10/03/2012 Dateline London

Welcome today line London. Is there any point in British troops

continuing to fight it in Afghanistan? What is the Iranian

government want to happen across the Middle East? And Greece has

finally received a second bail-out, but so what? Thank you all for

joining me. The death of six British soldiers in Afghanistan

after 11 years of NATO involvement provoked mourning in Britain but

also questioning of government policy. Do we believe that troops

risking their lives in Helmand makes lives safer in Britain?

Should we pull-out? I think we should have pulled out a

long time ago. The whole venture was flawed from the start. It seems

to get worse and worse every day. The reality is the situation is

doing very little in Afghanistan and Pakistan is becoming the real

victim of the conflict with so many people killed there. It has taken

arrive off the ball and it has been a disaster from start to finish. I

was struck when I read the former British ambassador's book, when

some Afghan ministers were asked how long will they retain power

after we have left, and they laughed and said, 24 hours. What

you think about the argument that it makes lives saved her in

Britain? I think that is ludicrous. The

argument changes all the time. It is about gender equality and

stopping the drug trade. A look at what is happening in Pakistan. It

shows that life is more danger this if anything. Because Pakistan is

absolutely of strategic national interest at the moment. Among other

countries as well. It is. Thinking about these ten years, what is

interesting is how what is -- how it has brought Pakistan into a new

law will -- a new role. Pakistan, India, and how that influenced

geopolitics. It is very clear now that the border, the Bury Fen and

virtually non-existent border, -- very then. There is a big change

and ban surprised nobody figured that out in advance. There are

various rationales. What happened in the present after so 1011, and

Afghanistan, the Taliban were quite a brutal regime and you cannot put

the women's rights issues in the same back as certain kinds of

democracy forming, because we know that is not what it was about, for

security creation. I think the inevitable will happen which is the

Taliban or some groups that call themselves Taliban will come back

into power. If the state is their strategic animal -- enemy, they

presumably cannot believe their luck. Afghanistan was the war that

could have been one according to President Obama but unfortunately

the way you are seeing it now, it is going down the same pattern that

Iraq to it. If you are when they ran, three days ago, the United

States Treasury designated a top commander of the Islamic

Revolutionary Guards who operate in Afghanistan as a drug kingpin,

helping to move not only had a win but also armament to the Taliban. A

man has a long history and heritage of relations with Afghanistan.

was part of the Greater Persian Empire, wasn't it? Yes and they

speak the same language. Afghanistan and Iraq also always

proved very difficult to control for the I Iranian government, even

before, in the last century. did the British and Americans not

learn the lessons of history from Russia and other countries?

Yes, and also the Iranian influence in Afghanistan has been building

for a long time, ever since the fall of the Taliban. Through

education, they were sending books. Even President Karzai it admitted

that he was getting loads of money from the Iranians. The whole of the

country, not even President Karzai, can hold the country together.

This is obviously hugely important for India.

Certainly because India is pumping $1.5 billion into the

reconstruction of Afghanistan, which for a developing country like

India is a lot of money. India would West to see stability in

Afghanistan. I tend to disagree with people who feel that British

troops should the lout. The simple reason is that you have gone there

for that job and a few polite without finishing the job, the

situation is likely to get worse. They is the job to a bull?

Of a long time. For a simple reason, on day one, Western troops did not

realise that apart from invading the country, what was important was

economic Development and Reconstruction and that started

much later. The training of police forces and armed forces, which has

occurred only recently, these were mistakes that this was not

visualised. What we often call in exit strategy. That was not thought

of when the troops went in. The other thing the Western troops they

did not realise, which they have realised now, was the problem of

Pakistan. You now have accusations made by a BOP Washington and

Western governments in general that there has been deposited on the

part of Pakistan, particularly on the part of the ISI and the

Pakistani military. These were problems not foreseen that should

have been taken into account. It could have been a shorter job but

it will now be longer unfortunately. Everybody talks about the national

security interests of Britain but at one point, nobody defines what

are the elements of the National Security - is it terrorism only, is

it also jihad is him? Keeping jihadists outside of the UK.

Whether it it is obviously, at one point, the Defence Minister has

admitted that it is certainly not one of the British objectives to

bring liberal democracy, Western liberal democracy, to Afghanistan.

Yes, we fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here.

But if you have an idealised view of what is possible in that country,

with in Afghanistan, one of the things, it's 30 years time, people

will see Afghanistan and Iraq as the same thing, pot by the same

President with the same flaws in his game plan. One of the things is

that they should have flooded these on with the wheels of power tools,

but the initial mission was to find all summer and get rid of them. --

Osama Bin Laden. They failed, but the problem is that and this should

have been known to everyone, the degree to which corrupts and enters

into these cost conflict situations is almost overnight because you

common with create lots of money on a grand sale in Iraq, and

Afghanistan and I saw this in Bosnia, it was one of the most

corrupt places in Europe, because there is no accounting and it gets

out into the black market and trucks and modelling, and you have

to be very careful about criticising what might have been

done because unless you watch the money, and have a proper partner in

charge of the government, because we know that the cars I government

is corrupt, you can't really did his eyes. There is a big question

about whether Western democracies actually have the ability to going

for the sort of adventures? In order to achieve some of their

names they wanted in Afghanistan, they would have had to be there for

a much longer period, they would have had to sustain a lot more cost

in terms of finance and lights. Some British military officers say

it is 40 years. In a way they have more or not and some politicians.

agree with that because in Western democracies there is not the

appetite for these long term nation-building exercises.

Let me want to the future of Syria. It is complicated because of the

ethnic mix of people. And because outside powers like Turkey, Saudi

Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Russia and the United States all have a stake in

what is going on. With the nuclear issue one result, what other than's

ambitions for the Middle East? What you think Qurban would like as an

outcome in Syria? I think they would like President

Assad to stay in power because in the end this would be a morale

boost for the Revolutionary Guard and for all the policies of the

Islamic Republic, internationally. At the end of the day, if you ask,

what is the objective of Iran? It has always been the same. Not just

a ban, it is the Islamic revolution, and the objective has to been to

bring a new world order and to expand the informants of the

Islamic government, PC at style of Islamic government. Mr Assad is at

the forefront right now fighting for the interests of the Islamic

government. That is why they have so many troops there. Do you think

that because of what is happening in Iraq, that things have changed?

Another words, that Iraq is more closely identified with their

Bennion sphere of influence, and therefore Syria is less important.

Not at all. Syria as a country has served as a geographical entry into

these other countries in terms of sending troops. Syria's are... We

always talk about the axis of the ball and putting it down, yes, we

are not taught me about be people. We are talking about the Government

and the people who rule, the power holders. Iran, Syria and North

Korea. You have this access and if you break that access, that would

be the end of the Albanian government.

There comes a time where a ban would think of their vital national

interests ahead of anything else. I find that there is music emerging

in two different tones. On the face of it, clearly, a than is prepared,

and when I say this, the space I would like to what is the supreme

leader and with the recent elections in Iran, he has emerged

as even more powerful. He is the man who will play a decisive role

as far as Iran's approach to Syria is concerned. There has clearly

been a close relationship between Iran and Damascus. If you remember,

Damascus was the only Arab regime that backed Iran in the war against

Iraq, so it is a very close relationship. It is a relationship

where a ban is unlikely to abandon as that easily. At the same time, I

don't think they will go with him to the end because they would like

Syria to remain an ally. When I talk about the vital interests, it

is clearly the screes that a ban is phasing on the diplomatic and

economic front as a result of their nuclear programme. That is their

most important concern. In Syria, there has always been a statement

which says clearly that Syria should look at reforms. This is a

euphemism to say, talk to the opposition, give them concessions.

But it could also mean to Mr that The one thing that the opposition

doesn't want to do is talk. That is a big problem at the moment. It has

divided opposition. Exactly. On top of that, they have been unable to

get together and say this is what a political objective bills. I have

heard some sound criticism by people who are close to the

opposition, English people. You have to have a coherent political

programme and you have to realise there is no way that the outside

world is going to our new and therefore if you choose to attack

the one strength the Azad regime has, overpowering supporter in the

army, you are going to lose. -- President Bashar al-Assad. I think

that there is probably a limited amount of influence that Iran has

be on the violence and aiding and abetting the violence. I think that

with things being equal, they would rather that situation was dealt

with. The economic situation is getting very grim in Syria, and

that could lead to the collapse of the regime. Equally it could slip

into more violence and end up with what we are beginning to see which

is a proxy war. You have got rush hour and Iran, Sudhir Arabia and

Turkey. Then it becomes more volatile and more dangerous. The

danger is they may find themselves in a situation which is getting

more and more out of control. That is the big danger. When you look at

Syria and the opposition, the opposition is divided. This is

exactly where balls leaders would like it to be. It is the same

strategy that the Iranian Government used during 2009, the

green demonstrations. They divided their opposition. Some of them came

to them, some didn't. When there is this talk about let's have a

diplomatic solution, I think definitely. You cannot go on

fighting. But the Syrian opposition itself has to get its act together.

So it is not influenced by the regime in and around or by Mr

Assange. After months of negotiations, Greece has met the

conditions for the second bail-out. -- President Bashar al-Assad.

Hardly champagne corks popping in Greece. There will not be any

champagne being consumed in vast quantities in Greece for a long

time. They have a long road, the Greeks have a long and terrible

road. What is interesting is that from the time of this crisis

exploded which has last summer or till now, the idea that it could

bring down everything. It could send the world economy to a new

dimension which we do not want to know about. It has focused the

European leadership, finally, on dealing with the essential flaws in

the euro. I think that Greece itself is probably the conventional

wisdom is right, there is need for another bail-out. We have also seen

something which has been missing which has been understanding it. It

is not just an economic crisis. It was a crisis that forced the

political and social side of their EU to play its role and there has

been leadership. The eurozone is still together, there has been time

to build firewalls. I think that in the end what should be acknowledged,

not celebrated, is that they even got there in the end, founder wake

to a bail-out, find a way to get the central bank... Far now. Again,

markers are now down. They were fumbling at the end of last year.

The leader of the ECB has clever ways of getting around his

constitutional restrictions. think you're going to rain on his

parade. I am probably the least eurosceptic person on this panel.

think there are two things. It is shocking how bad the situation now

is. The reality is that people are still living off their savings,

people who are living -- having been unemployed, there are still

living off... The idea that we have solved the problem in Greece is a

long way off. The Greeks have a horrible time ahead of them. I do

not think they have resolved the problems of the euro. It is only

sustainable for a small block in northern Europe. I do not think it

is sustainable for longer term. These are the issues that have not

been resolved yet and they are still going along the lines that we

can hold it all together despite the problems we have got a thing

Greece and the unresolved problems in Spain and Portugal, we can carry

on as if nothing has happened. with the first bail-out we knew it

would not be the last month. The bail-out situation is more than

economics, it is politics as well. At this time, imagine, right now

with the world where it is, all the Arab countries that went through

the spring, Egypt, sadly for Europe, Europe has a special role to play

and all of these areas. For Greece to collapse and for the euro to

collapse, that would mean they disaster internationally for

everybody. So I think Fahmy I think the way I would look at it is just

like that damn that was a small hole and this little child put his

hand in that hole. But so that the dam would not break and kept it

there. I think greases a little ball in that damn. I have been

relatively and not to miss on the situation. I think the perceptions

of France and Germany are very interesting and they're quite

contradictory. Yesterday President Sarkozy gave the impression that

the problem was settled, the Greek problem was settled. But the German

Finance Minister gave the impression that this is an

opportunity for Greece and Greece has to seize this opportunity. So

there is a conditional, and there on the part of the Germans, which I

would certainly hang on to for the moment. At the end of the day, it

is obvious that growth is the factor. I see some good news from

the United States which... A unemployment going down. There is

growth in the United States. I think the picture in India is good.

There might be a slightly slower growth in China this year, but

certainly if essentially the American growth feeds into Europe,

then I think it will be good news. EU have put your finger on an

interesting point, the differences between France and Germany. Isn't a

question how German attitudes have changed? You had the Finance

Minister saying we could deal with that great default. We could deal

with Greece and a different way if it should come to that. They are

able to contain Greece than six months ago keeping decent the euro.

I think they have to be realistic at the end of the day. As I have

said before, Germany will fight to the end to save the euro. I am

surprised that your optimism. just saying... I spent almost a

quarter of a century doing stories about the European Union. I always,

it always seems it to me, Germany does not want to be the country to

destroy the euro and it doesn't want to be the country there was to

bring down the European Union. It is not just about that case of what

is on the spreadsheet. It is about the social side. An interesting

speaking about Germany, which is strong, BMW released its annual

figures. It had a 51% increase in profits in 2011. In 2012, February,

their cells and China are already up 38%. So ill son up because the

euro is low and is extremely good for Germany. If the euro work to

follow part, there would be a re- evaluation of the new Deutschmark.

They would be uncompetitive. But it is also the social and politics

site. This is when I disagree with you, everything I have learned of

are the last six once, they will figure out a way to do some kind of

transfer of wealth back out to the Mediterranean. -- six months. I

think they do realise that there is this huge imbalance and they have

to reconsider. They are very solid and stable. So issue are new to the

panel, we will give you the last word. -- since you are. So much for

the idea that the euro will bring everyone together. In Greece the