The BBC’s international editor warned that Donald Trump’s ceasefire deal with Iran is “fragile and tattered” after Israel launched strikes against Lebanon.

Tehran insists that its agreement with the US – and Israel – included an end to all attacks against allies in the region.

However, the White House is denying such a claim, with US vice-president JD Vance calling it a “misunderstanding” over the terms of their agreement.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4′s Today programme, the corporation’s international editor Jeremy Bowen said the ceasefire is “fragile and tattered” right now as a result.

He said: “I personally find it, having looked at the Middle East for many many years, Lebanon and Israel, I find it very hard to believe that that strike yesterday – hitting 100 targets in 10 minutes, causing massive damage and loss of life inside Lebanon – I find it hard to believe it is not connected to the fact that the Israelis want to continue the war against Iran.”

He also pointed out that the Pakistani prime minister Shehbaz Sharif, who mediated the ceasefire, posted on social media that Lebanon was part of the ceasefire when describing the original deal.

Bowen also noted that Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been insisting he will continue trying to “reshape the Middle East in Israel’s interest”.

The specialist took issue with Trump’s claim of “complete victory” over Iran, too.

He continued: “You can argue very strongly with the American characterisation that they’ve had scored a massive victory here because while they’ve had many tactical successes, they clearly strategically have not got that.

“But they have given [Iran] a hammering.”

Bowen said that, as a result, Tehran would not be willing to give up control of the major shipping lane, the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran effectively closed the waterway over the last five weeks in response to the US-Israel strikes, causing oil prices to shoot up around the world.

Bowen said: “So what Iran has now is the control of the Strait of Hormuz. They are aware of the power of that.

“And sure, they’re not going to give it up easily because without that, they give up their influence.”

Iran has accused the US of trying to “have a cake and eat it at the same time” after the White House backed Israeli strikes on Lebanon.

Tehran argues that Lebanon was supposed to be included in its ceasefire deal with the US – and Israel – to halt all fighting in the region.

But Israel has been accused of a “massacre” in Lebanon by issuing air strikes on Wednesday which killed 182 people, according to the Iranian health ministry.

US vice-president JD Vance chose to stand by Israel last night, calling it a “misunderstanding”.

“I think this comes from a legitimate misunderstanding,” Vance told reporters. “I think the Iranians thought the ceasefire included Lebanon, and it just didn’t. We never made that promise, we never indicated that was gonna be the case.”

But Iran’s deputy foreign minister told BBC Radio 4′s Today programme that the attacks were a “grave violation” of any ceasefire agreement.

Saeed Khatibzadeh said Iran had sent a message to the Oval Office overnight which essentially said: “You cannot have a cake and eat it at the same time.”

He added: “You cannot ask for a ceasefire and then accept terms and conditions, accept all the areas that a ceasefire is applied to, and name Lebanon, exactly Lebanon in that, and then your ally [Israel] just starts a massacre.”

He claimed the US “must choose” if it wants war or peace, but “they cannot have it both at the same time”.

Asked if Iran would pull out of negotiations if the strikes continue, he said: “We are very much focusing on the wellbeing of the whole Middle East.”

He also defended Iran’s attempts to control passage through the major shipping lane, the Strait of Hormuz.

He said: “Iran said security for all or security for nobody. The Strait of Hormuz is purely in Iranian territory.”

The UK’s foreign secretary Yvette Cooper said Britain wants the ceasefire extended to cover Lebanon and that has been part of their discussions with the US.

She said the strikes against Lebanon on Wednesday were “completely wrong”.

“We’ve seen the mass displacement of civilians in Lebanon with significant humanitarian consequences,” she said.

“This escalation in damaging, it’s wrong… we want the ceasefire extended to cover Lebanon.”

Cooper also disputed the Iranian deputy foreign minister’s claims that the Strait of Hormuz is not in international waters but territory belonging to Iran and Oman.

The minister said freedom of navigation applies to all international transit routes under maritime law, claiming: “Countries cannot simply hijack those kinds of international transit routes and unilaterally apply tolls.”

Donald Trump has hit out at Nato for not being “there when we needed them” shortly after intense talks with the alliance’s chief.

The president had a private meeting with Mark Rutte in the White House on Wednesday evening, but judging by his TruthSocial post, Trump was not happy with the way the conversation went.

The US president wrote: “NATO WASN’T THERE WHEN WE NEEDED THEM, AND THEY WON’T BE THERE IF WE NEED THEM AGAIN.”

He also revived his row with Nato members over his demand to own Greenland, the autonomous Danish territory, writing: “REMEMBER GREENLAND, THAT BIG, POORLY RUN, PIECE OF ICE!!!”

Rutte has bent over backwards to appease Trump since he returned to the White House last year.

Nato’s secretary general went viral when he called the president “daddy” in public after Trump compared Israel and Iran to unruly children last June.

His trip to the US this week was meant to try and smooth over relations with Washington after Trump repeatedly threatened to pull out of the defence alliance.

The president has fumed over the way several Nato allies did not send warships to force Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz as global oil prices were rising.

Trump has repeatedly ignored that the organisation is built on the idea of defending one another if attacked – not if launching an attack themselves.

The White House did not reveal what Trump and Rutte discussed during their meeting.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Wednesday that Nato countries had “turned their backs on the American people” after the States had funded those countries’ defence.

She said Trump would have a “very frank and candid” conversation with Rutte.

The Nato chief later told CNN that he had “very frank” and “very open” talk with the president, despite Trump being “clearly disappointed” with allies.

He said he noted “the large majority of European nations have been helpful with basing, with logistics, with overflights” when it comes to Iran, so it’s a “nuanced picture”.

Rutte claimed the world was “absolutely” safer now after Trump’s five-week campaign against Iran, and credited that to the president’s “leadership” in weakening the Middle Eastern country’s nuclear capabilities.

He claimed Nato members do not see the war in Iran as illegal and that most agreed it was key to address Iran’s nuclear threats.

But UK prime minister Keir Starmer previously warned that Trump’s attacks on Iran have been “unlawful” and poorly planned.

Spanish prime minister Pedro Sanchez also accused the president of setting “the world on fire” and just showing up with “a bucket”, referring to Trump’s two-week ceasefire deal with Iran which kicked in on Tuesday.

Subscribe to Commons People, the podcast that makes politics easy. Every week, Kevin Schofield and Kate Nicholson unpack the week’s biggest stories to keep you informed. Join us for straightforward analysis of what’s going on at Westminster.

WASHINGTON — Even as President Donald Trump declares a victory in his war against Iran, what precisely the United States has won remains unclear, while the purported loser may be better off in key respects than it was 40 days ago.

“The world has just witnessed a historically swift and successful military triumph,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt proclaimed at a press briefing on Wednesday.

“Operation Epic Fury was a historic and overwhelming victory on the battlefield, a capital ‘V’ military victory,” Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth said at the Pentagon.

While the 39 days of air assaults by the United States destroyed much of Iran’s air force, navy and missile and drone capability, the war Trump launched without consulting either allies or Congress has ended — or has at least paused — with little clarity. Iran’s hard-line theocracy is still intact and still in possession of its enriched uranium. Seizing that was one of the many and various reasons Trump has given for waging the war. Further, there is not even a consensus on the terms of the ceasefire.

“It’s not at all clear what was agreed at this point,” said Mona Yacoubian, an Iran analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “No clear consensus on which of the 10 points both sides agree on, noting that the proposal is Iran’s.”

John Bolton, one of Trump’s first-term national security advisers and a longtime Iran critic, said he’s not sure there is even a temporary deal in place. “There really isn’t a ceasefire agreement yet. Too much is still disputed,” he said.

At the heart of the confusion is what exactly Iran agreed it would give up in return for an end to the war. Trump himself referred to a “10-point plan” that Iran put forward that he called “a workable basis on which to negotiate.”

Iran’s plan, however, included provisions such as retaining control of and the right to monetize the Strait of Hormuz, the lifting of all US sanctions that had been placed on the country over two decades and a promise by the US never to attack again.

Trump and his aides quickly claimed that wasn’t the 10-point plan Trump meant, but a different plan that Iran had proposed, one more to Trump’s liking. Leavitt on Wednesday also said reporters should ignore statements coming from Iran entirely. “What Iran says publicly or feeds to all of you in the press is much different than what they communicate to the United States, the president and his team privately,” she said.

She would not elaborate or, for example, explain how, on the one hand, Trump could demand a “COMPLETE” opening of the strait on Tuesday evening but then tell ABC News Wednesday morning that he would be amenable to a “joint venture” with Iran to levy tolls on ships passing through, with both countries profiting.

Demanding money for passage through an ocean waterway — as Iran has been doing for weeks at Hormuz ― is unprecedented and flies in the face of the concept of freedom of navigation for commerce, which the United States has defended since its founding.

“When things are all over, I don’t think there will be much in the plus column except weakening their military for the moment,” said Jim Townsend, who has worked at both the Pentagon and Nato and is now with the Center for a New American Security.

Robert Kagan, a State Department veteran of the Reagan administration, said Trump did not merely fail to accomplish his claimed goals, but actually harmed American interests.

“The US is objectively worse off than before we started the war. Iran has gotten international sanction to charge tolls and control passage through the strait. Iran will use this to insist on sanction relief from any nation that wishes to use the strait. It will be backed in this by Russia and China. Iran has not conceded on enrichment. I don’t see how Trump stops Russia and China from replenishing Iran’s weapons supply,” he said. “China has become a major player in the Gulf in a way that it has never been before. The fact that we are negotiating on the basis of Iran’s 10-point plan is a sure sign of defeat.”

Trita Parsi, an Iranian native and an analyst with the anti-interventionist Quincy Institute, said the ambiguity of the war’s ending questions the wisdom of why Trump even started it or didn’t just simply declare victory after three days of attacks and walk away.

“He would undoubtedly have been in a better position if he had ended the war on March 3 or had not started the war in the first place,” Parsi said.

Subscribe to Commons People, the podcast that makes politics easy. Every week, Kevin Schofield and Kate Nicholson unpack the week’s biggest stories to keep you informed. Join us for straightforward analysis of what’s going on at Westminster.

Vice President JD Vance provided a wild analogy on Wednesday involving his wife, Usha Vance, and skydiving, to describe his feelings about a key part of Iran’s 10-point proposal to end the ongoing war.

Speaking to reporters on the tarmac at Budapest Ferenc Liszt International Airport as he departed from Hungary, Vance was asked: “Do you see a scenario in which the administration may be willing to agree to allow Iran to continue enriching uranium for civilian nuclear purposes?”

Both the Trump administration and Israel have repeatedly cited the crippling of Iran’s nuclear program as a primary goal of the conflict.

“What the president has said is that we don’t want Iran to have the capacity to build a nuclear weapon,” Vance said. “The president has also said that we don’t want Iran enriching towards a nuclear weapon and we want Iran to give up the nuclear fuel. Those are going to be our demands during the negotiation.”

In a statement posted on social media on Wednesday, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the speaker of the Iranian Parliament, claimed the US and Israel had already violated portions of the two-week ceasefire agreement.

“As the President of the United States has clearly stated in his Truth, the Islamic Republic of Iran’s 10-Point Proposal is a ‘workable basis on which to negotiate’ and the main framework for these talks. However, 3 clauses of this proposal have been violated so far,” Ghalibaf wrote.

Vance took issue with one part of Ghalibaf’s statement, specifically the “denial of Iran’s right to enrichment, which was included in sixth clause of the framework.” To explain why, he offered this analogy:

“I thought to myself, you know what? My wife has the right to skydive, but she doesn’t jump out of an airplane because she and I have an agreement that she’s not going to do that because I don’t want my wife jumping out of an airplane,” Vance said. “We don’t really concern ourselves with what they claim they have the right to do. We concern ourselves with what they actually do.”

Users on social media were quick to call out the bizarre nature of Vance’s analogy:

Former first lady Michelle Obama shone a light on the current state of the US on Wednesday, quipping that the country is in its “janky” era, but that Americans can grow from it.

“You know, there are versions of the country that happen, right? And the new version doesn’t make the old one bad,” Obama told comedian Hasan Minhaj on the show she co-hosts with her brother, IMO with Michelle Obama and Craig Robinson.

“It’s necessary for growth, and I think we’re in just a janky version, right?” she said.

Minhaj agreed and then asked, “May I curse, Mrs. Obama?”

“You may,” she replied.

“Yeah, shit is jank right now,” he said. “Super jank.”

Obama put an optimistic spin on things, adding that “with each version, we learn something about ourselves as a country.”

“Right now, I’m kind of digging the way folks are beginning to respond, right?” she continued. “I mean, Minnesota, powerful stuff. I mean, it was a powerful reminder of what a community of people can do and are willing to do to protect one another. You know, when you’re not so janky, you don’t have to prove that, right?”

The Trump administration notoriously deployed federal agents to Minnesota at the end of last year as part of its aggressive deportation campaign. The massive public outcry over the operation intensified after federal agents killed US citizens Alex Pretti and Renee Good in January.

Former President Barack Obama warned that month that Pretti’s killing should serve as a “wake-up call to every American, regardless of party, that many of our core values as a nation are increasingly under assault.”

Michelle Obama noted that as a country, “We haven’t been this janky for a while, and I think our muscle of understanding our truth just got a little lax.”

Subscribe to Commons People, the podcast that makes politics easy. Every week, Kevin Schofield and Kate Nicholson unpack the week’s biggest stories to keep you informed. Join us for straightforward analysis of what’s going on at Westminster.

Although it might not have the Bushtucker Trials of I’m A Celebrity… Get Me Out Of Here! or the physical demands of SAS: Who Dares Wins, but there is no doubt that Race Across The World is one of the toughest shows on TV – and that goes for both its contestants and production team.

Now into its sixth season, with a new crop of travellers being put through their paces on a globe-trotting adventure, most viewers are now familiar with the rules of the BBC show.

But what about all the parts that we don’t know about, and the planning that goes into making the show? Well, allow us to lift the lid…

If you thought bosses just came up with a route for the contestants and hoped for the best, you’d be wrong. In fact, a whole team of people test it out beforehand.

Line producer Maria Kennedy told Radio Times: “You get some really brave people out on the road for a couple of months [from the production team]. [They tell us], ‘Here are going to be the sticking points. This is quite tricky. This bit is amazing’.”

She added: “They do it all on a budget as well so they’re not like going out and spending loads of money and having a great jolly. They’re literally looking at the budget and seeing if it’s possible to get by on less than 50 quid a day.”

According to the Guardian, only two producers go on the dry run, only one of whom actually knows the route and which way they are going.

“The other person has no idea and that person is in charge of making the decisions,” series producer Lucy Curtis said.

Each time travels with two members of the production crew, a local fixer and a security adviser, but they apparently keep enough distance to “make the trip feel authentic”, the Guardian reported.

Executive producer Mark Saben also told BBC News that a medical support vehicle also travels an hour or so behind the teams in some countries.

Mark Saben told Broadcast that a director of photography and a series director follow all the teams, capturing the atmospheric camera shots that showcase the destinations.

He explained: “Not only did they shoot those big sweeping drone shots that capture the beauty and scale of their surroundings, but also the on-the-ground shots that convey the hustle and bustle of travelling, so viewers would feel immersed in the competitors’ journeys.”

The production team have to stay quiet, even when it is clear that the teams are making mistakes.

Mark told Broadcast: “How they made their journey was up to them. This meant, as a production, we had to react to their decisions, however nonsensical.

“It was a nightmare for production management, as the competing contributors decided how and where to go. You cannot underestimate how challenging the journey could be at times.”

Executive producer Stephen Day also told The Telegraph: “We will intervene if they’re in danger, and we have a real duty of care.

“If contestants – and there have been some – who are so focussed on budget that they’re not eating then you have to get them to spend money on food.”

However, producers accompanying the participants on the road are not allowed to outright give them food, either.

Praising the embedded crews, exec Mark told the BBC: “They had to do the same journey as them, sleeping alongside them on the bus, they weren’t given a five-star hotel. So they were almost like a family, with its ups and downs.

“And while we had done recces, the teams found bits of the world which were totally surprising.”

Having done the initial recce before filming began, executive producer Mark Saben told BBC News that “one of the poor sods had to do the actual trip again”, this time with the real contestants.

“He was very stoical and didn’t tell them until the very end, though. As much as possible, we wanted it to feel like a dry run,” Mark added.

Prior to filming, exec producer Mark said the first series was “a year in the making”, but added to the BBC: “It’s all very well doing theoretically, looking at timetables and things. But until someone does it for real, you don’t know where the difficulties might lie.”

Things like visas and vaccines “for every conceivable country” were sorted in advance.

He added to Broadcast that they also “research every likely bus and train option, cost and connection”.

“We drew up protocols that set rules for how the teams could hitchhike, travel at night and cross borders safely,” he added.

“If there was a significant issue at home, we might allow them to speak to a nominated person but we really try to keep them in the bubble as much as possible,” Maria Kennedy explained (per Radio Times).

While the pamphlet of job ads is created by bosses, all the jobs are 100% real.

“We don’t go to any of those places and say, ‘For the purposes of the show, can you provide this kind of service?’” BBC commissioner Michael Jochnowitz said, according to Radio Times.

“Those are real jobs, real places, real money or accommodation and things like that so again, because they don’t have access to a phone or the internet, we basically just give them a guide of potential opportunities in the area.”

Executive producer Mark Saben added: “We use as a rule of thumb, it’s like what you’d find on a board in a hostel or something like that so we want [it] to feel absolutely as authentic as it possibly can be.”

With budgets extremely tight, eating can become a real issue for the teams, and while you might think they are being given extras off camera, this is not the case.

Series two winner Emon Choudhury – who triumphed with his nephew Jamiul – said they would often ask strangers for food and water.

He told the Daily Express: “I lost over a stone, a stone and a half and the same with my nephew, he lost quite a bit as well. The food was an issue.

“You always think on these TV shows, you get a sandwich off-camera or water or a little snack here or there but no, it wasn’t like that!”

Series one winners Tony and Elaine Teasdale also told the Telegraph that during one leg, they “wouldn’t eat unless somebody fed us or we found super-cheap street food”.

“We’d buy little packs of rice for 20p each, then eat those for three meals a day. I went down a dress size from 14 to 12!” Elaine said.

“Water is more important. We took chlorine tablets, so we didn’t have to buy bottled water. That saved both money and time because we never had to find shops. Kebabs in Europe, rice in Asia, and we never bought any drink.”

While season one of Race Across The World saw contestants travel from London to Singapore, and season two saw them begin in Mexico and end in Argentina, the third series was contained to just one country – Canada.

This was because when the show was filmed, there were still many Covid travel restrictions still in place, which would have been an added complication for the teams and the production.

The third season and the celebrity edition were originally planned to air much earlier, but production was pulled early into the pandemic.

Season three winners, Tricia Sail and Cathie Rowe revealed that they first applied for the show in 2019, but didn’t hear anything back until 2021 because of Covid.

Race Across The World continues on Thursday nights at 8pm on BBC One.