Bombings, is he hoping to continue humiliating hezbollah and showing it up as powerless? but suppose hezbollah hangs on and keeps firing missiles at israel, to the point where mr netanyahu feels he's got to take that extra step of putting israeli boots on lebanese soil? i spoke to nafiseh kohnavad, a middle east correspondent of bbc world service, at her flat in beirut. Nafiseh originally worked as a journalist in iran, but was forced to leave after asking too many hard questions of iran's political leaders. At the moment that i'm talking to you, israeli air strikes have intensified significantly. For the first time, when hassan nasrallah, the leader of hezbollah, was giving a speech, he clearly mentioned that now this is a new phase, and that the group was expecting that israeli forces may enter southern lebanon by land. Before that, erm, all words were around that both sides don't want all—out war. Now, you're in beirut, of course, and i can hear, in the background, children playing. I imagine there's a school or something near your block of flats. Are you expecting to have any attacks by the israelis there? i live in. . . In the area that is considered relatively safe. In 2006 and previous war, it hasn't been hit. However, recently we had israeli jets all over beirut. I could see them from my balcony. A few times they broke the sound barrier, which sounds like a very strong explosion, and they broke it, erm, above this school. These children, erm, screamed because they were so scared. And now we are hearing, here in beirut, that probably most of the areas in beirut won't be safe any more. This is interpreted mainly here that israel wants to give a warning to notjust hezbollah, but also lebanese government and other populations in lebanon. Many times, erm, israeli commanders have said that they are able to turn beirut to another gaza. So it seems that they want to give warning and make the price so heavy also for hezbollah, because public opinion can put pressure on the group. Your background, of course, is from iran. How clear is the link between iran and hezbollah? does hezbollah just do what iran tells it to? the line is very clear. Hezbollah is funded by iran. Many times, hezbollah leader hassan nasrallah said on the camera that they receive a massive amount of training, weapons and money from iran. There are different interactions inside the group, and the group with iran as well. It's not all the time giving order or receiving orderfrom iran. But, nafiseh, who's in charge when it comes to deciding whether to launch a battle of reckoning? on the ground, it is hezbollah. It is hezbollah that decides that what kind of operation they are going to do, in some extent. But if you are going to talk about all—out war, the green light, it's expected that should come from iran. What will iran want to do? does it actually want a war, or would it prefer to back away? so far, they kept saying, all the iranian officials, they kept repeating that they don't want an all—out war in the region. On the other side, there are israelis that are pushing, and they are putting pressure and they are extending their operations against hezbollah and also iran—backed groups in syria and in iraq, and here in lebanon. Iran might find itself in a position that there won't be any other option. There you are in beirut, a city where people have suffered hugely over the last few decades. What. . . What is the feeling? is it resignation? right now, there is a mixture of panic, anger and also numbness. There are fears that the city will face what they saw and what they witnessed in 2006. But there are panic and fear now that people in beirut feel that a massive war is coming. There hasn't been an american presidential election anything like this one in modern times, which maybe isn't surprising, given that there's never been an american president anything like donald j trump. First, the democrats were headed for inevitable defeat. Then they dumped joe biden and the whole atmosphere changed. But has it changed enough for kamala harris to be confident of victory? no. Because of america's weird electoral college system, which means that even getting a healthy majority of votes, as hillary clinton did in 2016, doesn't matter if you haven't won enough of the right states. So, where are we now? the bbc�*s redoubtable us political expert anthony zurcher has been following donald trump around pennsylvania. He spoke to me from his hotel room in pittsburgh. This is not a national election. This is a swing state election, and the election's going to be decided in a handful of battleground states all across the country. There are three of them in the old industrial midwest. That's pennsylvania, michigan and wisconsin. There are a couple more on the atlantic seaboard in the south — north carolina and georgia — and then a couple out west, arizona and nevada. And if you look at these swing state polls, it shows a race, across the board, within the margin of error. That swing state map has expanded. Right up until about the end ofjoe biden's presidential campaign, he was really focusing narrowly on michigan, pennsylvania and wisconsin. Those other states i mentioned were drifting away from him. Kamala now is competitive in all of those states, so it opens up a wider range of ways she can win the election against donald trump. One of the things that has brought kamala harris closer to donald trump in the polls in those southern, atlantic seaboard states, north carolina and georgia, is that she has a lot more enthusiasm among younger voters and voters of colour than, than we were seeing in polls forjoe biden. I do get the feeling that kamala harris isn't being pushed very much. We still don't seem to know what she's like when she's really up against it. Well, i think that definitely was a concern for the beginning of the campaign, and it's because of the strategy that kamala harris's campaign has pursued. They have kept the media at arm's length ever since she entered into the race. She's only sat down for a handful of one—on—one interviews, because you have to remember, she's been vice president for three—and—a—half years, so drawing distinctions between the biden administration and what she might do is something i think voters are interested in and concerned about. I will say that she had that face—to—face debate with donald trump, where she did have to answer questions on her feet. She did have to respond to pressure, notjust from the moderators, but from donald trump. And the reviews of her performance were pretty good. She was able to hold up in those 90 minutes under that kind of pressure. Now, you've been watching donald trump up close recently. What, what do you feel when he's giving these rallies and so on? what do you feel about his mood? i suppose it's understandable that because of the way the dynamic has changed, with kamala harris coming in and injecting new enthusiasm among democrats, that donald trump would be frustrated and resentful about the way the ground has shifted under him. He built an entire campaign over a year to do one thing, and that was defeat joe biden. And now, all of a sudden, practically at the last minute in american presidential politics, he gets a new opponent that has different skills and different weaknesses that they have honestly not been able to target as effectively as they were targeting joe biden. Do you have an any kind of sense of whether the result is going to look clear—cut, you know, clear water between them, or is it going to be so tight that we're going to be in all sorts of trouble again? despite everything that has happened — indictments, a conviction, two assassination attempts, a new democratic nominee — all of this hasn't changed the fundamental tightness of this race. And, if you look at the polls, they are all, both nationally and in these battleground states we mentioned, they are very, very tight. So there are some scenarios where one candidate or the other could win every single battleground state and win it by enough, by a few percentage points, that we have a pretty clear, determinative idea of who won. But there are also plenty of scenarios where this thing hangs on a razor's edge, and it does so in states that don't count their ballots quickly, places like arizona. And, at least in 2020, and maybe again in pennsylvania, where we were waiting and waiting and waiting for some sort of result. And, as that happens, the doubts grow, the anger grows, the conspiracy theories circulate more. So that is a very real possibility as well. One thing i'll point out is, you know, we're talking about the election being six weeks from now. People are already voting in this country. Pennsylvania has. . . Their mail ballots have already been sent out, so people can already start mailing them in. In my home state of virginia, starting this last weekend, you could go and vote early in a polling place and cast your ballot. Look at the way things are now as much as the way things might be in six weeks to get an understanding of what kind of results we'll see when all's said and done. Explosion car alarm blares gunfire one of the scariest nights of my entire professional life was spent in the northern mexican city of ciudad juarez, which, at that stage, was the most violent place on earth, thanks to the war between the various drug cartels and the mexican police and army. Now the situation�*s moved on, and that deeply unenviable distinction now belongs to culiacan, the capital of sinaloa state in mexico. At least 70 people have been killed there in the last three weeks alone, following the arrest of the co—founder of the sinaloa cartel across the border in the united states. To explain what's going on, i turned to vanessa buschschluter, bbc online�*s latin america editor. Sinaloa is a state in north—western mexico, and it's been the stronghold of the cartel of the same name — the sinaloa cartel. And, to many viewers, probably the former leader of that cartel will be a known name. It'sjoaquin el chapo — that's spanish for shorty — guzman. He created and led that cartel for many years and did that together with another man called ismael el mayo zambada. And they turned that state into their stronghold, mainly for the trafficking of drugs to neighbouring united states. And this recent uptick in violence in the state is due to the fact that ismael el mayo zambada was detained in the us, and it seems like he was betrayed by one of the sons of el chapo guzman. This fact is what has triggered these rival factions of the cartels now warring with each other in sinaloa. Now, of course, what's happened — we've got a new president, claudia sheinbaum. Does she have a plan for sorting all this out, do you think? claudia sheinbaum is somebody who is expected to broadly continue the policies of the person who was her mentor, which is the outgoing president, andres manuel lopez obrador. In the past, mexican governments have waged war on the cartels. He said that led to more violence, and he would try a more softly—softly approach. And claudia sheinbaum seems to be following that approach. She, of course, said that she wanted to protect the local population. But how she will do that when the soldiers won't engage in full—frontal confrontation with the gunmen of these cartels is hard to know. Well, i mean, this is what happened under obrador, though, isn't it? that he kept the army back and, of course, it hasn't succeeded in the slightest. In fact, things are probably worse, aren't they? it hasn't succeeded. But, then, those people who follow andres manuel lopez obrador and claudia sheinbaum say that waging war on the cartels didn't work, either. But there are others, like many residents in sinaloa, who feel abandoned, who say that this softly—softly approach means that they can't send their children to school because they fear for the lives of their children just crossing the road or getting on the school bus. Many are afraid to open their businesses. The big upheaval is going to come in november, when either kamala harris or donald trump gets elected. What would mexico's path be with the two possible presidents? i think, just on a personal note, kamala harris and claudia sheinbaum are probably more similar in character than claudia sheinbaum and donald trump. Claudia sheinbaum is a technocrat. She is relatively soft—spoken, speaks in a measured way. And, of course, also, claudia sheinbaum is an expert in climate change, and so might clash with donald trump on that issue. But, in the end, those two countries need each other. Claudia sheinbaum needs the united states because trade is key to the mexican economy. And, of course, trump is now a known figure. And leaders like claudia sheinbaum know the kind of rhetoric he is prone to use, and they can put that into context. On a ship in the atlantic ocean in august 1941, four months before the united states even entered the second world war, winston churchill and franklin d roosevelt met to agree the atlantic charter, which laid the groundwork for the post—war united nations. In future, they said, there was to be a ban on territorial expansion, equal access to raw materials, and freedom of the seas. Well, good luck with that! no less than 83 years later, the approach agreed that day is hopelessly outdated. And yet there are tremendous obstacles to changing it. Now the united nations is holding what it calls the summit for the future, in an effort to improve its objectives and the way it works. The bbc�*s diplomatic correspondent, james landale, is in new york to report on the summit. They're looking to try and reform this institution behind me in a way that, you know, responds to modern needs. And they have agreed a few things to try and, to use their language, to breathe life into multilateralism. They've agreed, for example, the security council, the crucial issue they say that has to be changed, there's a broad consensus that africa needs more representation. They've also said that we need to look more about how to deal with the problems of the future, so future pandemics, the growth of ai and other technology. But what this doesn't do is address the fundamental problem, which is that a post—war international system that was supported by the united states is beginning to creak, where people are saying, actually, it's no longer american hegemony with this system behind them. It's a. . . It's a looser system. And, in that, you've also got the growth of authoritarian states. Surely, one of the problems is that five nations on the security council have got the right to block anything they don't like. There's been a substantial growth in the use of that veto by the russians, by the chinese, and, yes, by the united states. You've got the big powers flexing these muscles, and it means that nothing happens. And so what we've seen in the meantime is the growth in importance and significance of the other body. Not the security council but the general assembly, the bigger body of the united nations, with all the members represented there. And that's where some of the bigger votes have taken place. That's where some of the bigger politics takes place, because it allows more flexible, ad hoc coalitions of nations to come together to sort of, you know, express their opinion on particular subjects. There is a school of thought which says the un should just think differently about things and say, right, actually, the un is about delivering humanitarian aid. It is about policing existing peace deals through its peacekeepers, its blue helmet soldiers. It should think about promoting sustainable development goals, focusing more on climate change, rather than dealing with actually bringing two belligerents together. Now, that's not a view shared by everybody, but it is a debate that is growing here. But it is a tragedy, isn't it? because everybody would like the united nations to be the forum which sorts out the world's problems. One of the fundamental problems is that there are many countries out there who just feel that this body does not represent them. The indians say, why are we not represented? we're one of the largest countries in the world. Why do we not have a veto power? in asia, you've got, you know, the japanese saying, we should be represented here. Erm, you know, all of these things. . . You know, brazil constantly saying, why should we not? what about africa ? and the trouble is that these debates end up in, you know, very technical discussions about who could sit where and, ultimately, the permanent five block any kind of reform. And, if it doesn't happen, then that enormous complex behind you is really becoming less and less meaningful, isn't it? well, the defenders would say, look, yes, we understand the security council is not offering, but they would say that the un is the only body that has the bureaucratic and logistical capability to do a lot of things that many countries around the world actually want. Do you think we'll look back on this summit for the future and say, that's where, that's where the progress began? it is, at its very least, a recognition of the importance of multilateralism at a time when many people, you know, the pessimists, would say the world is going to the dogs, beggar thy neighbour. Nationalism, territorial acquisition across borders, the growth of autocrats. The counterview is actually you've got countries who've come together to say, look, no, we do still see value in multilateralism. The problem is that a lot of the rules we have at the moment were agreed when it was a bipolar world — you know, the west, led by the united states and the soviet union — and you had two poles and they could agree rules, arms deals, things like that. A lot of the legislation and regulation and treaties that relate to, say, for example, space, date back to that era. And they've got to be completely transformed to deal with the private sector and different countries getting access to space. You know, so, i think people understand there is a benefit to this, but what they haven't quite worked out yet is what structure should it be. James landale at the un in new york. Where wars and invasions are concerned, governments only ever seem to think about the first step, not what lies beyond. Remember the us invasion of iraq in 2003. No thought whatever about what might follow. Vladimir putin invaded ukraine in 2022 on the assumption that the country would simply fold up and surrender. And he didn't have any plan b if it didn't. Now, benjamin netanyahu in israel seems focused on attacking lebanon, and if he has any clear idea where that will lead, he hasn't told the israeli public. The two previous invasions israel carried out in lebanon had all sorts of unintended consequences. In 1982, ariel sharon's plan to drive the palestine liberation organisation out of lebanon succeeded. Sure, but the plo's place was immediately taken by the creation of hezbollah, a tougher, better—disciplined organisation with the strongest possible links to iran. After israel's invasion of lebanon in 2006, intended to destroy hezbollah, the organisation instead became even stronger and far more effective than the lebanese army or the lebanese government. And it still is, despite all the events of the last few weeks. So, what might the long—term consequences of a new israeli invasion be? well, the one thing we know is that the lives of even more civilians will be wrecked. Please, get out of harm's way, mr netanyahu says to ordinary lebanese people. But we've seen in gaza how horribly difficult that is to manage. Well, that's it from the first episode of this new series of unspun world. Thank you forjoining me and the unspun team. And, until we meet again, goodbye. Hello there. Saturday's sunny skies will gradually be eroded by cloud and then wind and rain for many as we close out sunday. Yes, it's going to gradually turn wet and windy, particularly from the south and west. Now, we've already, in southern england, seen some record—breaking rainfall totals for the month, and we're just going to add to those totals over the next few days. Some areas could see another 50—60mm before we close out the month. So here's that area of low pressure gradually winding its way in from the south—west. Ahead of it, though, clearer skies, so it will be a chilly start to our sunday morning. Some early—morning sunshine, but gradually we'll see that cloud pushing its way steadily north and east. Perhaps north—east england and eastern scotland clinging on to the best of the brightness throughout the day. So as we go through to the afternoon, we mightjust see some sunny skies continuing. Cloudier skies out to the west. A few isolated showers. Temperatures generally between 12 and 1a degrees. Not too bad an afternoon into northern ireland and north—east england as well, but you can see the cloud arriving. There'll be a few outbreaks of showers ahead of it moving through the midlands. Gradually, the heaviest of the rain pushing into south and west wales, along with south—west england, and the winds will strengthen to gale—force gusts with it too. Top temperatures generally, then, 12—15 degrees as we go through sunday afternoon. So those gusty winds will strengthen further overnight as that rain continues to move its way steadily north and east, pushing into the midlands, south—east england and to the north of england by dawn on monday morning. We keep the clearer skies in scotland. Here, still single figures, but not quite as cold a start for monday morning, with the cloud, wind and rain. There is still a level of uncertainty exactly where this low pressure is going to sit. It's going to be pretty slow—moving. Potentially, the heaviest of the rain will always be across england and wales, with a few scattered sharper showers into northern ireland and a drier story for much of scotland. But we'll keep a close eye on that. Some of that rain really quite heavy across north—west england for a time, potentially brightening up by the end of the afternoon across central and southern england, 13—17 degrees. The low pressure slowly starts to ease away on tuesday, and then on wednesday a quieter story, with a greater chance of seeing more sunshine for early october. Live from washington. This is bbc news. Hezbollah leader, hassan nasrallah, has been killed in israeli strikes on beirut. Israel's prime minister calls it an historic turning point, but iran's supreme leader vows nasrallah's death will not go unavenged. This is the scene live in beirut, where officials say 33 people are dead and more than 200 were injured in strikes on saturday. Elsewhere, at least 45 people have died and millions are without power after hurricane helene hit the southeastern united states. And in westminster, labour mp rosie duffield quits the party, accusing prime minister keir starmer of hypocrisy. Hello, i'm helena humphrey. Hezbollah has confirmed that an israeli strike on a beirut apartment block on friday killed its long—time leader. Hassan nasrallah led the lebanese based group for 32 years. His assassination deals a huge blow to the organisation he has been in charge of since 1992. Israel had already killed a number of other senior commanders in recent weeks. Israel's prime minister called nasrallah's killing an historic turning point and said israel had settled the score. In a moment, we'll bring you more reaction from the region. But first, a look at the impact in lebanon