This story is well-sourced and very significant.

The key word in the report is enabling.

There are no plans to use western armed guards at present, but the shift in policy opens the door to use them in very limited circumstances in the future.

The decision is a controversial one -- and will divide opinion.

On the one hand, if armed guards would have protected Simon and Frank (which is by no means certain) then they potentially have a role to play in a world which is becoming increasingly dangerous for journalists.

On the other, I still feel that if a location is deemed too risky to operate in without armed protection we should be asking ourselves why we're there in the first place.