22/12/2012 Dateline London

advised to leave their homes. There will be a full news bulletin at one

o'clock. Now it's time for Dateline Hello and welcome to Dateline

London. The war in Afghanistan has been a success - is the official

British and American version of history. Does anyone believe them?

France tries to cleanse away the sour taste of colonialism in

Algeria. And what is it that propels Iran to want nuclear

weapons? My guests today are David Patrikarakos, journalist and author

of Nuclear Iran, Agnes Poirier of Marianne, Mustapha Karkouti, the

Gulf-based writer, and Donald McIntyre of the Independent.

Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron has been doing what prime

ministers and presidents have been doing for years - visiting the

troops in Afghanistan. The announcement that British

withdrawal from the country is to be speeded up is, at least in the

official version, a sign of the overall success of operations over

more than a decade. But despite all the lives lost, in what sense can

the war be seen to have succeeded? I sat through the Commons

announcement of the withdrawal and it seemed Becker ferry the moment

after all this time and expenditure. I think even Hammond, who is a

reassuring, confident Minister was not able to put much of a brave

face on it. Yes, there had been some improvements in security, lots

of British lives lost, a heavy price paid for it, and no sense in

the Commons that this was a great triumph. Not much talk about the

future, but enthusiasm for pulling the troops out. A have talked to

British soldiers who say Afghanistan is a better place now,

but the worry is how long will it last? It depends where in

Afghanistan you're talking about. If it is the capital, may be it is

a better place, but is all the country a better place? We still

have Taleban authorities in Helmand and other parts. IT not think the

waste's contribution over the past years has necessarily transformed

the country into a promising future. It is a far from it. As if the

British, who better than anyone else it understand Afghanistan it

very well. They went there first. Russia when 10, so they went in

again. They know Afghanistan is impossible to control and transform,

but they still make the same mistake, spend a lot of money, lose

a lot of lives and never learned the lesson. He could you clean the

region is in some ways worse off? We have seen Pakistani health

workers been murdered by eight Taleban because they're giving

polio injections in one of the few areas of the world where polio is

still endemic. So you could see the country is not on the right track?

I'm would agree with you. 12 years and so many lives lost, so much

money spent and for what result? I would love to be a historian in 50

years' time with access to the archives. Even with very little

distance, what is there to rejoice about? France has now withdrawn its

troops, although we still have some soldiers there. But what are the

results? 2014 is going to be very scary, because now all we can do is

try to get Pakistan to talk to Afghanistan and the town a ban, but

even the colour band do not want to sit down with Campbell. They want

to have direct Top's with American officials. As for women's rights in

Afghanistan, or you want to cry. Seen from their perspective of Iran,

if you look at the past 20 or 30 years, one of the strange things

America has done in pursuit of its own aims, was to knock off regimes

that were unsympathetic. Yes, the Americans removed security

concerns. They believe they gave America a lot of help in 2001. They

promise to pass on intelligence, the promised to search for any

American fighter pilot shot down. Their reward was one year later

been called a member of the access of evil.

Did they see that what has become a war or which has embroiled Nieto,

as something that is fundamentally in their interests, because both

their enemies, the Taliban and the Americans are, are scuppered.

Absolute glee. Anything that bogs down America is good for Iran. I

think you're absolutely right, this has been good for Iran in any way

you looked at it. Do you think we have learned

anything? The lessons of 120 years ago are still valid. I think it has

been a kick in the teeth for this grandiose doctrine for which

Blair's famous Chicago speech was the high point. I do not think that

means you should never intervene anywhere at all, but I think it

does mean this confidence that some higher western countries can sort

things out, this omnipotence that informs the operation in

Afghanistan, be he needs questioning. It does not mean that

you do not intervene, yes you do. No troops on the ground, you get

the illegality, without which it would have been totally different.

United Nations backing, but in case of Iraq and Afghanistan, nothing of

the sort. In fact, in Kofi Annan's recent biography, he made it clear

insinuation that had Tony Blair not gone through that and refrained

from interfering in Iraq, George W Bush would have thought twice

before going in. So he thinks Blair could have put a stop to it.

Absolutely. France's President Hollande visited the former French

colony of Algeria and confronted some uneasy facts about French

colonial history. The French and British carved up much of the Arab

world between them in the 19th and early 20th centuries. In the 21st

century, is a new post-colonial and more positive relationship now

possible? Yd think he went and said what he get? He stopped short from

the apology that has been asked for by Algeria, the Algerian Government,

for 50 years. He went quite fire, compared to his predecessors. First

of all, he was the first French president to a dress the state

parliament in Algeria. He stayed for two days. He talked at length

about and the brutal, unjust and French behaviour it during the 132

years of colonial history. He had some very harsh words for what

France debt in Algeria, sold to some level, it did bridge a gap, if

you want, but it is quite strange, because on the other hand, if you

look at the Algerian Government, it is one that has absolute power and

a thoroughly corrupt. It is a concrete Arab Spring Government, to

put it mildly. Maybe he doesn't want democracy in Algeria, because

it would bring in people he doesn't like. Perhaps, but there was some

sense that he find the right tone, but didn't ask any important

questions. At a lot has been written in the French media and the

Algerian media about the apology, but the issue is not that. The

business delegation where there for business and contracts. I am

shocked. You would never get British prime ministers deem the

same thing, selling fighter jets, for example! Going back to the

point of apology, I think, not only France, Britain should also

apologise, especially to the Palestinians. They sold off

Palestine to the Jewish people. You're from Syria originally, they

also carved up Iran. So many countries, the colonial power.

Where do we go from there? Bill Clinton apologised for slavery. He

was not directly responsible for it, so it is easy to apologise for

something you never did. I am sure people like something else, not

necessarily a Fairport apology. Support human rights, there are no

contracts unless human rights are protected. At an Algerian newspaper

suggested this was potentially an event by France and Germany. I

think you have a point, I do not think we should get too smug about

France's past in Algeria. In Britain, we have a pretty bad

record, not only as a colonial power, but as the departing

colonial power in India, Pakistan, Palestine, Cyprus. It is a pretty

long list. Obviously, for France, Algeria remains a big trauma. I was

very struck recently, it sounds different, but I think it is

similar. The apology made by the Prime Minister here for the killing

off at the Belfast solicitor. One of the points of this is the past

always does come back to hit you. The question is whether we learn

any lessons from it. That went down well with most people in Northern

Ireland. Or on the business of apologies, do you think the

Iranians would particularly welcome an apology from the British and

Americans for their attack in 1953? It is not quite happen, but it

lives on in the Iranian memory. Iran is the only country in the

world where they still think Britain is on top of the world.

They think Britain also strings and I was told when I was phoning in

Tehran that Jack Straw was running Iran! Very flattering if you're

Jack Straw! There to suggest that you are omnipotent! What could be

seen as irrelevant, an apology? Madeleine Albright did not quite

apologise, but she suggested regret. The Iranians need a scapegoat, so

they've talked about the great British, great American bogeyman.

There are many things around good apologise for like holding

Americans hostage. I'm interested in the psychology of it, about use

said the regime needs the bogey man, it is good to have an energy and

have an enemy. It bases a lot of legitimacy on at the great state,

this is why eight George Bush was such a godsend, he would talk about

read Jean changed and he would have people saying I do not like my

regime, but we will fight if we are attacked. Barack Obama is very good,

be removed a lot of legitimacy, and then many people say they have

gained a lot of succour from the overtures of Barack Obama. A Barack

Obama made a specific apology in his famous Cairo's speech. Let's

move on directly to Iran, because there was a prediction that their

nuclear programme will be a huge news story in 2013. Before Sunday

bullied into ideas of further sanctions at a military strike

against a regional superpower, maybe we should understand more

about why Iran feels threatened and why it is seeking a nuclear bomb.

Can you explain the world as seen from Tehran now? The Iranians, they

view the modern world as perennially of a hostile. Iran has

lost territories, its last Azerbaijan, it has been divided up

between the British and the Russians during the Great Game, and

there were many things in the 1953 coup that overthrew the President.

They believe the world is hostile and there is a narrative that

wrecked that essentially goes like Iran is a wee country that has to

do what it can against stronger and more powerful countries that wished

to meddle in its affairs, and because it has a strategic location

and because they have oil, they believe they will always be a

target and had to deal with this. The nuclear programme is one of the

ways they have chosen to do this. Is it because it is associated from

a different regime? The nuclear programme began in earnest in 1974

when they rang got a lot if while money from the 1970s oil boom. It

is not an Islamic programme at all, it is 60 years old, the programme.

It is something that was supported by certain Americans at the time

including doldrums Wells? Yes, from the beginning, the United States

has been pretty consistent on proliferation. Even when they were

great allies with the USA, they were still very robust and

proliferation. I think it has become an international issue. I do

not think in our view of this historic background, definitely,

that there is always the pro-Israel lobby in America that have turned

the whole issue into an international game in a way. If

they had not been such pressure on the American administration's,

George Bush before, Barack Obama now, I do not think the nuclear

issue in Iran would have become, would have gathered that Clare

internationally. I would have to take issue with that slightly.

lot of this, I lot of the opposition comes with a hostage

crisis when the Americans took them. They decided in Washington

independent of Israeli pressure about Iran was not to be trusted

with nuclear technology, and that is when America got very robust.

Jacques Chirac thought Iran was not to be trusted with anything! I was

reminded of one of his apparently uncouth remarks, but if you think

about it quite profound. When he said years back, left Iran have

nuclear-power, because once it has it, what is it going to do that? Is

it going to use it? No. And actually, it will be a massive

problem for Iran. Once they have the nuclear bomb. They will also

have it in an earthquake zone. You talked about the Israeli lobby, I

am thinking about the Arab bloody, but Turkish lobby. -- the Arab

lobby. You know friends in the Gulf, Arab friends that are very worried

about what they called a Persian bomb. They are worried because of

Iran itself with a bomb or without a ban, so it is not really. Iran is

a huge regional power. It has that policies, views, concerning its

security, as they rightly said. And the security of the region. Iran

would like to be the main partner to the west, in particular to the

USA, in securing the region. Regardless of what the other small

apostates say or a cat. -- small Gulf states. The deal with other

regions with a great deal of aggressiveness on the one hand,

also, arrogance. It is not really the nuclear issue itself. That is

an interesting point, because David is right and a sense of being

threatened, but there was also a sense of being a great country and

a great culture. That sense of a chip on their shoulder. It is very

similar to the Israeli mentality, there is the persecution complex

and a sense of superiority and 20 married at two of them, it is a

toxic combination. I was strapless into David Dent before his book was

published, going in about 2007 on Israeli military intelligence. -- I

was struck by David's book before it was published. People are

wondering if Iran is bent a nuclear weapons and people are still unsure

about that. He laid out why Iran actually felt so threatened. I left

this briefing obviously realising that Israel was unhappy about it,

but having heard in a sense, the clearest case, Pakistan, India,

Israel, Russia, surrounded by nuclear powers. In the more

sophisticated thinking, that has been well understood. The problem

is, most of the debate, particularly as led by Benjamin

Netanyahu in Israel takes level account of the kind of things that

they're talking about. It is for public consumption but it also

means that this is read the electoral votes tend to be. What I

find interesting about Israeli thinking is what you said, if you

look at the military guys, three had soccer-mad saying attacking

Iran was a stupid idea. -- three heads have come at saying. We had

been told the about psychology with the economy for three or four years,

what is the way out of this? Looking in another way, you could

say that the United States should have good relations with Iran and

there are many, many good reasons for that, that is the biggest

picture, and so should and could Israel. They did. And they did well.

Is there a way out of this without military force? I hope so. I do not

think military force would work anyway. We have a window, Iran is

suffering with sanctions. The country is spiralling, inflation is

spiralling. People cannot afford chicken and rice. History shows

that Iran compromises when it is weak. When the Americans are taken

as Saddam Hussein a 2003, the Iranians were very scared and they

subsequently suspended uranium enrichment for two years, so they

did compromise. In October 2009 when the Americans that the

Iranians at Geneva that, the President wanted the deal was on

the table, but domestic circumstances predators him

accepting it, so I think that history shows that the Iranians to

compromise. We have got a window. Of the coalition put something good

on the table that the Iranians can take that they can save their face,

I think it is possible. It is all down to John Kerry now. It may be

if he is a trusted interlocutor. One thing that is being talked

about in the States is some kind of bargaining in which you have 20 %

in Richmond in a return for some lifting of sanctions. This is a

very important process. They have been sitting down, there were talks

from the American administration and that they were going to start

negotiations on that basis. I want to talk about that point she made

earlier, despite the mistrust between the US and Iran, they have

co-operated with the Iranians over strategically important issues in

Afghanistan and Iraq, now, they gave Iraq on a golden plates to the

Iranians, what does can you expect? Talking about mistrust. There is a

degree of co-operation that we cannot get into. They do all very