Hello and welcome to dateline london, the programme that brings together some of the uks leading columnists with Foreign Correspondents who file their stories for the folks back home with the dateline london. This week iran admits what it repeatedly denied that one of its missiles downed a passenger plane, killing the 176 people on board. Was it International Pressure or anger at home which forced the confession . As harry and meghan, the duke and duchess of sussex, decide they want out of most of the royal role, is a life of good works on the other side of the atlantic, an escape route or a dead end . With me, jeffrey kofman, a canadian, in whose homeland the sussexs have been on retreat. Thomas kielinger came to the uk to write for the german press. His fascination with the monarchy has led to biographies of the two elizabeths whove occupied the throne the tudor queen and the present one. The iranian journalist nazenine ansari is managing editor of the persian language weekly kayhan life. And Isabel Hilton was for many years a Foreign Correspondent for uk newspapers. She laterfounded china dialogue, which aims to achieve just that. Time for our dialogue to begin. The United States and iran appear to have stepped back from armed confrontation over the tit for tat provocations which had peaked with President Trumps decision to authorise the killing of the iranian general, qasem soleimani. The president s incendiary tweets and the death to america chants were less important than the hidden, but intense, diplomatic efforts to prevent crisis turning into war. Then, on wednesday, a civilian aircraft en route from tehran to kyiv, fell from the sky. Iran flatly denied reports that its air defences, fearing a us assault, had shot it down by mistake. Given there was so much apparent evidence to the contrary, why did the iranians stick to their guns for several days until the decision, suddenly over the weekend, that they were responsible . And what was the reason for their change of heart . Well, if you follow the events, the situation has been so fluid, that from one side, they have had to deal with the europeans and thejcpoa negotiations, the nuclear negotiations, from another side, aboutjoining the anti Money Laundering and Anti Terrorism watchdog, super watchdog, and then mr soleimani was assassinated, struck off, neutralised, whatever you would like to use it, and it took. It was a moment of decision, how to react. Whether to go as the Supreme Leader had asked, for vengeance and rage, or we suddenly saw that they took a measured response, they had advised and informed americans where they would be attacking. So, there was no danger of any actually people being killed . Yes, and so they behaved reasonably. When this flight, aeroplane was shot, it was shot in a very different situation, it exposed a lot of weaknesses of decision making, planning and prioritising. In one instance, when it was shot down within a few hours, when the airspace had been closed for the missiles to strike the american targets. The question remains when all flights were cancelled, why did this one take off . And so, the next thing they did, instead of finding out the reason, what caused this, because they were telling us from inside iran, the officials, that it was a malfunction of the plane itself, then we see them sending trucks and tractors. Bulldozers. Bulldozers, clearing up the space. So the World International community could see on camera what was happening. But did it ultimately matter to them, what britons and americans and others thought . Or did it matter more what the reaction was in iran . Because wed had at the street protests against the government before the soleimani case. Were they worried about how iranians were responding to this apparent cover up . Obviously, because as we know, since 2017, there have been protests in november, the death toll has gone up. It is between 400 to 1,000, 5,000 as the americans have said. However, in the funeral of mr soleimani, a funeral that they had planned, over 50 people died, hundreds got injured, they couldnt even get a funeral right. And then, this plane. They are an automatic reaction. They have lost the. Yes. Isabelle, this has resonance for you, doesnt it . It does, yeah. It brought back memories of a similar incident involving americans, which might explain why President Trump wasnt quite so bullish this week and was willing to concede that this could have been a terrible mistake. Absolutely, because you have expected in this situation that the us would go bang to rights, you know, weve got you, a shocking incident. Except that in 1988, the uss vincennes, an american warship shot down an iranian airbus and killed over 300 people. What i find interesting about both episodes, which are both awful, by the way, is that in both cases, the military perpetrators first instinct is to cover up. And that was also true of the United States. The vincennes story, was that this airliner, which was on an absolutely routine path and transmitting, pinging on a civilian channel, they had a whole story about how it had altered its trajectory, it wasnt climbing, it was diving, therefore they mistook it for an attack. None of that was true. It took the americans eight years to pay compensation, which only happened at an International Tribunal in the hague, as a result of a case. They never acknowledged responsibility, although Ronald Reagan did send regrets. Actually, when you look at the iranian behaviour in this, and you add to the chaos and add the tensions that arise in any war zone and the kind of decisions that ground units make, or in this case, American Ship units make, in moments of tension, they are very split second decisions. One of the american enquiries into the uss vincennes, which received a heroes welcome when it returned to san francisco, and all the crew and the captain were subsequently decorated, so if we are looking at responsibility, again, there are complicated stories here. But one of the american conclusions was that in times of tension, relatively highly changed groups of men go into a posture that they stop receiving signals, contradictory signals, and that is something that happens. And that is a very cautionary warning, because in some ways, the politicians are in danger of thatjust a few days ago, that they had gone into a mentality of conflict, and we are in danger of that spiralling out. There is one small detail, which i think we need to wait for the detail that comes out of the enquiry, that there is the suggestion that this plane had a radar fault a couple of days before, and may have turned back towards the airport before it was hit. That kind of change in posture would have triggered alarm in a ground crew. They would have said, hang on, what is it doing . And that could have been why. Interesting that the iranian president immediately said, this is not only unacceptable, it is inexcusable. The language is there opportunism for the regime to say, soleimani, the Iranian Security force and revolutionary guard, now we can seize initiative from them . We have to address these issues now from the point of view of editors and look at the statements, i do that with harry and meghan and i do it with the iranian president. He uses the term unforgivable, which the International Community calls this incident unforgivable, so as a result of that, the back side of this admission is that he understands the country is in the dock. From that point of view, you do everything you can to de escalate as it were the battle and the language and what have you. However tragic this event is, it might lead to a general coming to your senses on all sides. Nobody wins in this continued stand off, and we have to make a positive out of a very negative incident. Now, the positive would be some kind of progress on the iran nuclear deal, which President Trump had withdrawn from, which in theory still exists and the iranians have said, we are going to stop observing. But which, potentially, is still alive, even if it is only alive in name. Is there an opportunity for talks . Sure. What is extraordinary about the events since new years day in this region is how fast things change and how in a moment, what we think is the course, can be altered so glaringly. The killing of soleimani was itself an audacious act. It exposed firstly that donald trump is not 0bama or george bush, and that the iranians understand that as much as they want vengeance, he is so unpredictable that you do so at your peril. And so, the chess game is no longer what it used to be and i think the iranians, in a measured response, understood that this isnt quite an 0bama or george bush diplomacy act, and we better be careful. I think we saw, in the shooting down of the ukrainian jetliner, that, one, the overstated competence of the iranian military. Military really depends on command control, and this is clearly a horrific failure of communication, some young men, probably, who fired a missile pressed the button at the wrong time. That is just a symptom of a terribly run army. It happened to the americans, it can happen to anyone, it is true. But it does suggest that iran is not quite as powerful and as fearsome as they want us to believe. I think for rohani, what it has done, he went through, as you noted, he has had a lot of unrest. The Soleimani Killing was this extraordinary moment for him to unite people behind him, and yet, all of that evaporated with the shooting down of the jetliner. And what effect does the death of soleimani have on the prospect of talks . Some people think, well, the americans killed this guy, there is no way the iranians will talk to them. But his removal, does it have a Positive Side from the point of view of the future relationship . I think so, i think it was because he was the biggest plug for iran approving certain measures, such asjoining the anti Money Laundering, anti Drug Trafficking watchdog. They had given iran six extensions. The next extension is that the deadline is very 2020. And the Expediency Council and the voices from inside the Expediency Council were saying that this is the rigc are the biggest block to this approval. But at the same time, looking ahead, following soleimanis death, the Iranian Parliament passed a bill allocating 200 million to the brigade. It is not as if with soleimani gone, the threat has been completely neutralised, but it is worth. Iran has to show a series of goodwill. The way you explained it speaks of a continuing rift within the establishment in iran, the revolutionary guards and the government proper. I also like what was said about the unpredictability of the american president. It is the first time i have heard anyone praising the applicability as a likely reason as to why the iranians become a more careful. That is not something we ever expected donald trump to be. Maybe with soleimani gone, you have less control, because there will be units which regard their mission as taking revenge. That is one threat, actually, and i think most of russia, britain, the us, they are worried about this. They were worried at the time of bin ladens death. Would this replicate itself in the iranian model . We need to wait and see. Last thought on this before we move on. Is there anyone in the Us Administration that will spot this opening and be able to persuade . We are in an election year. That is an interesting question. If you follow the pundits, they will tell you that all the adults have left the white house. But clearly, there are people moderating donald trump, because the softening that we saw of the rhetoric over the last number of days reflect that somebody is getting to him and saying, wait a minute, do you really want to. This is a guy who is an isolationist and doesnt want america to reach overseas, and yet, he has provoked what could potentially be a global conflict. Now, he has pulled back. Someone is getting to him, it is interesting, i guess, and in time, we will understand the dynamics. Hours after the duke and duchess of sussex surprised the world as well as the rest of the royal family with wednesdays statement that they were seeking a new life in the new world, as previous generations of royals would have known it unflattering comparisons were being drawn between Meghan Markle, the duchess, and wallis simpson. Another american divorcee, marrying a prince, but dividing britains ruling family. This spirited, talented celebrity has been a filip for an institution struggling to appear irrelevant, not least because of her blended heritage. Meghan had years in a spotlight of her own to help her to cope with the on off affections of this countrys media. Diana, prince harrys late mother, never could. Yet from an interview the couple gave back in october, we know theyve been struggling with the attention. Both that interview and the abrupt announcement that they plan to carve out a new life, partly in canada, financially independent from the royals and the british tax payer, blind sided the house of windsor, at least hinting at a rift. Thomas, unlike mrs simpson all those years ago, Meghan Markle is leaving with the spare, not the heir. So why all the fuss . The fuss is because there is the psychological similarity. Here is a couple who are likely to become an antidote to monarchy altogether. The language, as a literary creditor, the language they used enhance their withdrawal, there was an assertion that they are trying to build a more progressive way forward. That is an interesting statement to make. It complies the criticism that somehow or other, the royal family, as we know, does not provide enough progressiveness, so you have to set up your own stall. That is just the way these two young people are. I can see harry as a great young man, he still is young, compared to my age. He is a mixed up kid. He has never got over the death of his mother, so he developed a huge antipathy towards the media. He is hoping now to find a new structure around how he will interface with the media. Im not sure he will succeed, because they will continue to be public figures of great importance, almost of royalty, in their own right. They are a celebrity couple. And secondly, with meghan, im not surprised about the development. She doesnt quite fit in the way that other wives or princes sit. For example, the wife of Prince Edward tried an independent commercial career some years ago and failed miserably, so she faded back into the royal background. This will never happen with meghan. She is a woman with a great sense of mission, and that, she is married to a young man like harry, who also has a mission. They both care for social causes, which i applaud them for. It isjust a question of where they will introduce them and continue to forward them. The royalty will survive, they monarchy will not be threatened centrally by this. Prince charles, as you mentioned in your introduction, had already decided to scale down the monarchy, so that was an almost invitation for this couple to say, ok, if that is the case, we will set up our own way. They shouldnt have called it progressive, thats why i fault them. And also to continue stressing he is dutiful to the queen. If he is so dutiful to the queen, why did he not inform her in the first place . That is a violation of his professed duty that he feels for his grandmother. Altogether, i think it will blow over, they will continue to work, the media will treat them like celebrities, like they have always been, so in a sense, it could be a plus for the monarchy also to have such a famous couple continuing undera different guise. Isabelle has been smiling the whole way through, she doesnt know where to begin. Do you challenge the idea that it is easy for women to fit into this family . The fate of princess margaret, for example, who was one born into it, the fate of diana doesnt really encourage it. The mother of prince harry. I think this miserable story, it tells me a couple of things. Firstly, the notion that it is comfortable to the abdication crisis just shows that the british tabloids cannot get out of the 19305, and for many reasons, i wish they would. It would take a major royal bus crash for harry to be in line for the throne, you know, he is several points removed. That raises the question of how was he to live his life . It seems to me that these were a breath of fresh air in the monarchy. If it cannot accommodate these bright, progressive, interesting young people, that it is a failure of the monarchy, rather than harry and meghan. Meghan was subject to the most appalling races and from the same tabloid press who are now blaming her for saying enough is enough, and i have options which i am about to exercise. And i dont blame her, i thought her treatment at the hands of the British Press was truly appalling. How different, jeffrey, you were part of the us media although you are canadian by birth, and you have worked in this country for a long time. How different do you think the reaction will be . I wonder if the things that meghan is used to in the usa, and which harry will become used to in terms ofan appreciation for the need for them, if they are successful, to earn money. How will that go down back here . Will the brand, sussex royal, start to clash with the brand of the house of windsor . People outside of the uk have no understanding of the power and toxicity of the tabloid press here. In the us, you have the polarisation of fox news and nbc, which has some parallels, but not the same. Because the daily mail, the sun, etc, are really consumed in unfounded toxic gossip that gets downright cruel. We have seen it this week, it is staggering to hear these people call themselves journalists, they are not. They are upset because they are going to lose a good story that sells papers, and eyeballs on their websites. That is fundamentally what is going on. Is there a difference in Public Perception . In other words, what the british people be as relaxed, lets say, as americans or canadians about this young couple forging their own life, based on their inheritance . My observation having lived in all three countries is that i find, i have lived in the uk for ten years, i find in the daily life of this country, the royals are irrelevant. They are most relevant to the tourism industry. You dont need disneyworld here because you have buckingham palace, that is the truth. When i covered the Royal Wedding for abc news and for good morning america, i suddenly realised, because abc is a disney company, i suddenly realised, oh, my gosh, this is where he got the idea from. All of these horses and costumes, etc. So i think here, the kind of clucking of the tabloid press, the vicious clucking, is what defines it. In the us, they are big celebrities, and i think that is a problem for them. In the us, a celebrity is public property, and particularly in the era of mobile phones and selfies on facebook and instagram. They would move to the us in their peril. The funny thing about my home and native land canada is that it has a very different approach to celebrities. There is a much more deferential view towards celebrities. Canada doesnt have a lot of celebrities, although more and more, it would seem. But there is, for example, an extraordinarily beautiful area of north toronto, the muskoka lakes, where the wealthy go for their summer lake homes. A number of americans who have no connection to canada take their families up there because they can go around in their boats, they can go around in shorts and t shirts and canadians will go, there is goldie hawn, there is cindy crawford, but they wont take pictures. But they dont consider celebrities their own property. I have another view, first of all, i am from iran, i am british iranian, and honestly, i have never been exposed to that kind of racism that we hear people saying, meghan has been subjected to, as a British Society is so open and warm. That is one thing. But i feel a lot of pain in this story, a lot of grief between brothers. Between husband and wife, probably, between father and son. But at the same time, i see petulance of youth. And i think there is also a problem of miscommunication. You have one style, an american or a us style of communicating with your audience, and then there is another style of communicating that is more genuine and authentic and as for british people. And i think that is perhaps one thing that meghan did not understand properly, because she could not understand why it didnt sound fine to have this kind of parties or actually give out or issue press releases, not appreciating the stature of the grandmother of her husband. These are the personal. And obviously, it is very damaging, i think, to the monarchy itself, of how people would feel within it. If you look at the way the monarchy is framed, it is a soap opera, it is the National Soap opera. In soap operas, there are stock characters, the wise older woman, the slightly peculiar elder son, what are we going to do with him when he is king . And then you have some rogue characters otherwise the narrative is not interesting. And i think that whether consciously or not, what meghan would have seen, having played for a long time in a soap opera, is that they had been cast and whatever they did or said, that was their character, those is where the characters assigned to them. There was no escape from that and the only way to get out is to move. She should be grateful, im sorry. Excuse me, and i have all the respect for meghan and all the respect for the people in monarchy, but they should be grateful, they are living in palaces, they are getting all these. I have a feeling, if you said to harry. It is a responsibility as well. I think if you said to harry, if you had it been born a common person, he probably would say, yes please. Lastly, as the British Government might let these people go at a time when brexit is happening . We have a global attraction and we are letting it move to canada. We are not letting them move anywhere, they will continue to play a part of the global village. That is why the description of a british monarchy as a soap opera, it is not that. It is part and parcel of the british identity. It is more important than what the papers write about it. It is the framing of it in the tabloid press is how we view it. They are doing a great disservice. The monarchy continues to remain an important identity of british self awareness. But it is modernising itself. We are out of time. Well be back next week, thank you. Hello, saturday was a wet and we did ever many parts of the British Isles especially across the north and the best in the last of that wind and rain is still to be held in the first part of sunday across central and southern parts of the British Isles was not butters who moves away, followed by a little there, gaining the shelves together, delaying the final clearance of all the cloud and rain from the Eastern Shores until around about late morning, lunchtime also on the it turns into a much brighter, much fresher feeling sort of day. One or two showers for Northern Ireland, the bulk of the shells across northern parts of scotland and they will be wintry on the high ground, urged along by an editable south westerly wind but never when is windy across the piece as it was during saturday, but it will feel fresher across the north offender, Northern Ireland and much of scotland, further south it might hold on to temperatures in double figures. The week to come, potentially disruptive wins, some heavy rain at times, it will be on the wild side again and we may have to wait until late in the week for dry weather. And in time, we will understand the dynamics. Welcome to bbc news. Our top stories chanting Anti Government protests after the iranian authorities finally admit accidentally shooting down the ukrainian passengerjet. As canadas air accident experts head to iran, Prime Minister trudeau demands a full and complete inquiry into the crash in which 57 canadians died. The queen meets other senior royals on monday to discuss harry and meghans decision to step back from their roles. There have been angry protests on the streets of iran