It’s two years since the start of the Saudi-led military campaign in support of the Yemeni government which was ousted by Houthi rebels. The war has been a disaster for countless civilians. Thousands have been killed and the country is on the brink of famine. The UN is calling it a humanitarian crisis. And yet it’s far from clear which – if any – of the multiple nations and groups involved in the conflict is working to end it. In other words, our question this week, why is no one trying to stop the war in Yemen?

Presenter: Ruth Alexander Producer: Estelle Doyle

(Photo: Houthi rebels, march in a parade during a gathering in the capital Sanaa to mobilize more fighters to battlefronts to fight pro-government forces in several Yemeni cities. Getty)

At a recent press conference on the new US budget questions were asked about funding for climate change initiatives. The answer was stark. “We’re not spending money on that anymore,” reporters were told, they’re a “waste of your money”. The new administration is sceptical about man-made climate change. Most of the world’s scientists and governments, however, are not. The Paris Agreement committed the world to prevent global temperatures from rising more than two degrees over pre-industrial levels. That target looked close to impossible even before the election of Donald Trump. So – our question this week – do we need a ‘plan B’? Scientists have been developing some very ambitious ideas to re-engineer our climate. They have created materials that could suck carbon dioxide out of the air and a scheme to pump reflective particles into the atmosphere. But – if ‘plan A’ fails – might any of these last-ditch ideas actually work?

(Photo: The smoke stacks at American Electric Power's Mountaineer coal power plant in New Haven, West Virginia. Credit: Getty Images)

Every candidate in the upcoming presidential election in France is calling for change: change to the bureaucracy, the economy and even the culture. France, they say, is broken; society too divided, unemployment too high or the state too oppresive. Are they right? Is this call for change a tired political cliché – or a justifiable response to a deep set of problems? In other words – our question this week – what's wrong with France?

Presenter: Estelle Doyle

(Photo: A dejected France fan after defeat in the 2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa match between France and Mexico. Credit: Getty Images)

The UN has declared that South Sudan is in the grip of famine. Aid agencies have pointed the finger not at crop failure, weather or some other environmental problem. Humans, they say, have created this misery – misery which could easily have been avoided. The UN has also warned that conflicts in Yemen, Somalia and northeastern Nigeria mean there could soon be famine in those countries too, creating “the largest humanitarian crisis since the creation of the United Nations” in 1945. Humankind long ago figured out how to manage agriculture, store and distribute surplus produce or use trade to overcome hunger. So are all famines – like the one unfolding now in South Sudan – man-made? That’s our question on The Inquiry this week.

Presenter: Maria Margaronis Producers: Phoebe Keane and Charlotte McDonald

(Photo: A woman winnows grain to separate sorghum seeds from soil following an air-drop at a village in Nyal, in Panyijar county, south Sudan, on February 23, 2015. Credit: Getty Images)

Mosul is today the scene of the largest battle on Earth. Some 100,000 soldiers, police and militiamen are bearing down on the ancient Iraqi city. Backed by Western air power, their mission is to drive out the so-called Islamic State fighters who’ve occupied the city since 2014. Mosul holds enormous symbolic value to both sides. The IS leader declared himself “caliph” there; the Iraqis want to avenge their defeat there nearly three years ago. Between them are hundreds of thousands of civilians. The UN says they face "extreme risks": water, food and fuel are already scarce. This edition of The Inquiry tells the story of the campaign and asks how the final phase could end.

(Photo: An Iraqi Special Forces soldier climbs through a hole in a wall as he searches for Islamic State fighters in Mosul, Iraq, 2017. Credit to: REUTERS/Goran Tomasevic)

Back in 2015 our radios and TV bulletins were full of stories of people trying to get to Europe. We saw distressing pictures as boats sank and lives were lost. Huge numbers of men, women and children tried to make their way by road, rail and foot to Hungary, Germany and beyond. There was anguish and fear in EU capitals. Now the story has slipped from the front pages. We find out what happened next.

(Photo: Syrian refugees sit aboard a dinghy heading to the island of Lesbos early on June 18, 2015. Credit: Getty Images)

Our phones are powerful tools with lots of benefits – keeping in touch, accessing information and services and managing our lives. We are using them more and more, constantly picking them up. Even in situations where it is considered inappropriate, disadvantageous, or even dangerous, many people still find it hard to resist the urge to check their smartphones. Why do we find these mini computers in our pockets so compelling?

Our expert witnesses explain how tech developers are tapping into established behavioural psychology theories about what gets us hooked. We hear how experiments conducted on pigeons can help explain why we cannot resist checking to see whether we have got email or a new like on social media and we reveal the tricks that companies use to keep us coming back for more.

(Photo: People using their smartphones on the platform of a train station in Bangkok. A recent study showed smartphone owners are often connected all day. Credit: Getty Images)

President Trump has made no secret of his contempt for news organizations, stating that the media are "among the world's most dishonest people". He has described The New York Times as "failing", The Wall Street Journal as “a pile of garbage” and CNN as a “terrible organization” responsible for “fake news". The BBC? “There’s another beauty.” The President has made statements and assertions which are false. He uses Twitter to speak directly to the American people. His combative press secretary Sean Spicer said he plans to “hold the press accountable”. All this seems like bad news for what many Trump supporters call – derisively – the “mainstream media”. But might the opposite be true? Might Donald Trump, in fact, be good for journalism? That’s the question on The Inquiry this week.

(Photo: Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump talks to reporters after the first prime-time presidential debate, Quicken Loans Arena, Cleveland, Ohio. Credit: Getty Images)

Since 2006 the WikiLeaks website has been publishing secret documents and material obtained from whistleblowers and other sources. Many of the confidential files published by WikiLeaks have been revelatory. The site has frequently made news around the world. But in 2016 Wikileaks published hacked emails relating to Hillary Clinton and her presidential bid. Those leaks appeared to serve the interests of the Trump campaign and were – according to US intelligence – probably provided to Wikileaks by Russian sources. So, this week on The Inquiry, we’re asking: can you believe what you read on WikiLeaks?

(Photo: Wikileaks founder Julian Assange speaks to the press after appearing at Belmarsh Magistrates court in London, England. Credit: Getty Images)

"No deal is better than a bad deal." So said Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May, clarifying her country's position on Brexit negotiations with the EU. In the absence of a deal with the EU Britain would “revert to WTO rules” after Brexit. But what does that mean, exactly? The Inquiry has the answer. Presenter: Linda Yueh Contributors: Emily Lydgate, University of Sussex Alan Winters, UK Trade Policy Observatory Hosuk Lee-Makiyama, European Centre for International Political Economy Adam Marshall, British Chambers of Commerce

(Photo: German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May arrive for a statement prior to a meeting at the Chancellery in Berlin, Germany, on November 18, 2016. Credit: Getty Images)

'Do we want his finger anywhere near the button?' Hillary Clinton asked during the US election campaign, referring to Mr Trump and the nuclear arsenal. But how close is an American president's finger to 'the button'? How close is anyone’s? We explain how the nuclear weapons systems of the US, Russia, Britain and China work – and how much power any one individual has over them.

(Photo: A Trident Ii, Or D-5 Missile, Is Launched From An Ohio-Class Submarine. Credit: Getty Images)

In 2002 US military personnel at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba were given 96 hours to prepare their sleepy base for the arrival of hundreds of prisoners. “The worst of the worst,” they were told. Beyond US jurisdiction, with no clear legal framework, prisoners accused of terror offences have been held there indefinitely without charge ever since. For many, Guantanamo has stained the image of the United States. When President Obama came to power in 2008 he vowed to close it. He failed. In this week’s Inquiry we are telling the full story of Guantanamo - from its creation to the so-called “forever prisoners” held there today.

Presenter: James Fletcher

(Photo: A US soldier walks next to a razor wire-topped fence at the abandoned 'Camp X-Ray' detention facility at the US Naval Station in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Credit: Getty Images)