And finally the metro also leads on the funeral of the Fallen Police officer, who was killed during the westminster terror attack. Thats it for now. Newsnight is coming up next. Tonight the white house leaves open the possibility to more strikes against syria. Is the plan now to get rid of assad . The message that we are sending to the russians is very clear. Do they want to stick with a toxic regime . Do they want to be eternally associated with a guy who gasses his own people . But a former ambassador to syria thinks Regime Change would lead to disaster. This advisor to the Syrian Opposition says theres no other way. Also tonight its called spice an illegal drug that, it is claimed, turns you into a zombie. Is there really a hidden epidemic . It keeps you going, you know . Can you imagine, if you slept rough, you wake up and you feel like shit and you wake up and you smoke some spice and you are ok, youre ready to go, you know . Howard jacobson writes a book about donald trump. Hes calling it pussy. Howard jacobson writes a book about donald trump. Hes calling it pussy. Its angry, i was very angry. And i wanted to be amused by it all and then you realise the absurdity is only going to take you so far. This is somebody that is. Well wield enormous power. And remember the gay 93 year old who last year got an official pardon for what were once crimes of indecency, but arent any more. If i get the apology, i dont need a pardon. I dont mind in the least, i just want an apology. Well now hes got his apology, how does he fell about it. I couldnt possibly be happier good evening. Does russia listen to anything the west says . And can we tighten the screws when it comes to Making Moscow change its ways . Previous sanctions have hurt russia economically, but havent led to any softening of its stance on crimea. So can we expect anything new when g7 countries gather in italy to discuss new punishment for its role in syria . Today, our Foreign Secretary laid down a boris shaped gauntlet, saying russia had a choice to continue backing toxic assad or to work with the rest of the world to find a solution for syria. Hes talking moves to ban syrian or Russian Military figures. Is russia ready to hear it . Heres chris cook. At the group of seven meetings this week, it is the eighth former member of that club that is topping the agenda. Russia ptp continues proper Bashar Al Assad, the syrian brittle leaders means further sanctions are now on the table for moscow. The message that we are sending to the russians is clear. Do they want to stick with a toxic regime . Do they want to be eternally associated with a guy who gases his own people . Or do they want to work with the americans and the rest of the g 7 and indeed like minded countries . Sanctions would hardly be unprecedented. The us and eu impose sanctions on russia after the invasion of ukraine in 2014. Throughout we have given Vladimir Putin a simple choice. Respect the sovereignty of ukraine or face increasing consequences. That has allowed us to rally the worlds major developed countries to impose real costs on russia. So did it work . Well, russia suffered. This is Gross National income per head for russia, measured in us dollars. Since the millennium, it generally moved up, hitting a peak of almost 15,000 a person in 2014. Then, when the sanctions came in, it dropped dramatically to around 11,500 per person. A fall in oil prices contributed to that too, leading to a squeeze on ordinary russians, who had to cut their own spending by 15 . The russian government estimated that the number of russians living in poverty had been stable at around 16 Million People in 2014. It now stands at over 21 Million People. That is a price that mr putin has been willing to pay. In the long run, isolation, the isolation of russia is not going to help, but in the short run he is certainly willing to pay the price and for the russian people who have been traumatised so much by the soviet system and then by the chaos of the 1990s, they are willing to put up with more hardships than we are. Sanctions, though, are not currently biting russia as deeply as the first aid. As they first did. The insurrection of the russian economy on western sanctions was very big and the russian Financial Markets were in turmoil because the russian economy faced significant pressure to repay foreign debt and banks and companies were prohibited to borrow abroad. Afterwards, the attitude softened and oil prices have recovered and no new signals on sanctions and then, in 2016, the russian economy contracted by 0. 2 of gdp. I do not see any effect of sanctions on the current situation. When some britons, particularly londoners, think about russians, they might think of rich immigrants who come and put huge amounts of money into some of our swankiest neighbourhoods. Oryou might think of the military might of russia, the nuclear arsenal, the intervention for example into syria. The truth is that russia is a country with very profound social and economic problems. The biggest problem in the russian economy is its complete lack of rule of law, corruption throughout the entire system that chokes all innovation. Its overreliance on raw materials, especially hydrocarbons, dire demographic decline, the effect of sanctions that have contributed to the decline of the russian economy and lastly russias growing isolation in the view of the aggressive Foreign Policy posture by Vladimir Putin. There are sanctions that could apply pressure, on finance, learn investment on russia, all is critical oil and gas sector. Might the west actually managed to do that as it did to iran . | see zero chances of this happening, because there is no political will in the west. There is a transitional period in the Us Administration and brexit in the european union, so russia is and ukraine in my view are out of plans at the moment. In reply to those 2014 sanctions, mr putin banned food imports from the eu, an act which hurt his own people by fuelling inflation. A man who effectively sanctioned his own people for effect is a hard man to beat with sanctions. Earlier i spoke to president trumps former adviser on foreign affairs, walid phares. Did he agree with borisjohnsons assessment that the bombing of syria by america was a gamechanger . Well basically there are now two red lines in the making, one for the United States for this administration, which is to forbid the use of Chemical Weapons by the Syrian Regime or by any other player. Thats one red line. But now you have the russians and the iranians and their allies who are drawing a red line around the assad regime. So they are messaging the United States that you may have had this one strike against assad because of the Chemical Weapons, but there is no acceptance that you will topple that regime and i think the negotiations that will be taking place between Secretary Tillerson and moscow will be revolving around these two red lines. Borisjohnson has called this willingness to bomb syria a game changer, do you think it is . I think the game is changing, it started to change when for some unknown reason, out of nowhere, the assad regime allegedly used those Chemical Weapons, although he has been bombarding the Syrian Opposition for a long time, most of the People Killed were not killed by the Chemical Weapons, it is still intriguing to learn why did he use them . By using them, unlike in the time of the obama administration, the Trump Administration will actually act, but act only to respond to the use of Chemical Weapons. There is no project of toppling assad as far as i know right now in washington dc. He has called for sanctions, though, against russia over actions in syria. What will happen now . There are talks now across the atlantic about what is the next stage of how to deal with russia. Really there are two doctrines here. One that says we need to put some sanctions and force russia into changing behaviour and changing the behaviour of assad. There is this other view that is we now act in Eastern Syria to destroy isis and establish a free syria. And then we put pressure on russia. Because if we put pressure on russia now and we do not have any part of syria where we can act, then we will be very weak. But the us position now, just clarify for us, the Us Administration believes that assad must go . In the long term, it was not actually said that clearly. In the long term what was said by several officials is that the future of syria after the crisis will not have assad as a president. That is what was said. It doesnt mean immediately there will be us action to unseat assad. This is the problem isnt it, that we are talking about long term or short term or in the intermediate, people are struggling to work out what Donald TrumpsForeign Policy is right now . Has he turned into a humanitarian, is he going to get involved in Foreign Policy, is he ditching the america first, where is he now . Basically he is involved fully in Foreign Policy. I mean, these were the questions that were debated during the campaign when he was not yet in the white house. Lets say during the transition, maybe in the first two to three weeks, now he is the president of a superpower, and he will have to have plans. Of course not all of the plans are already established, in the case of syria, what prompted this action, was not his plan, it was prompted by the assad regime behaviour. Now i think he and congress will have to figure out a strategy for syria for the immediate range, and also for the medium range as well. So is part of the strategy also being noticeably harder on russia . Well, there was a view during the campaign and during the transition that we may find a Common Ground with russia against the terrorists, although we have many types of disagreement. Now the incident in syria has occurred, the Trump Administration will have to signify, and message even russia, that the use of Chemical Weapons is forbidden and at the same time we need to continue ourjob against isis. The remaining question is what will russia do in the meanwhile . Will they stick with assad . My answer is yes, most likely. We have heard them saying with the iranians that they would not want to see the United States acting against assad. That is their position. Donald trump has said in the past that president s who enter into Foreign Policy wars are normally doing it to distract from Domestic Problems at home. People are pointing the finger at him now and are saying that is exactly what youre doing, this is all a distraction. Obviously, the opposition is going to use all the arguments they can, including arguments from statements that he made. This is how us politics is. Look at the clintons, the obama side, how many statements they made during the campaign, that were used against them during the campaign and even now, so that is the nature of american politics, but again the public willjudge upon what has been done on the ground in reality and on the ground in reality in syria, there is one path right now, destroying isis and making sure that the future of syria will represent what the syrians want, which are the statements made by Rex Tillerson and the president over the past weeks. Walid phares, thank you very much indeed. The strikes against syria by the Trump Administration appeared, politically, to come from nowhere. But tonight the white house acknowledged it is holding open the possibility of more. America said this evening they knocked out 20 of syrias operational aircraft and tonight trumps spokesman said it was impossible to imagine a stable syria with assad in charge. So what does the policy for syria now look like . And if assad goes, who comes . The question the world has been grappling with for years is still no clearer. Well discuss in a moment, but, first, a reminder of how us policy has shifted on the syrian leader through these two statements just days apart from the white house Spokesman Sean Spicer and americas ambassador to the un nikki haley. Can you clear up for the president stands on whether Bashar Al Assad is the legitimate president of syria . Well, i think, with respect to assad, there is a political reality that we have to accept in terms of where we are, right now. There is not any sort of option where a political solution that will happen with assad at the head of the regime. If you look at the situation, it will be hard to see a peaceful and stable government with assad. Well, peter ford was britains ambassador to syria from 2003 until 2006. Reza afshar led the foreign offices syria team until 2013 and now advises the syria opposition. He joins us from new york. Thank you to you both. Peter ford, it is a dwindling group now who still think Bashar Al Assad is the solution to syria. You do. Yes, because he already controls about 80 of the Populated Areas and after his success in aleppo, he was well on course until this latest distraction to mocking up many of the remaining pockets of opposition. Sadly, trump has created this diversion and has set back efforts to pacify the rest of syria, but basically what is left is a rural insurgency. The towns belong to assad already and this is where most of the people are. You describe it as a distraction and a diversion to stop assad using Chemical Weapons on his people . You assume that he did, arent you a bit premature . There has been no investigation. If there is nothing to hide on their side . We have not even seen not a dodgy dossier, we have not seen any dossier this time. This is mays tony blair moment. This is her blair moment, her chance to urge restraint i think the problem here is your other guest is distracting from the facts in syria and what has been going on. The reality is the assad regime has bombed 500,000 people to death, he has used weapons. On a point of fact, that is not correct. The action that he has taken has created the environment in which terrorism can thrive, it has also created environment in which refugees have fled the country. The question now is not about redeemed change, the question is what is a sensible policy about creating a situation in which syrians themselves can decide their future through Negotiation Process . They are asking for a Regime Change, they are asking for an opportunity to negotiate their own future. The first step is to cut out the indiscriminate killing of civilians which has essentially created this crisis, which has created a big on the table in the form of strikes. If they turn that into a broader strategy which says if you kill civilians indiscriminately, Chemical Weapons or otherwise, we will strike military facilities, then that creates a process in which the Military Strategy of the regime becomes limited and that forces them to have to decide whether they want to negotiate in the geneva talks or elsewhere. That is a sensible policy. Let me go back to peter. It is hard to see how syria can be more dangerous to syrians . I went through that question but allow me first to take reza up on his earlier statement about 500,000 killed by assad. That is one quarter true and three quarters alive. The un are saying 400,000 killed. This is typical of the distortion, exaggeration of paid lobbyists, which is what were hearing now. I dont think those people are arguing the fact that there is a civil war which has been going on with the deaths of absolutely hundreds of thousands of civilians in syria. The question is. On both sides. Why does assad have to stay . And it will be a bloodbath