 Great, I can't wait to enjoy it. And, is there any remaining questions? Let's talk. Yeah, just a little bit. Sorry, my name is Anne. Thanks for watching. Yes, it was really fascinating before to see the film. And I have to speak with you in a few minutes. I hope you'll take it anyway. But I suppose, like, listening to your talk, it's end of the week. And I suppose I'd be interested in your view on both the likely outcome of the situation. If there is an outcome, that's ending. And perhaps the desirable outcome of the situation. If there is. The ideal outcome, I think in fairness, as somebody's been observing for a while, is obviously, it's more of the same. Right. A consolidation of the regime. A consolidation of the Iranian position. But again, as I've explained, it's inflaming regional attention. This is not a status quo that can last. It is not sustainable. The forces pushing it to think it seemed to give the impression that it's but it's not. The tropes sabotaging the Iran deal of Michael is probably, I know it seems crazy to say because he didn't do it for the right reasons. But it may force some kind of regional discussion. Because as things stand at the moment with the Iranians, de facto, in occupation in Syria, it's not a sustainable position. Which thereby makes the exacerbation of the Iranian regime. Which thereby makes the Assad regime a non-sustaining position. But at the same time, it has to be admitted, you know, militarily. The opposition has been de facto crushed. Civilians are in a catastrophic position. And even more seriously, something I didn't mention, you may be aware of if you follow this, that the Assad regime has passed law number 10, which is the most egregious measure which builds on the area of legislation. Which gives the regime the power to steal the homes of refugees. In other words, they have to come back within a few weeks at the moment and establish their right to their homes in all these areas. And to count the moment the Iranian regime can steal those homes. Even in the homes where the Iran regime is bombed and so forth, that's a very difficult thing to do anyway. Clearly, it's again part of the we engineering Syria to eliminate the opposition. Again, that only makes Syria more unstable, more viable. I mean, from a defensive military point of view, you might think that easier to hold. But again, it kind of contributes to the general inflaming of the region, because the regime is sending a message we're not returning clearly to present situations not sustainable. And in a sense, the West again is totally distracted by the Iran people. I mean, how can the Iran people be saved if there isn't something done about Syria? Which is the cockpit of the Middle East in a way that the Palestinian conflict never was, never was. That was always felt equitably to a World War. People on the ground would always say, well, you know, the Arab regime they set it low and off, but there's no Palestinians. But as we saw, the Palestinians were butchered in the Arab refugee camp outside Damascus. I mean, it's sad when Russia landed a massive Palestinian in the Arab refugee camp. I mean, the Palestinians in the occupied territory was given to another people. They already had to be embarrassed into protesting about that. It's just shocking, you know. But your question is obviously the key question. I'm more alarmed about that because I don't see people appreciating the strategic significance of Syria enough, not just on humanitarian grounds with Israel and Iran, virtually a war in Syria. I mean, this talk about the Iran deal is a joke. Thanks very much for an excellent presentation. I think most of us probably had an interest in the area coming off the floor, but I think we put it on with the original understanding of the depths of how far it goes. One question relates to the recent speak that we had here at the Institute. She was from Brooklyn's institution. She used to work in the State Department. She was sort of an expert on Turkey and the whole thing. Yeah, she talked with the groups out. She talked with the groups out there backing. And after the discussion there was a lot of discussion about the response and the lack of response from the US. And she really put it back on the audience and sort of said where was the European response? And why did all these states have to step in and you mentioned throughout your remarks there, Obama, Obama, Obama. I'm just wondering, you know, what could the EU, what could what could we have done differently? I think it's a fair question. I was giving the obvious as the rest of us. We do give out about American farm policies so many and then we still look to the Americans and do something. I mean, I'll be passionate European as well. We always wanted to independent European farm policy. What is a clear example of why it's needed really? I mean, obviously the Europeans were negligent and extreme. We wouldn't have a refugee crisis in Europe if Europe had stood up if we had stood up for the values we're supposed to stand for, you know, human rights, democracy, freedom, expression, social justice, etc. which all the things the Assad regime was dedicated to crushing. So, I mean, clearly, we shouldn't have allowed way back in 2011 when those resolutions were vetoed by the Russian, we should have said, no, we will not accept this. We will not accept the regime. We will take sphere sanctions action and close down this country. Remember, sanctions will work if people want them to work. I mean, you know, you could see the power of American sex ability but the Europeans have an equivalent power because they can embarrass the Americans particularly at a point in time where the Americans are supposed to be interested in something like this in the Middle East so it wouldn't be possible for them to actually do something about that, you know what I mean? So again, it requires a much more vigorous European response. It seems to have a timidity about foreign adventures, you know, taking foreign action when it's in Europe and their own interest. You know, the French are enthusiastic about such adventures, you know, and of course the Libyan experience may have to some extent coloured perceptions and actions there which is a good afford. You know, but then again, when you think back to the Libyan situation, you know, no matter what happened in Libya, we just did what we did in Iraq, and it was a failure to appreciate the importance of having police action after the initial military occurs and again, Libya had actually prevented the masquerade with Benghazi and we know from Syria that if that action hadn't happened, people would have been wiped out and again, it gets back to this kind of realist approach and I personally think the Europeans are far more realist than the Americans in that sense. Stability, the status quo, they all seem to please a big sigh of relief. We don't have to reach consensus to take action but unfortunately, when you don't take action, it doesn't go away. Look at what's happened. We have a bigger refugee crisis now than that was what was supposed to happen if we military intervened with our refugee crisis. We were much bigger, because there's no intervention and not even military, it's even worse now that it could be imagined really in a sense that it's led to destabilization of any ways of Europe. You know, all these right wing governments and again, the Russians are malevolently involved, they're stimulant, non-selectronic through their various machinations exploiting them. But again, of course, the West doesn't say anything as well with them when it gets challenged so I mean, that's the way the game is played but the point is, Europe has completely failed. It doesn't have effective foreign policy, it doesn't have effective security policy and Syria exposes why Europe needs one and it's not about exporting military intervention. As I've said, people in Syria did not want this to turn into a violent conflict because the moment it did they would suffer too much and they would lose and Europe could pioneer a new way because one thing I really think, I just learned in the Irish Times, that there's just recent examples, I just learned about the failure of people generally as well, particularly in the Middle East, to realize that when headed to that, the founder of the Red Cross in the 1860s thought you're the creator of the old, you know, bombing hospitals, killing the wounded on the battlefield, we're supposed to respect this and in fairness, for quite a while, that's how it all died in Syria. Now, people would argue, of course, that it really died to some extent in Iraq and maybe the Israelis and Gaza, high argument, ridiculous, they did still keep some semblance of order there but in Syria, we have plummed new depths and Europe has stood on the side by this time, not just bombing hospitals, by mistake but bombing the same hospital or bombing schools, bombing breadcruise, bombing bakeries, bombing old civilian areas, operating a scorched earth policy, you know, in the region. I mean, there is no humanitarian law in my view anymore, I mean, I think it's gone because it certainly hasn't been respected in Syria and I didn't see any major protests from, well, they might be perfunctory objections but in other words, Europe is clearly not pursuing its own interests, you know, because there's a lot we could have done from the very beginning as I said, you know, because I think people always come first when they think about military action and sometimes it is necessary, you need to know about it and so forth but long before you get to military action there are sanctions regimes, there are always cutting off these regimes we see it now, the Trump administration and Iran, we now suddenly see how effective these sanctions regimes can be. Those sanctions regime, that sanctions regime, if it had been applied to Iran over Syria would have stopped this act a long time ago in Syria. Now, the Europeans on the other hand have equal amount of power and more skin in the game because as I repeat, we would not have a refugee crisis if Europe had taken radical action here in Iran. Bush, why? I mean, obviously, I think there's too much stability, there's a failure to embrace an active foreign policy, you know, it is a fact it's difficult to most of the European cars to agree on things and then they fall into the usual Western responsibility in the Middle East which basically means leave the brutal detainers in place, let them repress people and that's what they think there's a solution in Syria now when they even said that is not a solution it's definitely not a solution because what you're saying now is it's not going to leave Assad in place it's leave Iran in occupation and I was highly amused the other day when apparently Putin is reputed that set, he would try to persuade Iran to leave Syria I mean, that is that the Iranians probably all fell around and laughed because we won in Syria you just took the, you took the lap of honor because we didn't want to try to human the America to get me around you so we had to let you take the credit for being under no illusions, no one in the Middle East is sort of wearing out that the Iranians are dug in and the reputation raised in the Middle East for intervention is very well known because the Kultz force you see what's going on in Yemen we're across the region, the Revolutionary Corps, they were founded essentially to protect the Iranian Revolution and the Kultz force is their foreign operation base and they really do meddle in the Middle East, now I realize something I think my brain has been taken over by Israeli propaganda but it's, I would suggest to you it's worth doing a little bit of research about them though because that knowledge that is there in their occupation I truly was shocked the more research I did on the Iranians because you would imagine for practical economic reasons the Iranians might have been a bit more restrained because their economy is in such dire shape but in no way the Iranian economy today is in dire shape because they are underwriting the Assad regime and they're not doing that with the Assad regime, they're doing that to further their imperial ambitions to become the reason for Hedjman to fulfill the objectives of their revolution which we don't want to give the impression they're idealistic about but essentially they see security in dominance as most powers are supposed to if they get away just taking Obama's position in 2013 he obviously was having some a lot of power on one side but he was being detected by the Rwanda and it was very interventionist in that sense and he was kind of all of the different experiences of the United States that he was trying to work through with Libya and Iraq and the U.N. and I was thinking he was always an ardent anti-interventionist he was already electric on that mandate of it but he was compulsive about not voting for the Iraq war but there's still not quite clear where the action could be because you have a sanctions regime, you go off the regime fine and it collapses but then you have a power vacuum and then you have to do the it's obviously a fair question but the problem is you see there was no commitment to engagement with Syria Syria poses problems at the time because the opposition was very fragmented the Syrian opposition did not make it easy for people because they weren't they didn't in Libya for example there was it was easy to support so it didn't require a certain commitment but I remember the line which they pursued was tell us what the good guys are in Syria that's a very cynical response because they got the intelligence reports they knew that stability in Syria required a transition that needed to be managed to get the Assad regime to negotiate something had to be done to convince the regime the West would take action till shall we say effect to change so action was needed to convince them of that fact and you know it does require engagement but as I say we have to just avoid following this militaristic kind of trap or just discussing military options the fact is a political solution was needed in Syria and a needed engagement for pretending that it couldn't have been done that it was too complex but things could because look what could be worse than what's happened more than half a million are dead the whole region has been destabilized the global power balance global system has potentially been destabilized by Syria because we're in the middle of a dynamic process that's still playing out that hasn't happened and as I say everyone in this room may yet end up suffering as a result in very practical terms so what I would say is Obama basically washed his hands out but the truth is of course he was given the water and the towel by the UK in other words by us by the European the Europeans more generally and again admittedly everybody might have been colored by Iraq but the problem is we're all kind of we've allowed ourselves to be sucked into that sort of military analysis by just allowing ourselves to be to be forced again to confront the situation in military terms rather than forcing us to confront it as individuals as societies watching other individuals families and societies being brutally murdered in mass human rights violations and not calling out those war crimes I can give one example about this which was raised in the documentary as well in New York and he was the first person to use the phrase you know war against civilians which sounds kind of a loaded term you know sort of almost a partisan phrase in a sense but the truth is that's exactly what they've done it's the military strategies that have been outlined in the earlier you know they focus on civilians you bomb civilians you force them to flee that's what gave ISIS the chance to come in because as they destroyed the revolutionary infrastructure of democratic poor nation degrees women's rights groups and new groups because a flowering of civil society revolution rubs you bomb as leaders you destroy that and you make it easy for these extremists to come in but obviously Obama wouldn't be very familiar with all that but just to show you even when a lepo with civilians in a lepo were being slaughtered Obama, he cannot have made that point on tape as well he said Obama instead of calling putting out all those war crimes against a man he was bombing he called Putin a partisan piece as he kept a fiction of those negotiations going so it would be very cynical very ruthless, very realist but as I say, as we see with this around you falling apart now but as I would argue even if Trump hadn't sabotaged it with Syria effectively like it has disintegrated dismantled effectively with massive foreign influence you know the scene is set where I'm very unfortunate to do more at the moment and it just gets back to my fundamental argument which is unless we really see our mission as individuals and communities really as genuinely committed and prepared to fight for human rights for others for freedom, for justice you know in it's solidarity with other people as people you know we have to reach beyond to achieve that because somebody was a little bit naive and I'm still trying to work this out with all my might as well but let's not kid ourselves they'll always go back to the fall position of stability which may paper over the cracks for another couple of years I promise you there will be another explosion and the problem at the moment is and this is one thing I found very alarming actually I really found this the most alarming but I really got the most pressing part of all it's fascinating that the Saudis and the Iranians have no contact they don't intermarry they don't meet each other they're remarkably disconnected in a way that few countries are in the same even in the same region it's remarkable I know there are Saudis and Shia but when you analyze it it really is very disturbing if two countries wherever they develop to go to war in Saudi Arabia and Iran and I can promise you it's not going to be like the first world war it may only take a few days in the air it will throw in a lot of countries in that battle but we still draw so much oil from the Middle East and you need to have no fear that the Iranian strategy while the Saudis are committed to protecting their oil things I don't really know the structure of Saudi oil things well they haven't developed but Shia is yet to do that particularly when the other the other adversary has the means to shall we say get around to current defenses that's not possible so I do hope we all escape the economic implications of that war because I think it might make the last recession look rather mild I just want to thank you again unless there's any other question that was quite quick how strong do you think the commitments to democracy rise in the Syrian opposition and the start of the revolution I was making a video I presume these are liberal slightly westernized particularly urban but like in some of the stricter and stronger areas there's a lot of people coming from near the place like that where I really was really a bit much just deep within the end of the regime how strong was the I think it's a good question what I would say is it was a very much to be honest this is a country people who were subjected to effectively a totalitarian regime they were really repressed and they definitely were about dignity freedom was used justice I think was used God was used because they tend to be quite well but not in an extremist way but there's no doubt about it at the same level you must remember there are people like Yassin al-Haisha the Syrians in educational terms are quite a well developed country definitely western democracy with the influence of all these people like Yassin would be in terms of course democracy he's not a what democracy means so I really think the leadership most of these revolutions tend to be quite a middle class but the Syrian revolution is strange enough it was quite a working class revolution because it was one of the big motors for such a popular uprising where the neoliberal policies quite ruthlessly implemented by Yassin al-Haisha because initially Yassin has followed up with this effected groups and poor people and certain other social reforms but as the economy changed and they began going much more towards the neoliberal get rid of the well first day type approach and that's a very cruel oversimplification they did turn out of opposition to support me at the opposition but I would say myself it was very much a pretty broad based spontaneous type movement but I was very impressed by the sophistication of many of the urban elements as well as committed to it and I would stress to you as well too the unity between the religion of the great religions, you know Christians, Druels, etc. were also involved because it's also work bearing in mind as well to reinforce that point that I mean interview prisoners who were tortured as well too made them met people in the religions and prisoners as well too so do not underestimate the debt and breadth of that and certainly you know I mean obviously definitely getting real dictatorship was your overwhelming priority there but the Syrians have really impressed me, it's very sophisticated setting large sexual educated people it's a very western place and it is a place like Damascus as well too so please do not underestimate the Syrians in that sense, yeah not very coordinated it was quite spontaneous in some respects and people very much worked to have a very fundamental kind of democratic way you know local councils at the local level in opposition areas you know people feeling profusely in a burst of mass development of free newspapers and free media it's the first time they had an opportunity in years to express themselves and so forth you know it would almost bring tears to one's eyes almost you know the idealism of that but I would have no doubt it was a genuine impulse that prioritized freedom of expression dignity as you make the words very good work as it's used all the time you know people would suffer the indignities of dictatorship, one would get rid of and certainly they were aware of what Western democracy looks like and they really considered what we had would be very much a very desirable of the old tools okay, I think that's a little more positive way to end the event really, thank you very much Sean for coming along, usually if somebody spends over an hour giving away a movie you'll not be interested in seeing it but I think we're all going to go home and cut an end on the movie this weekend so thanks very much for giving us that introduction it was a pleasure, thanks very much and we're going to stick around maybe if people don't know how to do the drink catch up and I don't know if you can please join us for those of you who certainly don't have any more questions