support this war. You've got around one in ten Democrats who support this war. Amongst Donald Trump's most loyal supporters, as we call them, the MAGA base, that support is up to 90%. It drops away with more moderate Republicans, but it's still approaching six out of ten. And I was down in Alabama, actually, over the weekend talking to some farmers, talking to some people at a baseball game, talking to people in a church. And you get a real sort of sense that there's a lot of loyalty to this president down there. As Farmer said to me that his diesel was up 50% that his fertilizer was up $4,500 a ton. I said, "Well, does that question your support for the president?" He says, "No, no, that's fine. I'll take the pain to try and stop Iran getting a nuclear weapon and sending over here." Now, you can argue about whether that's likely whether this, the homeland is under threat, but many Republicans do buy the argument. On the other hand, a priest I spoke to down there, he said to me, "Yeah, there's broad support for the president in this community, but don't forget, you know, these things can change. People can be fickle. There was support for Vietnam, there was support for Iraq, and things changed." Gary O'Donohu in Washington. President Trump has again lashed out at countries which he says haven't helped with his war in Iran. As we've heard, he said the UK, France, and other countries could get their own oil from the now-blocked, straightforward moves. Earlier, Mr Trump's defense secretary Pete Hegseth appeared to make fun of Britain's Royal Navy. In what was perhaps an unfortunate coincidence of timing, on the same day, Royal officials in Britain confirmed that King Charles will make a state visit to the US later this month. It raised the question of whether the King ought to visit a country whose leaders have been rude about Britain. It's an issue that has divided opinion. David Dimbleby, a veteran BBC broadcaster who's commented on many Royal occasions strongly opposes the idea of a state visit at the moment. I think it's in a cute embarrassment. No, I don't think it's a good idea. I mean, I pitted the King. I mean, he's at the mercy of the government, for the government says, "Go, he goes." And sitting down to a state dinner with a man who has insulted the British troops in Afghanistan and said they weren't particularly important and weren't needed, goes out of his way to be rude about Britain and about NATO and who's a narcissist and the bully. And the wage stand up to bullies is not to take it, but it seems that that's not the government's view. It appears to endorse what the president is standing for. It appears to endorse the narcissism. I think the British people, for whom the King speaks, would actually have liked to see a slight distance made, a postponement because while the president is involved in this very important war and they would see it in Iran, it would be inappropriate. That's why I think it could have been used cautiously as a actually a president Trump. You're not going to win everyone in this game. You're not going to win over. You know, we're not going to send Arm Monarch to sort of schmooze with you in Washington. I mean, the King is after all commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces in Britain and Trump has insulted them when we've been on such a rocky road with this presidency. I would have thought not canceling it. That would be too much of a rebuke, but there would be a diplomatic way of finding a pause. But not everyone agrees. Robert Hardman is the author of an upcoming biography of the late Queen Elizabeth. He thinks Mr. Trump will be on his best behavior as he was when he visited Britain last year. These things are never perfect and clearly there could be a better time. I mean, if you look back at the president's speech at the state banquet of Windsor last September, I mean, I can't recall in decades of state visitors having quite such warm words to say about Britain generally. I mean, let's sort of forget this is a president who is half British. There is a really deep rooted love and respect for the monarchy. That runs completely on a separate axis, if you'd like, from his views on the British government. I would argue for the Foreign Office of British Foreign Policy for the Prime Minister. I mean, this is a useful way of resetting the dial. When you look back at the track record of Donald Trump and the presence of Royalty, I was there in 2018 when he came to see the Queen for the first time and then he had his first date visit the following year 2019 and then he obviously came last year on his day visit. Every time he's with the Royal Family, he's on his best behaviour. I mean, he, during all his visits with the late Queen, there was no tweeting. So, there is not going to be any sort of over-office, tokilling embarrassing moment, I don't think. I think he will be very conscious that this has got to work. Robert Hardman. As fuel prices rise around the world because of the war in Iran, countries have begun to implement measures to conserve as much as possible and to offer help to those paying inflated prices. In Australia, the Federal Government has halved fuel tax. In some states, they've even started offering free public transport. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has reassured Australians that the country's fuel supply remains secure after panic buying and petrol stations running dry. Our correspondent Simon Adkinson, who's in Kens in Queensland, told me how much people would save. The exercise duty has been halved, which means it's going down by about 26 and a bit Australian cents. That's around 18 US cents per liter for petrol and diesel. So, it should say drivers between 10 Aussie dollars, about 7 US dollars and 20 dollars, depending how big they're vehicle is. It's a bit of a saving. I've been past a few service stations here this morning, and it's clear that while some of them have already started to cut their prices by pretty much exactly the same amount as that duty reduction, a lot still haven't, and what the companies are saying, and the government is that this is fair enough because they've got to sell the stock first that they bought at the higher price. Will it help curb the economic impact of the war? I mean, speak to people here and they say it's better than nothing. Even with this tax cut, their fuel is still going to be way, way more expensive than it was before the US and Israel attacked around. If I can give you an example, just before the war began, I filled my car here with these, and it cost a touch over 100 Australian dollars. It's about 70 US dollars. A couple of days ago, that same tank of fuel was $190, so close to double. The savings on this duty are only going to offset that. Of course, there are other flow on costs as well. Everything in Australia needs to be transported, huge distances, so prices of everything are going up. This might help a little bit, but overall the picture is pretty grim here in terms of cost of living. And free public transport in some places? Yeah, that's right. For the next month, people in the states of Tasmania and Victoria won't have to pay to use public transport. And this is basically authorities there saying, come on, leave your car at home, save some fuel, and a bit of an incentive, you'll save some money to get on the bus, get on the train, get on the tram, and it won't cost you a penny. And it's proven to be quite popular. I'm in Queensland today, where public transport, it's not free, but it's had a flat rate of 50 Australian cents for coming up for a couple of years now, something that became so popular that no politician dares cancel it. And that's led to a real jump in public transport use. So hopefully the governments of Tasmania and Victoria will be hoping for a similar uptake. Of course, there's a big country for a lot of people, public transport just isn't a practical way to get around, so it's going to take more than that to lure people away from their vehicles. Simon Atkinson Still to come in this podcast. You can't just say someone's this and then they're not. It's who you are as a person really. The shocking news for some families who've used fertility treatment in Northern Cyprus. I'm Tanya Datta. This is the Global News podcast. Now to another matter that's been on President Trump's mind over recent months, the new ballroom he's having built has part of an extension to the White House. Work has already started, but a judge has now ruled that construction has to stop, because Mr Trump doesn't have the authority to build it without approval from Congress. I heard more about what the judge said from our Washington correspondent, IA. Well, he said that while Donald Trump is the steward of the White House at the moment, he isn't the owner and so he doesn't have the authority to approve funding or large-scale iterations to federal property without the permission and approval of Congress. Essentially, he was saying that the preservation group, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, that have brought this lawsuit against the ballroom project, are likely to succeed in their lawsuit. That is effectively the judgment here by this federal judge. Now he said that Donald Trump essentially has 14 days to try and appeal this decision, otherwise construction will be halted in two weeks. So I think in less Donald Trump, successfully manages to appeal this decision in the next 14 days, it is likely that construction is going to be paused on this. What does the president actually want to do with the ballroom? Why are his plans so controversial? Well, he sees this as a chance to massively expand essentially the hosting space of the White House at the moment, sometimes when large-scale events are put on, they have to erect marquees or tents or, for example, outside. And this is a way of increasing the capacity for posting balls, big-state dinners, for example. Although Trump has actually said recently that the ballroom is just in his words a shed for what's underneath, and that there will also be this big military complex underneath it. So he has huge ambition, I think, for this project, which is part of his wider plans to make his mark on Washington and make various changes to the city while he's in office. Why it's controversial is the White House, of course, is one of the most symbolic buildings in the US. And I think there is a sense that critics, when they saw diggers going in and essentially deconstructing the East Wing, tearing it down and starting to construct a new building on it, that they were pretty horrified that there were these huge changes being made to the White House without much input from the public or federal lawmakers. As there being any reaction from the White House, what's this going to mean for the president's plans? Is he going to have to go to Congress? Well, Donald Trump has reacted himself, posting on Truth Social, attacking the National Trust for Historic Preservation, who brought this lawsuit against the project, accusing them of being a radical left group of lunatics, who he accused of essentially overlooking projects elsewhere in the US that he described as over budget. But now opposing a ballroom, which he said was under budget ahead of schedule, didn't cost the taxpayer and in his words is one of the finest buildings of its kind anywhere in the world. So he's clearly as expected not happy at all with this decision. In terms of options going forward, the judge had said that it's not too late for him to go to Congress and seek approval. So if he did get that approval, then perhaps that would give him that authority to go ahead. Or he could potentially try to launch a legal appeal in the next two weeks. It is a short timeline, though, for him to successfully get that appeal approved in time to allow construction to continue. I only wells. To Denmark now, where an ambitious carbon capture plan will soon be underway, with human activities emitting record levels of carbon dioxide, carbon capture allows thousands of tons of CO2 that's being released from power stations and other industrial processes to be captured and then stored in depleted oil and gas fields in the North Sea. This could make a real difference in limiting the long-term warming of the planet. Green Sun's Future, which is led by British chemicals giant Ineos, will become the EU's first large-scale offshore CO2 storage site. Our reporter Adrian Murray travelled from the Danish port town Esbeyer out into the North Sea. Our helicopter had flown 250 kilometres from Denmark's west coast when it circled a solitary oil rig rising up from the choppy waters of the North Sea. Here an almost depleted oilfield is about to get a second life as the site of a massive carbon storage project, called Green Sun Future. Where CO2 emissions captured from industry will be buried 1800 metres below the sea bed. At a landing at the large Mother Platform nearby, Merd Scala, CEO of Ineos Energy, showed me to the well-head. Instead of moving the oil and gas up the ground, we're going to inject the CO2 into the ground instead. When commercial operations get underway in the next few months, this will be the EU's first large-scale offshore storage site. We think it's one of the best answers to caught emissions and Denmark has the potential to actually store more than several hundred years of our own emissions. Globally, hundreds of carbon storage initiatives are in development. In Europe, the North Sea is emerging as a hub with several large-scale projects advancing in Norway, the Netherlands, Denmark and the UK. And at a decades of exploration, the region's geology is also well understood. What we have here is Now four pieces of coal. At a large warehouse on the outskirts of Copenhagen, cases of rock samples are stacked floor to ceiling. Neil Skomspon, a senior researcher at the Geological Survey of Greenland and Denmark, showed me a grainy green slab drilled from the sea floor. We call it green sand because it is actually green. If you feel it, it's a little rough. He says the Norse's porous bedrock is well suited for CO2 storage. We want a large volume of pores, small cavities in the rock that can actually restore the CO2. And then we want lotstones that can seal off the reservoir. We know that over geological time that this cap rock has been capable of withholding oil and gas below. And that is the same ceiling mechanism that we use for CO2 storage. Both the UN's top climate science body say that carbon capture is a necessary tool to help limit global warming. However, the technology is not with that critics. If we want to go net zero and even net negative, we will need these technologies. Helena Hegel is head of climate and environmental policy at Greenpeace Denmark. But if our generation use the sea bed for storing carbon now, that we shouldn't have emitted in the first place, then the generations coming after us won't be able to use the sea bed to store their emissions. Back on the Siri rig out in the North Sea, maintenance manager Peter Pierre tells me that carbon storage offers new opportunities. Seeing a future building up here to the green transitions, it's just amazing. And soon that climate warming CO2 will be shipped out here in the North Sea and knocked away for good. Adrian Murray. Going through fertility treatment can be a difficult experience for many couples. And for those traveling abroad and using sperm or egg donors, there are a different set of challenges. Northern Cypress is a popular destination for those seeking more affordable IVF. But there's no independent fertility regulator. The BBC has spoken to parents who used clinics there and now believe their chosen donors were not used and are Collins and reports. Siblings Kate and James are looking through a photo album with their parents. So I was a fat baby compared to Jane. Their two mums, Beth and Laura, each underwent IVF to have their children. The same sex couple needed a sperm donor. They selected an anonymous Danish man known as Finn from a sperm bank. They're showing me his profile. Right, witty, creative, optimistic, strong, physically, and mentally. Are you a smoker? No, never smoke. It was really important that they had some sense of who he is. Because that's half of them. It's half their genetics, their DNA, shapes their identity, their sense of self, who they are. As Beth and Laura would each be a biological mother to one child, they wanted donor Finn to be used in all IVF procedures to ensure their children were biologically related. They paid their fertility clinic in Northern Cypress to import Finn's sperm. When did you start thinking? Not everything is adding up here. So when James was born, we expected him to have blue eyes. And he didn't. So that kind of rang a bit of an alarm bell. The family decided to do a series of DNA tests. Lovely to meet you. I'm Denise. They're meeting with a leading genetics expert to find out their results. Beth and Laura, I've got your results here in these envelopes. After a few minutes of quiet reading, Beth tells us the findings. So it says that Cates and James are unrelated. Is there any possibility whatsoever in your mind that they might be related? No. Professor Denise Sindercomne Court has analysed all of the family's DNA tests. She says not only are the children from different sperm donors, she thinks it's unlikely either are from donor Finn. Beth and Laura have gone from knowing a lot about their children's donor to knowing nothing at all. What screening have they done for the donor in terms of health checks and also how many donations have they done? Beth and Laura's IVF treatment was in Northern Cyprus, one of the most popular destinations for British people seeking fertility treatment abroad. Clinics there promise high success rates, low costs, and even a sunny holiday. Many patients say they have positive experiences there, but our investigation has uncovered a more disturbing side. The families of seven children have told me they believe they were given the wrong sperm or egg donors at clinics in Northern Cyprus. Most of them have now done DNA tests. That's an absolutely appalling position to be in. That should never ever happen. Dr. Ippocrates Saris from the British Vatilities Society has viewed our findings. It's important to say that there is nothing inherently wrong with what's called cross-border medicine, and it happens quite a lot. However, the moment you exit the shores of this country, you rely on the local regulation of wherever you're having treatment. Northern Cyprus is only legally recognised by Turkey and has its own fertility laws. Unlike the UK, it does not have an independent regulator monitoring its clinics. Beth and Laura's doctor denies any wrongdoing and the clinic where they had their treatment has not responded to our questions. Oh, wait, no, they're from Scotland on the sign. Back on a beach in South West England is a family coming to terms with what they've discovered, particularly James. How did you feel when you saw your DNA results? Upset, because like, you can't just say someone's this and then they're not. Identity is the main thing. It's who you are as a person, really. James ending that report by Anna Collinson. Final preparations are underway for America's first man to mission into deep space since 1972. The autumn is two rocket. We'll take four astronauts on a 10-day journey around the moon. If all goes well, the launch could take place later today. Senior NASA test director Jeff Spording gave this update. There was a lot of smiles today, so I felt really good about that. As the team is preparing, I think everybody's pretty excited and understands the significance of this launch. This first chapter on our way back to the moon. But there is a chance the launch could be delayed because of the weather. The rocket might not take off if it's too cloudy or if there's rain. Mark Berger is the launch's weather officer. Still maintaining a 20% chance of a no-go condition during the launch window. So the optimistic side of me says that means 80% chance of go here. Again, isolated showers are wandering around, but a lot of real estate between those showers and all likelihood. So we should be able to shoot the gap between those showers and none of these look particularly vigorous. Our science editor Rebecca Morel is at Cape Canaveral for the launch. In Florida, the crowds will gather on the beaches to watch four astronauts begin their journey to the moon. I'm pretty excited about it. I came out here to see it and I heard it's going to be a great show. A lot of people are going to be here. People going up to the moon is kind of like cool stuff because when the booster comes down, it makes a big ol' noise. I love space. It's amazing. It's the greatest unknown out there. The huge countdown clock which sits on the lawn at the Kennedy Space Centre has started ticking down. The Artemis 2 mission team says the rocket is ready to launch. The crew has been spending time with their families having dinner at the astronaut beach house like the Apollo astronauts did with their families more than 50 years ago. These astronauts won't be landing on the moon during their 10-day long mission. They'll be travelling around its far side, the side we never see from Earth. Their journey will start on the most powerful rockets that has ever been built with the astronauts strapped into a capsule right at the top. Randy Bresnick, a former commander of the International Space Station, says the Artemis crew will be in for quite a ride. You try not to allow yourself to get too excited. And then when you finally hear the 10, 9, 8, with the liquid engines light off at six seconds, they test it out and they're all looking good. 3, 2, 1, you know, once the sun is light, there's no turning them off, so they're going to space. And they're definitely ready for that. Former astronaut Randy Bresnick ending that report from Rebecca Morell. And that's all from us for now. If you want to get in touch, you can email us at [email protected]. You can also find us on X, a BBC World Service. Use the hashtag #globalnewspod. And don't forget our sister podcast, The Global Story, which goes in-depth and beyond the headlines on one big story. This edition of The Global News Podcast was mixed by Holly Smith. The editor is Karen Martin. I'm Alex Ritson, until next time, goodbye. I'm Tanya Datta. Listen now by searching for the documentary, wherever you get to your BBC podcasts.