Does he regret leading Spain to war in Iraq?

Hosted by Christina Ruffini and Sir Richard Dearlove

Guest

José María Aznar

José María Aznar is a former Spanish Prime Minister who supported the Iraq war in 2003 despite widespread opposition in Spain and discusses the decision and what lessons can be learned as Europe grapples with the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

Episode Summary

Twenty years after the invasion of Iraq, the decision to remove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power continues to shape the Middle East and the world. In this episode, guest host Helena Humphrey speaks to former Spanish Prime Minister, José María Aznar, about his decision to support the war despite widespread opposition in his own country. He joined American President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair to launch the war from the Azores islands in 2003. We explore his central role in one of the most important events of the 21st century and what lessons can be learned as Europe once again grapples with how far it should dive into a conflict between Russia and Ukraine.

Listen & Subscribe

• Watch on YouTube
• Listen on Apple Podcasts
• Listen on Spotify

Transcript

INTRODUCTION

Humphrey: Welcome to One Decision. I'm your guest host Helena Humphrey. Today we are unpacking the enduring impact of the Iraq War, both on the country and beyond. It's been twenty years since The United States and its allies invaded Iraq in 2003, a decision which claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, resulted in a long and bloody insurgency and destabilized the Middle East for years to come. At the time, the Bush administration and a coalition of allies justified the war as a necessary measure to disarm Saddam Hussein of alleged weapons of mass destruction. Ultimately, none were found. It was a divisive and controversial topic then, and its aftermath has been no less contentious. One member of that coalition was Spain, and the country's prime minister at the time, Jose Maria Aznar, took the decision to support the war despite widespread opposition within his own country as well as Europe. I sat down with him to find out more about his decision to go against the grain and his thoughts on the conflict two decades later.

INTERVIEW WITH JOSE MARIA AZNAR

Humphrey: I want to begin our conversation by turning the clock back quite a long way, in fact, turning the clock back to 09/11/2001 and, of course, you were already Spain's Prime Minister at that moment. And I think it's fair to say that we all remember where we were on that day of those devastating terror attacks on The United States, we remember the magnitude of that moment. But I wonder, did you feel then that this was an event so big that it would not just affect The United States but Spain too in some way?

Aznar: At the time of September eleven attacks, I was in my second term as prime minister in Spain. And I recall very well what is this moment of the attacks of September eleven, because they transformed the world. Before 09/11/2001, terrorists are considered in the most part in the world as a local problem in different countries. For instance, you have problems of terrorism in Northern Ireland or IRA. We suffered terrorism in Spain. We suffered some attacks of terrorism in The Middle East. Attacks of September eleven transform totally the dimension of the existence of terrorism. And one thing that a lot of countries consider a local problem become the most important problem in the world.

Humphrey: I want to talk more about your relationship with The United States because your two terms in office were notable in that you forged a closer relationship with The United States and with then British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who himself was looking to America, the special relationship and of course George Bush. What for you made a more pro US foreign policy more attractive for Spain?

Aznar: Because, you know, other leaders in different periods of the time, as my good friend Henry Kissinger explained very well, leaders are in transit always between the past and the future. The past is the history of the countries, the history of the world, the history of our country, and future is to have a strategic idea about the future. And we consider always that the most important moments of the Spanish life in history was in the Atlantic. You can imagine, we discovered America. And America was, for us, the most important thing in our history. In a country as Spain, that is a member of the European Union, to be a good European, for me, means to be a good Atlantic ally. And this idea transformed our relationship, especially with The US and with UK as well.

Humphrey: I want to talk more about that closer Atlantic allyship, that closer partnership with The United States which meant, as a consequence, that you had the ear of The US President and vice versa. You had a closer relationship with George Bush and essentially in 2003 that becomes the backdrop to a meeting in New York on the sidelines of the UN Security Council where you have the opportunity to meet behind closed doors with the then US President George Bush. The topic of discussion, naturally at that time, was Iraq. We can imagine what some of the other topics are in terms of weapons of mass destruction, whether or not to invade. Of course, what I'm really curious about is how did that discussion go? What do you remember from it? What did George Bush say to you?

Aznar: My first term, I shared this term with president Bill Clinton, and the relationship between Spain and The US was excellent. And president Clinton asked me for support to The US in different movements, with different actions against Saddam Hussein. And at that time, at the time of Bill Clinton, the Congress in The US approved the Iraq Act. The goal of this Iraq Act was to remove the regime in Iraq. And then the second term I shared with George Bush, I established a very close relationship with him as consequence of the attacks of September eleven, of the dimension of terrorism and so on. And in one moment, President Bush asked me to establish a very great solidarity, a very close relationship between Spain and The US. Why? Because they had fear that Saddam Hussein, they consider Saddam Hussein a very serious threat for the peace. They consider that Saddam Hussein can use his power to threat his neighbors. And they consider that Saddam Hussein can use several weapons, dangerous weapons or weapons of mass destruction in his hands. Well, this is the question. And I decided to support this because for me, it's an expression of the Atlantic solidarity. If you ask me now, I can tell you that I consider that the world is better without Saddam Hussein. Military operation was a very, very success. Politically, with a problem in the aftermath of invasion, with a lot of problems, maybe for the lack of enough intelligence. I think then circumstances are improving. And it's very interesting to consider for the first time in decades, maybe in history, the Iraqi people have the opportunity to vote in the elections, in free elections. And this is very important for me.

Humphrey: I'm still very curious about that meeting and about what George Bush said to you, whether he gave you evidence of alleged weapons of mass destruction because one thing that's interesting in reading the Chilcot report by the British government is it is reported that you told Tony Blair you were worried after a meeting with George Bush that you had seen an excess of confidence. So you had doubts.

Aznar: This is not a military problem because the power of US was so impressive that this is always very serious concern to organize an attack to overthrow a dictator. But intelligence or information leaders in every time depend on the information. The information can be good or less good. But I think honestly that the idea to overthrow Saddam Hussein is an idea that exists in American policy, that exists since the time of the first war in the world, that exists especially for the Iraqi Act approved in the times of Bill Clinton, and George Bush taking the decision to move on and to eliminate the regime. Is the most important question for me.

Humphrey: But, ally or not of The United States, we saw the European Parliament passing a non binding resolution against the war. We saw Germany, France, the two biggest players in Europe opposing the war. And I think one could argue they don't have a worse relationship today with The United States than Spain.

Aznar: No, it is true as well, but Europe is not only Germany and France. Germany and France are very important in Europe, but it's not only the question of Germany and France. Was in the first moments in favor, then changed position, and the French oppose always. But we have our freedom to take these decisions.

Humphrey: So, you're saying, you know, you're calm, you have peace with the decision that you took at the time, with the information you had available to you at the time. If you had other information available, better intelligence, intelligence that said that there was no weapons of mass destruction, would you still be as at peace with that decision?

Aznar: I repeat that I consider that the world is better without Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein was a very moderate dictator. He invaded his neighbors. He launched a very cruel war against Iran, and he has a very serious threat. And he trying to have nuclear weapons. They have chemical weapons at the time. Well, maybe. You can improve the system, the intelligence systems in several times in the world. Okay, the history is the success and the failures of the intelligence system, no? With the same information I will take the same decision.

Humphrey: So you were just saying that of course Germany and France is not the entirety of the European Union. Politicians are not the entirety, of course, of a country, and so you had to face your own population, the Spanish population, over 90% of which were against the war in Iraq. We saw millions demonstrating on the streets right around the world. How did you feel giving Spain's support to a war which the majority in the country didn't back, they didn't support it?

Aznar: We don't participate in the invasion of Iraq military. We give political support. But there is not exist Spanish troops that are fighting in the invasion of Iraq. Politically, support this idea and I support The United States. How is possible that I ask solidarity for The US in our fight with terrorism in Spain. And I cannot offer my solidarity in The United States. We cannot understand the situation in Iraq, if not understand the consequences of September 11. Iraq is a consequence of September 11.

Humphrey: Well, George Bush himself has said in 2006 that Saddam Hussein himself did not have a direct hand in September 11. How did you feel hearing those comments when he came out on a world stage and said that?

Aznar: One thing is to have a direct responsibility in the attack of September 11. Another thing is that the attacks of September eleven transformed totally the idea of fighting terrorism. And the fighting terrorists is not only a question to do in house domestically. Fighting terrorists is to fight terrorism in the origin, and trying to eliminate the threats that is the source of these threats. Twenty years later, there is no more terrorist attacks in The US, and the terrorists suffer very serious problems. Maybe we have the problem of the ISIS, but the threat of terrorism is down in the world today, fortunately.

Humphrey: How long should they have stayed in? Because once Barack Obama then came to power there was the swift drawdown. Would you have liked to have seen them there for much longer?

Aznar: Yeah, the decision of Barack Obama to pull out troops from Iraq was a mistake. I consider as well the decision to try to establish a nuclear deal with Iran as well, because this nuclear deal with Iran, the question is not if it is desirable or not, but this is a good or bad deal or good or bad agreement. And I consider that the decision to pull out American troops from Afghanistan has been very detrimental for the interests of The US and the Western world for the stability of the world.

Humphrey: The argument could be made though that there was a mistake made following the removal of Saddam Hussein not to have sufficient planning for the aftermath and for what happened then, and I wonder what your thoughts are on the thinking from the allied forces or the lack of planning for that period?

Aznar: I think this was one of the most important problem. The most important problem was the decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein, was maybe the excess of trust. The situation in Iraq was very complicated, but I think that the situation will be very worst with a murderous dictator in the power in Iraq.

Humphrey: And if we look at what happened during the war in Iraq, tens of thousands of Iraqis were killed in that war, at least 11 Spanish service personnel as well. Do you find yourself thinking about those people?

Aznar: I think a lot of these people, no. Many think that the responsibility of the leaders don't change for the circumstances. I have a very close feeling, my feeling is very close a lot of the people that suffer in the country with these consequences. Have a feeling very close to the people is not incompatible with taking the decision that trying to improve the world. Why? Because this is the total responsibility of the leaders there. We must understand the situation and take the decision. And finally the question is, the world is better or no? If you take the decision, I think that the world is better.

Humphrey: Leaders, as you say, they have to act, they have to react, they have to take tough decisions. And in some cases afterwards they say we got parts wrong. That was something that George Bush and Tony Blair have said. They said mistakes were made and Tony Blair made a qualified apology for the use of misleading evidence and failure to prepare for the aftermath of the invasion. Do you agree with them on that front?

Aznar: This is different the question for me, and I can repeat, is Blair as another leader, George Bush, another leader, Clinton and so on, taking the decision with the information that we have in this moment. In this moment, that's the information. You take the decision. If you have another information, this is another question, another line, but the question is, I repeat, for me, the action of George Bush, Tony Blair, and the support for the major part of the countries of the European Union, and try and forge a coalition, international coalition for 50 countries, is a demonstration that there is a lot of people, a lot of countries, a lot of leaders very very concerned about the situation, about the consequences that can produce in the world that Saddam Hussein keeping in power.

Humphrey: But you wouldn't apologise for supporting The US and The UK?

Aznar: I am totally very proud of the support of Spain to The US. And I am very proud of the alliance between The US and Spain and I am very proud of all my actions that have in mind to reinforce the Atlantic alliance and the Transatlantic relationship. That is the relations that establish more freedom, more prosperity, more security in the world since the second world war.

Humphrey: When was the last time you spoke to Tony Blair or George Bush and how did those conversations go?

Aznar: I keep in very good relationships with both. We are friends. We're talking with a lot of trust, with a lot of confidence. I personally consider that Tony Blair was a very strong leader for The UK and the European world as well. And I think George Bush making a very complicated decision after the September eleven attacks and trying to keep the unity of your country and the leadership of The US in the world. Keeping this leadership honestly, and it's possible to take or commit mistakes, but the unity of this country was very important at the moment, and of course the alliance was extremely relevant as well in this moment. As these current crisis in the world show us every day. That if not exist the reaction of NATO, if not exist the capabilities of European and Americans to act together, the situation in Ukraine and the situation in Europe will be today worst and very, very most dangerous in this moment.

Humphrey: Jose Maria Aznar, thank you so much for your time.

Aznar: Very great pleasure.

ANALYSIS WITH SIR RICHARD DEARLOVE

Humphrey: Jose Maria Aznar, the former prime minister of Spain reflecting on his decision to support the war in Iraq. After that conversation, I sat down with my co host, Sir Richard Dearlove, to talk more about the legacy of the Iraq war, both today and in the future for the country as well as the region. Sir Richard, great to see you again. How are you doing?

Dearlove: I'm very well indeed.

Humphrey: I'm going to kick straight off by going back briefly to my interview with Jose Maria Aznar and in it he was really clear. What came through was that in his opinion, the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein and given everything that we've seen over the past two decades since the Iraq war with Hussein's ousting and all of the fallout that we've seen over the past two decades. Is that a fair assessment in your book?

Dearlove: Yes. I think it is. I essentially agree with that position, unsurprisingly. And I think the world is a better place without Saddam. We were almost inert, you know, as he killed members of his own population, particularly Kurds and particularly Shia. So, you know, we rid the world, or the Iraqis did partly, with some help from the West, you know, of a terrible dictator.

Humphrey: The fallout from the war, of course, has been considerable. There are many different facets we could talk about and we will talk about and one of them I want to talk about is the increase in sectarian violence with various factions within the country, you know, fighting for power with Saddam Hussein gone. And if we even think recently, thinking back to August 2022, saw clashes. We saw clashes when the Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr resigned from Iraqi politics. We saw his loyalists clash with rival groups storming Baghdad's so called Green Zone. And I remember very clearly at the time interviewing one scholar around that time and she told me that people in her community, both in Iraq and in the academic community, really worried at that time that civil war could break out. And she said on the WhatsApp chat group that night they were talking about, you know, is this a civil war? Is this violence that could break out that could last? She said best case scenario, a couple of weeks or potentially even a few years. Now, it didn't come to that because we saw a new prime minister with al-Sudani. But I think it was a real pertinent reminder, a recent reminder of how volatile things have remained. At this particular juncture, two decades on, are things better for the Iraqi people who are at the heart of this now and in the near future?

Dearlove: Well, my understanding is from talking to people who've recently been in Iraq, and I have to say this is a secondhand judgment, but it is based on what Iraqis are saying both Sunni and Shia. Yes, the country is a significantly better place. Think when you remove a dictator as brutal as Saddam was, then I think inevitably you have a massive destabilization because the country had been suppressed largely by fear and the brutality of his regime. And yeah, you know, the aftermath looked pretty ghastly. But I do think now you can make the judgment that Iraq is one of the few countries in the Middle East which is trying to operate as a democracy. It's still heavily factionalized. The factions do shout at each other. They make a lot of noise. There are occasional outbreaks of violence, but it isn't anything like it was. And actually the country is beginning to operate quite successfully.

Humphrey: Another thing people might point to though, in terms of the fallout, not confined to the sectarian violence which has rocked the country for decades following the ousting of Saddam Hussein is also the rise of the extremist group ISIS, right? And of course, you'll probably remember, Sir Richard, I think it was in 2017 that President Trump at the time triumphantly declared the 100% defeat of the caliphate. And, you know, of course, it's fair to say we have seen resurgence in 2020 with attacks. ISIS had a new leader in 2022. But overall, in your assessment, to what extent has ISIS been defeated?

Dearlove: Yeah, well, I think we have to be quite cautious here because I'm not sure I would connect ISIS that closely, in a way with political events in Iraq, obviously the linkage. And I think, you know, to talk about defeat of an idea rather than an organization is also extremely awkward. I think ISIS, as a franchise with a central organization has largely been dismantled. ISIS, as an ideology that inspires extremist terrorism, largely connected with extremist Islam, is a different phenomenon because, you know, it can inspire individuals and small groups. Certainly ISIS has had a very rough time of it, but it's still extant, or its inspiration is still extant in certain areas like Al-Shabaab and Somalia, bits and pieces of the Maghreb in particular Mali, the more remote bits of Mauritania. But let's face it, the problem is of a lesser size. That doesn't mean we've entirely escaped its consequences, but it's not as potent a force, and we're better at dealing with it from the security point of view than we were. But I think one of the worst mistakes that was made, after the invasion, which was a decision that was taken by a small group of American officials without consultation, was to disband the Iraqi military, which was crazy. And when the military was disbanded, all these soldiers disappeared off to their villages, largely with their weapons, I mean, their side weapons, and they became an unemployed, very dissatisfied group that were easily whipped up into a sort of opposition to the West.

Humphrey: So, you're pointing to basically disenfranchised troops in the wake of an invasion. At the same time when you're starting to see kind of the chaos that comes from an invasion and a political vacuum there in Iraq. I think you make that point which is really important about differentiating between the idea of ISIS and its ideology and actually in terms of it being an organisation and we certainly know that some people who were in that organisation today, you know, either been in refugee camps, for example, in Syria, in Al-Hol or they've been imprisoned there, for example. And now I guess the question is when looking at the risk of ISIS or at least one question for me is, you know, if you look at the situation in Al-Hol in Syria and there were patrols between The US as well as the main Syrian rebel group. According to the rebel group, some of those operations for surveillance for IS, former IS fighters have broken down because of the threat of a Turkish ground offensive, because of the threat of airstrikes. This is something The US pushes back on. But according to the main Syrian rebel group, they're saying that this is, you know, at times winding down because of that threat. So I guess my question would be if Erdogan decides in 2023 that he wants to go ahead then with a ground offensive or airstrikes, we could see potentially thousands of IS fighters who were detained there suddenly released. There is the potential for that. I mean, how much could that actually destabilise regional security?

Dearlove: Well, think it would be a significant problem. Whether it would be a problem of the breadth of ISIS when it, as it were, first appeared as a phenomenon and started taking over large chunks of Iraq. I'm not sure the second time around it would be that serious, but it would be a huge problem. But on the other hand, you have a very effective Peshmerga Kurdish military, which has been of huge value to the West in dealing with this problem. You have a very complicated situation where you have an effective Turkish military who've also been effective in dealing with the problem, but of course they're sworn enemies of the Peshmerga and any Kurdish military units. So any destabilization in that area from the status quo, if it's reasonably peaceful, will be complicated. Whether it would break out into a major sort of global terrorist phenomenon in quite the way that it did in the past, I'm not so sure. I mean, would be very destabilizing in the immediate area and it would be a problem.

Humphrey: I mean, nevertheless, I do get the sense that there's a lot of power potentially resting in Erdogan's hands for 2023. If you were to look at other regional powers, of course, when it comes to Iraq, Iran, of course, is a big player, deeply involved in Iraqi politics since the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime and Prime Minister al-Sudani now, it strikes me, has a bit of a balancing act because we know that on one hand he appears to be reluctant to get rid of US troops who have been working in Iraq to thwart ISIS but at the same time of course the nature of his position is that he's been helped to power by pro Iran groups. These groups of course are not happy right now with The United States. So where does that leave Iraq then when it comes to working with, looking for a reliable partner? Do you think al-Sudani can navigate what strikes me as a tightrope here with Tehran at a difficult juncture right now and Washington?

Dearlove: My expectation is that he can and I'll explain why. I think it's important to understand that Iraqi Shia are not Iranian Shia, and that although they are Shia and there's a sympathy between them, there is also a reluctance on the part of Iraqi Shia, as they become a more established force in Iraq, to be beholden to an Iranian regime, particularly an Iranian regime with the character of the current one. So I think that their sort of strategic ambitions in the Middle East have been significantly curtailed, partly because the JCPOA has not been renewed, which I thought personally was a lousy agreement. And the reason it was a lousy agreement, was that okay, it attempted to control the Iranians in one area was the production of a nuclear weapon. But on the other hand, the Iranians took it as a sort of laissez passer from the international community to behave just as they liked across the Middle East. And since Qasem Soleimani was assassinated, you know, they have to an extent drawn in their horns.

Humphrey: Just to pick you up very briefly, talking about these protests in Iran, which have continued and appear to have this longevity. Do you think that's changed the calculus for Iraq? Do you think that it's this particular moment that Iraq has been watching and says, Okay, perhaps this might not be the partner that we once thought they were.

Dearlove: I think it's a little too early to say, but I would be inclined to make that judgment. I don't think we quite know the answer, but I think maybe we can look forward in 2023 to some significant shifts in Iranian politics.

Humphrey: Would you predict that within 2023 that these protests could come to a culmination of that and would finally rid the country of that?

Dearlove: The regime is in its terminal phase, but how long that takes is very, very difficult. I have a reputation for making rash predictions. I'm not sure it'll go down in 2023, but it will go down at some time within the next two three years. Alright, so what would an endgame look like in that case? Well, an endgame would look like a nationalistic government in Iran, but a more reasonable one. I mean, the problem with the Iranian regime, it defines itself by enmity towards the West. I mean that is its defining characteristic. It doesn't have any internal identity of its own other than its extremist policies.

Humphrey: So I guess my question would be how does it get there though because we have seen these incredible protests from such strong protesters in Iran and internationally and yet the response from the regime has also been horrific to see so many Iranian men in particular on death row being executed to see these political prisoners. They don't seem to want to be giving an inch. So how do we get from a theocracy to a nationalist government? What would be the thing that actually makes this regime say, okay, enough is enough?

Dearlove: Well, when the Praetorian Guard stopped protecting the regime, it will fall apart. And I mean, that's pretty much what happened to the Shah. You know, the powers that supported the Shah eventually failed to support him any longer because his rule had become so unpopular. And I think that there could become a tipping point in the power structures that hold the theocrats in position.

Humphrey: Just talking about, for example, you mentioned the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, the commander of the revolutionary guards in Iran, and also the decision that we saw from Trump to exit the nuclear accord with Iran. I mean, some militant groups, this did result in an anti US feeling. And we saw some attacks on US personnel, we saw retaliatory strikes. And I just wonder, you know, even though some of these decisions, these two in particular belong to the previous US administration, does this actually raise the prospect of a new unauthorised conflict between The US and regional powers or at least the spectre of violence?

Dearlove: Well, think in the current situation in The Middle East, the spectre of violence is pretty close to the surface. Whether it raises it any further, I mean, I think Trump's killing of Qasem Soleimani largely pulled off. I'm not gonna make a moral judgment about it, but it was largely done in a way, you know, where there wasn't a clear retaliation by the Iranians, or it was very difficult for the Iranians to retaliate at an equivalent level because clearly, Qasem Soleimani was a hugely significant figure, and was also hugely significant in Iran's ability to fight what I would describe as arm's length wars. I mean, bear in mind, you know, there's a dreadful war still being fought in Yemen, has been very costly, you know where the Houthi have depended on Iranian support and although you know there is an Arab response it's been rather inefficiently executed and fought particularly by the Saudis who are not sort of, let's say, gifted militarily, not in the sense, you know, the Iranians and Houthi, I think, make a formidable opposition.

Humphrey: Well, talking about the Saudis, I know that you had previously raised the spectre or you were asked about a black swan event if we're talking about broader stability in The Middle East and one of those events that you put forward was the possibility of a war between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Just talk to me more about that and I guess also whether you think the protests in Iran have put more strain on what is already a strained relationship.

Dearlove: There is still a significant risk of a broader conflict. On the other hand there is evidence, one sees it from time to time, that through intermediaries the Iranians and the Saudis are still talking to each other. I mean, all I think I was saying, there is still this risk in The Middle East of a broader conflict, and the significance of it would be that if you had two conflicts at the same time, one in Europe and one in The Middle East, the reason that it's a black swan event is that the energy knock on effects for all of us who are energy consumers would be hugely significant. And that's why I identified it as a possible, you know, serious problem. On the other hand, I'm told, you know, there has been some deconfliction through intermediaries between Saudi Arabia and Iran. And maybe for the moment that's keeping as it were the temperature at a lower level, but I'm not directly informed about that.

Humphrey: I want to touch on a couple of other things that Jose Maria Aznar said and specifically related to decision making and, know, of course, the decision to invade Iraq is a decision that will look back on forever and we are still debating and whether you want to put that on Obama or Trump or Biden, all three presidents pulled troops from Iraq. They pulled them from Afghanistan, even you know countries like Germany for example where they've been stationed. People like Vladimir Putin are watching that. Erdogan is watching that when it comes to Syria. And I just wonder, has that made the world a more dangerous place?

Dearlove: I'm not sure it's made it more dangerous. Think the problem for the West, with The United States in particular and it affects The UK too, is I guess the issue of what I would call staying power. Once you've committed to a problem, remaining committed and remaining politically and constructively involved. And of course, that's been a problem with Iraq, and it's certainly been a problem, a huge problem with Afghanistan. It's been also a problem with Syria. To get involved and then to walk away makes it look as though, you know, we're not reliable partners, that we're not reliable strategic builders because you only have to sit there and wait us out. And if you do that successfully we'll be gone. I'm talking we in the West.

Humphrey: So what then is the alternative? If America isn't going to necessarily is pursuing policy where they're not putting boots on the ground or at least having troops stationed abroad. If as you've cautioned, it's certainly not a wise policy to come into a country and then leave in a chaotic way at least. How does the West go about having deterrence to strongman leaders? You know, so, for example, how do you see international actors like The US, like the European Union evolving in The Middle East in the coming years?

Dearlove: Well, if we're looking at The Middle East only, you know, I guess it's through well, EU's realm is largely restricted to economic and political support. But if you are looking for a model of effective intervention, maybe Ukraine is that model, where we have motivated, trained and equipped the Ukrainian military to resist a massively powerful invasion of its country. And okay, it's a pretty catastrophic event for both parties, for both Russia and Ukraine, but the role played by Ukraine's allies, who are mostly NATO members, but of course it isn't NATO that's sustaining Ukraine, it's the individual nations, we have a rather surprising result, which is the ineffectiveness of the Russian military in the face of this solid support. I mean, think if one looks back to Iraq now, and there is still a lot of Western support being given to Iraq in different ways, and it has its problems and its faults, but it is largely operating okay with a lot of shouting and a lot of argument as a reasonably effective, justly governed country.

Humphrey: And so Iraq now twenty years on, no longer under Saddam Hussein, I want to try and end on a bright spot in fact in 2023. And the question is, how can it actually contribute to regional stability? Because if we think about Josep Borrell, the EU foreign policy chief specifically referencing that after a visit to the region recently and he was talking about the contribution that it can actually now make to the region now that it's not purely inward focused. Do you see it that way?

Dearlove: Yeah, I do see it that way and it's hosting, it has been hosting these talks between the Iranians and the Saudis. Think that's an encouraging sign. Iraq, you know, as a country has terrific potential. The agreement over the sale of oil and you know whether the Kurdish oil should be sold through the Iraqi central. Those problems have been more or less solved. If you talk to Iraqis, they are reasonably optimistic that they have the basis to build a cohesive country and for the Sunni and Shia communities to begin to work together and to cooperate politically rather than being sworn enemies. And I think one sees the seeds of that arrangement. All right. Helena, I really enjoyed talking to you and thanks for asking some very probing but important questions.

Humphrey: That's it for this edition of One Decision. There's a new show every Thursday, so remember to subscribe so you never miss an episode. Thanks for tuning in, and bye for now.