my guest is us democratic party insider, jake sullivan, a key adviser to senior democrats, including hillary clinton when she was secretary of state, as well as on the campaign trail, last year. president trump has attracted a lot of criticism at home and abroad over his rhetoric and style of leadership, but is he not proving more effective in important foreign policy issues, like the fight against extremists, than the previous democratic administration? jake sullivan, welcome to hardtalk. thanks for having me. as a key adviser to hillary clinton, can give be objective about the trump administration? probably not entirely objective. i would have to put my bias on the table, that i spent two years trying to stop him from getting into the oval office. but i think a lot of the things that we predicted during the campaign about his lack of fitness for office have borne out over the last six months. so i've tried to take a step back be as fair—minded as possible in assessing what he has done. but the zeitgeist was always with him wasn't it? he was much more in tune with what the voters‘ priorities are. you know, i would actually argue that he had a certain emotional appeal, but when it came to voter priorities, to the issues they cared about, they lined up more with hillary clinton and her approach to the issues. so it was really a battle between a guy who had the number of the media, and could very effectively carry out a political campaign, and the person who had the ideas and the substance. in the end, it was the showman who won. let's just look at one key preoccupation at the moment, which is, of course, the attacks by militants, jihadists, extremists, be it in the uk, be it in afghanistan, be it in baghdad, where we saw that awful ice cream parlour attack, and so on. he really is much more assertive on terror than president obama ever was. he is much more assertive on twitter than president obama ever was, and he's certainly speaking much more loudly. but is he carrying the biggest stick? truly a bigger stick. i would say that the fight against isis in iraq and syria is an extension, a building—upon, of the obama policy, not a fundamental transformation. has he added more firepower to the region? he has, but has been on a slope established by president obama. so i don't think that we've seen a sea change in his approach to the fight against terrorist groups in the middle east or afghanistan, but rather much more of a continuation. you mentioned afghanistan. he dropped the "mother of all bombs", as it was known, in april, on a site in nangarhar, and it's the largest non—nuclear — the most powerful non—nuclear weapon available. that would sound as though he was being much more assertive than obama. on military targets. i mean, the dropping of a single bomb on a tunnel complex in rural afghanistan i don't think is a good indication of the whole policy that he's pursuing. it is true that he did that. i think probably... would obama have done it, do you think? well, obama never took the moab, as it's called, the "mother of all bombs," off the table. if an opportunity had presented itself, a target that made sense to use that bomb, a bomb that president obama had in his time, he would have used it. the target presented itself to president trump, and so he used it, but i don't see that as a departure from american doctrine. what about — obama seemed to be pretty desperate to get out of afghanistan. i mean, five years ago, there were 100,000 american troops in afghanistan, now it's below 10,000. and we've seen a rise in security incidents in afghanistan far more than since 2007, in the last year—and—a—quarter or so. it's very true that president obama drew down from a height 100,000 to under 10,000, but before he left office, he fixed a number. he said "i'm actually not going to drive down any further, we're actually going to keep several thousand troops there." not to take and hold territory, but to train, advise, and assist the afghan national security forces. now donald trump is talking about adding a few thousand more, but to carry out precisely the same mission. but he is sending more in, rather than drawing down, as barack obama did. that would seem more assertive. it is interesting, because what donald trump is talking about doing is adding more troops, but he's asking our nato partners to step up and add at least half of them. so even he recognises that simply inserting huge numbers of american troops back into theatre afghanistan is not a winning strategy. and in that way, i think his campaign rhetoric, and what he's realised about the realities of these fights, there's a big gap between them. if you — if you want to argue that donald trump is different to barack obama in foreign policy, you're going to get no debate from me. i believe they're very different. the point i am making is that when it comes to the fight between isis and extremist groups, what donald trump is doing is carrying forward ba rack obama's strategy. it is hard to see meaningful departures from that strategy. and when it comes to iran, on the key issue that president obama pursued on iran during his time, the iran nuclear deal, president trump said during his campaign that he would care tear it up on day one. he has not done so. why is that? well, that should please you. that does. the question is why. our military and partners in the region realise, as does the israeli security establishment, they realise that this deal improves security in the region. and so i'm glad to see continuity on that issue and then carrying it forward. however, i do worry that some of the steps donald trump is taking in the region could make a conflict with iran more likely. and we could easily see him make a decision that would put american lives at risk. and i think that would be negative for us security interests. okay, well let's look at that potential. syria, of course, basharal—assad, the president there, very much an ally of iran, but he's been applauded, donald trump, for his intervention there, in syria, in april, following those harrowing pictures of the chemical attack on innocent civilians, you know, hundreds dead. wasn't that a good thing that did? i think it was a good thing. ah, so there you are. i think it was a good thing that president trump decided to respond to the chemical weapons attack by the assad regime, striking the airbase from which the chemical weapons attack were launched. that was a good thing. the bad thing is that it wasn't tied to any broader strategy and syria whatsoever. so if you pressed donald trump today on what his solution is to be syrian civil war, which is the reservoir from which much of the extremism in the region is flowing, he wouldn't be able to tell you. and i think after six months, that's a problem. he has done something, though. he targeted — he launched the cruise missiles on the syrian government tanks. he is imposing sanctions on individuals of the scientific support centre, which was involved in the production of chemical weapons, supplying arms to the ethnic kurds, fighters in syria, who are syrian, despite criticism from turkey. so he's seen as being quite strong, you know, on syria. well, it's interesting the kurdish point, because that too was a decision that president obama left for him. it was something that president obama was strongly considering doing, that he wanted to let president trump decide on. and president trump decided they were going to arm the syrian kurds. that is to fight isis, a worthy an important cause, to roust isis from raqqa, their capital, and to deny them territory, from which they could lodge attacks on the west. but that is not about underlying the underlying syrian civil war, for which the administration still has no real answer. but on the cruise missiles launched, on the — or, following the chemical attack, general michael hayden, former cia director, seen as somebody who's very balanced, "trump's public response to the attack was genuine and admirable" and his response was "decisive and appropriate". i mean, trump himself said "i don't — well it should have been done by the obama administration a long time ago," you know, everybody‘s contrasting it with obama saying in 2012, "my red line — if there were a chemical attack, i would do something". chemical attack happens in 2013, and obama does nothing. well obama didn't do nothing. well, he didn't do as much as trump did injust two months. what obama did was strike a deal which actually removed 95 or more per cent of the chemical weapons from syria. weapons that could easily have fallen into the hands of isis to be used against europeans, or hezbollah, to be used against israelis. so obama didn't do nothing, now... not to mention the people themselves, the civilians — the syrian civilians in the country. the fact is, at the end of the day, the syrian regime broke that deal, kept some stock of chemical weapons, and the right thing for the united states to do, once broke the deal, was to strike, and which i stood up and said was the right thing to do. well don't. trump is always depicted as someone who makes these intemperate comments and acts in an irrational way, but it actually seems that you are agreeing that he does take advice from professionals, from people in the know? i think he took advice on that narrow decision of the syria strike, which has not been followed by any serious syria strategy. and when you look at other decisions that he's taken, he's completely ignored the advice of every professional around him. his decision to withdraw from the paris climate agreement is just one important example of where his economic advisers, his national security advisers, his democratic advisers, all told him "this isjust dumb". he went away and did it anyway, and i think he did this were knee—jerk political reasons. so... as you know, action on climate change is at both federal, state, and local level. and as we know, michael bloomberg, the former mayor of new york, says "we can do a lot of things that business level, local level, state level, to meet our targets." look, the united states is a big, diverse, resilient country. exactly. so we will move forward, even... so this was a little bit political theatre, what trump is doing on climate change? i think it is folly to say that what comes out of washington doesn't matter at all. of course it does. there would be apparent still it wasn't for presidential leadership and it wasn't for president obama going out and getting the chinese on—board, and the indians on—board, and rallying the europeans. that's how we got here in the first place. and there would be the next step up the ladder of ambition without american leadership. —— and there won't be the next step up the ladder of ambition without american leadership. and president trump has done is abandon the field. to an extent, we can, at the city and state level, working with our partners, working with the private sector, we will do all we can. but it really matters that presidential leadership is lacking on this issue. nikki haley, that the us ambassador to the united nations, after this, suggested that donald trump would be responsible on climate change. she said that "just because the us got out of a club, doesn't mean we aren't going to to be care about the environment." —— nikki haley, the us ambassador to the united nations. well everything about their domestic energy policy so far has been a rebuttal of that statement. not only did they say they would withdraw from paris, but they rescinded president obama's executive actions which would clean up our energy fleet, that would move towards more renewable energy, that would improve fuel efficiency standards in cars. trump rode all of that back. so i'm waiting to see what the meat is behind what nikki haley is saying, because so far, we really haven't seen it. well, he's not withdrawn from the 1992 un convention framework on climate change. so will have to see, as you say. but you said, on the campaign trail, that donald trump is "temperamentally unfit and unqualified to be the nation's commander—in—chief". but he's been complimented by key military figures, i'll give you another example, james stavridis, the former nato commander, who said that he is able to take advice from the first—class national security team he's assembled. so, i think all of us hoped, in the early days, that when he picked real luminaries, excellent professionals, like general mattis, as his secretary of defence, and general mcmaster, as his natural security adviser, that this would somehow help make better security decisions. but you cannot normalise a president who is fundamentally not normal. i think he would object to being described as not normal, but anyway... he might object to it, but you can see in the that he makes decisions, the way that he lashes out, the way that he attacks people, and the way that he tries to essentially belittle and divide, that this is not a normal circumstance, and it is really incumbent on all of us to call it out as such. but the point on these national security advisers... but you have to judge by the actions that take place, and as you just said, we'll talk about foreign policy, "oh, that is a continuation of barack obama, that is a continuation of barack obama's — of democrat policy," and so on, but actually, the actions don't quite match the intemperate rhetoric. they do in many important respects. the continuation of that i was talking about was specifically on the issue of isis. but when take a step back and lookat donald trump's a broader foreign policy, you can take it paris agreement as one, you can take what he went and did in europe, where he stood before the 9/11 memorial, which was the one time in the history of their lives, where article 5, the collective defensive mechanism of nato, was invoked, by our allies, on our behalf, and basically harangued and castigated them, and refused to reaffirm america's commitment to make commitment. you can talk about what happened with the g7... but can ijust say on that, what did the secretary generaljames mattis say a few days after that? but the point is... james mattis said "what a crumby world if we withdraw within our borders," and "once we've exhausted all possible alternatives, americans would do the right thing". so who is speaking for the administration? the president of the united states, or the secretary of defence? i think we have to listen to what is... he said nato‘s obsolete and then he rescinded that. so, you know, you can'tjudge what happens in the trump administration by what donald trump himself, necessarily, says. you need to look more in a holistic fashion. when the president of the united states shows up in europe, steps into nato headquarters in brussels, and conspicuously declines to affirm america's article 5 commitment, at least one person is watching that closely — that's vladimir putin. and those words have real consequences. and nothing james mattis says five days later can un—ring that bell. at this point, donald trump is that a clear message to our allies and our adversaries that our commitment to our nato allies is in doubt. that is dangerous. because if it could lead to more instability in europe, and if it could lead to possible conflict, there, it is ultimately going to be the united states admitted that they would have becoming a sort that out. you are implying he didn't want to make that express commitment because he didn't want to upset the russians. i'm not saying anything about his motives, although i do think there have been a lot of questions about the degree to which he has basically followed the wish list of vladimir putin in the policies he has pursued. i'm just saying that regardless of his motive in doing that in brussels, vladimir putin was watching, and that's what he will have taken from it. you brought up the russians, and of course, whether the russians were involved one way or another, in hacking the e—mails of hillary clinton during the presidential campaign was something that was of course a major issue at the time. another major issue, of course, was the use of hillary clinton's private e—mail account to conduct her state department business. you were advising her in the state department. you used her private e—mail accounts to talk to her about national security issues or state department matters. do you think that was wise, in retrospect, for you to have done that? look, hillary clinton has said it was a mistake for her to use a private e—mail server. i think all of us involved, looking back, would have done it a different way if we were doing it again. at the time, it didn't seem that out of step with what most other cabinet secretaries, senators, and other senior figures were doing. so at the time, it did not occur to us that this was going to be a major challenge in the future. but now we have looked at it in the cold light of day, of course we wish we had handled it differently at the time. but why did you use her private e—mail account to talk to her about state department business? this was the e—mail hillary clinton was using. this is what she had taken from being a senator and then transitioning over to being secretary of state. previous secretaries of state had used personal e—mail accounts and not official e—mail accounts. in fact, john kerry was the first secretary of state to have an official e—mail account. so this was how it was done at the state department at this time. mow, once you get into the klieg lights, the bright lights of a presidential campaign, things end up looking a lot different. so it was convenience, was it? hillary said repeatedly that this was about convenience, it was about being able for her to have one account and one device in what she was trying to do. but again, she's underscored repeatedly that it was a mistake, and she wishes she had done it differently. that being said, the amount of attention put on this issue — of the type of e—mail account that she was using — in comparison to the policy issues and all of the other major questions before the american people last year, was astonishing. and completely reckless on the part of the press. do you think it cost her the presidency? she seemed to think that the whole controversy, whether there was an fbi investigation into the e—mail accounts and so on and so forth, cost her the presidency. look, it's always hard to identify any variable in something as complex as a presidential election, but what i will tell you is this — nate silver, who is the premier statistician who looks at american presidential elections, ran an analysis after november 8th and he determined thatjim comey‘s letter in late october... he was fbi director at the time. ..the fbi director who wrote a letter basically reopening the investigation into hillary clinton with only ten days to go in the election, nate silver determined that that letter had a material impact that was the difference between winning and losing. and james comey, of course, then quite unceremoniously sacked by donald trump as director of the fbi. right, he was sacked because, in the president's own words, he thought thatjim comey shouldn't be pursuing this russia investigation the way that he was. described him as a nutjob. he did. well, that, to the — he did that privately to the russians in the oval office, correct. he did that privately to the russians in the oval office, and that was the meeting he had with sergei lavrov, the russian foreign minister, and also sergey kislyak, the russian ambassador to the united states. now, there's been a lot of made about what donald trump said to them, or not, about us intelligence in the fight against terror. and it seems as though it's the media who is taking the lead on criticising donald trump on this, not the democrats. i think what the media is doing is digging to get to the bottom of what is a very strange story. it's not so much criticism as it is almost every day they are coming out with some new information. a new meeting between a trump official and a russian official that had previously been denied. a new financial connection... are they the official opposition now, not the democrats anymore? they're the ones who are taking the lead, as i said, in being the opposition to donald trump? as you know better than anyone, as you knowjust from this very interview, the media'sjob is to ask the hard questions. and demand answerers. but isn't it also the job of the democrats, the official opposition, to ask hard questions? and i think that's happening. in fact, if you look at some of these hearings where prominent trump administration officials have had to come forward and be held accountable in the congress, democratic senators and democratic house members have been asking the tough questions and have been putting the case to the american people that on the issue of russia, on the issue of the broader question of corruption in this administration, with respect to china, russia and other countries, that there are real questions we have to get to the bottom of. ok, so who is taking the lead for the democrats? joe biden, former vice president? hillary clinton? well, on the russia issue specifically, the two key people are mark warner, who is the senator... ijust meant generally, opposition. i mean, you have the midterms coming up next year. i think that president obama is going to have a very important voice in this over the next two years. obviously, he's taken a step back because as the most recently departed president, he wanted to give president trump an opportunity to hit the ground running. vice president biden will be an important voice. secretary clinton has started a pac where she is helping to support a lot of democratic groups and democratic leaning groups. so all three of them will be active players. but the key thing in this... can i just ask you, all three will be active players. president obama obviously couldn't run again for office. do you thinkjoe biden might, or hillary clinton? i don't think hillary clinton will. as for vice president biden, you would have to obviously ask him. what i would say is that he has just set up a pac to be able to support candidates in 2018. i think he's going to be devoting all his energy in the next two years, not to thinking about 2020, but to thinking about, how do we take the house of representatives back in 2018? what's your guess? do you think he might run for president, joe biden? i have got completely out of the business of speculating or predicting on politics at all. so i really couldn't say. the mayor of chicago, the senior democrat rahm emanuel, when asked about this kind of thing on cnn said, hillary clinton has got lots of energy. but you're saying categorically she would not run in 2020? it's not my place to say anything categorically. have you talked to her about it, for instance? i haven't talked to her about 2020 because it's not even in the realm of contemplation. what is in the realm of contemplation right now is what she can do to help young people especially, but progressive groups be able to really effectively operate in opposition to trump, and then to win seats that will help us take back both the house of representatives at the federal level and state houses at the state level. michael moore, the very well—known american director, says one thing the democrats don't understand is that trump was a beloved tv star. he suggests oprah winfrey, chat show host. tom hanks, the famous actor. somebody that people love, is what he says. donald trump was the outsider, the anti—politician, he became president. what about michael moore's idea? i wouldn't rule out someone who doesn't have a career in politics running for president and being really good. you can also not have a career in politics, run for president and be really bad, and i think we're seeing that play out in living colour. and there are some tremendous public servants who have served in politics who would be great candidates. so i wouldn't rule out people who have served in public office, and i wouldn't rule out people who haven't. i think we should have a free for all, and then let democratic primary voters decide who the best standard bearer will be in 2020. jake sullivan, thank you very much indeed for coming on hardtalk. thank you. hello, there. showers overnight continue into the morning across parts of scotland and northern ireland in particular. all linked into an area of low pressure pushing across northern scotland. as it clears away however into the morning there is a slight tightening of isobars and that means that winds strengthening a little bit during the morning rush hour. northern england, northern ireland, central southern scotland in particular. could see wind touch 40, 50 miles per hour. there could be a few restrictions on the bridges and maybe on some of the ferry services, but the further north you are across scotland, the lighter winds to start the day. still some showers around among central and western areas. nowhere near as heavy as we saw through sunday. a few showers maybe just catch you during morning rush hour in northern ireland and northern parts of england but again they should be lighter than we saw during yesterday. further south, only isolated showers, the vast majority will be dry. a bit of cloud in places and there will be sunshine breaking through. a blustery wind but we will see more in the way of sunshine break through that cloud as we head into the afternoon, particularly through southern and eastern areas. by the afternoon, very few showers around, mainly in the western parts of scotland and north—western england. by and large, a much drier and brighter day than we saw through sunday. with the wind coming in from the west, 1a, 15 degrees in some western coasts today but the eastern coast could hit 19 to 21 degrees. most finish the day on a dry note with clear skies around. winds lighter through monday evening into tuesday morning. it could lead to a few mist and fog patches, little bit cooler in places compared to the last few nights. into tuesday morning, we see cloud return to parts of northern ireland and western scotland, and western parts of england and wales threatening some patches of rain and drizzle. all linked into these weather fronts. but they are running to an area of high pressure which is trying to expand across the country. what that tends to do is squeeze out the weather fronts a little bit. so not a huge amount of wet weather around, maybe the odd heavy shower in scotland, occasional light rain or drizzle in parts of northern ireland and the far north—west of england. but most will be dry. we will see hazy sunshine in places, could hit 18 or 19 degrees again in north—eastern parts of scotland. the temperatures rise in the south—east, 20—23 possible. into wednesday, there are southerly winds touching gale force in the highlands and ireland. rain to come here. hazy sunshine, but a dry day for most of us on wednesday and by this stage the warmest day of the week. it could see 20—22 across eastern scotland, possibly 26 or 27 in the south—east corner. that is the warmest day of the week. it will turn cooler through the rest of the week. the breeze returns as well and patchy rain mainly limited to the north and west. a small risk on thursday morning of thunderstorms in the south east. hello. this is bbc news. i'm david eades at westminster. our top stories: britain's prime minister, theresa may, appoint a new cabinet, and insists that it is business as usual. what i am feeling is that actually there is a job to be done. and i think what the public want is to ensure that the government is getting on with the job. momentum for macron: the french president looks set for a landslide victory in the country's parliamentary elections. also, ten times the charm: spanish tennis player rafael nadal celebrates yet another french open win at roland garros. and i'm sally bundock in london. as the uk prime minister fights to stay in power,