A 'Newsnight' narrative is build up and then knocked down

The moment where it all began to go wrong

Many of Jeremy Bowen's doom-mongering reports in the immediate wake of the killing of Qasem Suleimani ended with variations on a single theme: "President Trump might be gambling that he has so weakened Iran that it will rage but not hurt the US badly. That assumption could be dangerous and wrong". 

It looks though, doesn't it, as if President Trump's assumption was in fact correct? He's taken out the murderous mastermind behind Iran's tangled web of terror and sucked up a few non-lethal missiles in response. And Iran has backed off. So, an audacious win for the US?

Well, Newsnight was asking that very question last night:

TONIGHT: President Trump has said Iran appears to be standing down after last night’s missile strikes. So has his big gamble paid off? Is this a foreign policy success?

The programme also gave its own answer to that question: No.

Emily Maitlis said: 

The killing of Qasem Suleimani, one of Iran's de-facto leaders, appeared to come from nowhere. The Trump administration rationalised it as the way to avoid an imminent threat to American lives. They're now billing it as job done, a win for America. But what if the opposite is true? 

And then she and her Newsnight colleague Gabriel Gatehouse set out to burst Trump's balloon by presenting an audacious take on the events of recent weeks to show that the Trump administration has, in fact, fallen into Suleimani's trap.

Here's the Newsnight argument: Given recent large anti-Iranian demonstrations in Iraq, Qasem Suleimani needed a distraction and, so, deliberately provoked a military attack from the US in order to unite Iraqis against the US, and - except for getting himself blown up - the Americans fell for it hook, line and sinker. By killing Suleimani, the Americans have only made things worse for themselves and strengthened Iran.

Well, it's a point of view. (An anti-Trump point of view, naturally).

Amusingly, however, it all then unravelled as Emily interviewed Laith Kubba, an independent advisor to the prime minister of Iraq, who proceeded to politely burst most of her and Gabriel's balloons.

A transcript is needed. Just look at Emily's questions and how loaded they are, and see how Mr Kubba undermines Newsnight's case at almost every turn.

It is, as Emily says, fascinating.

Emily Maitlis: We are going to take that further. Now I'm joined by Laith Kubba, independent advisor to Adel Abdul-Mahdi, the Iraqi Prime Minister. Does what you've heard from Gabriel make sense, that this could all have been part of the plan for Suleimani, part of the plan for Iranian influence in the region, in Iraq?

Laith Kubba: I think there will be an increased Iranian influence, but I don't think it is part of the plan. I think Suleimani had a more sophisticated plan, real structural changes in Iraq that have been taking place, building an army more or less integrated with the state but parallel to the traditional army, like the Revolutionary Guard, and that has been a very difficult issue in the last year. And of course, the whole issue of throwing rockets at the American Embassy and throwing rockets at the green zone, who actually is responsible for it? It embarrassed the Iraqi government, because it could not have full control over these armed groups. 

Emily Maitlis: So do you think Iraq now is more volatile as a result of his death? 

Laith Kubba: I think there will be transformation. I think the natural default position is Iran would try to have more influence in Iraq and would put pressure to get American bases out of Iraq. I think this pressure is going to continue to increase. There is a natural imbalance between Iraq and Iran because the state institutions of Iraq are very weak, including the army, the government and the bureaucracy. Iran has been working grassroots and building its influence in Iraq, a lot of it under religious ties and cultural ties. 

Emily Maitlis: The kind of soft power that you don't see coming in from the top?

Laith Kubba: And that is the reason when the pressure came to push the American bases out of Iraq, it only manifested itself in Shia areas. It wasn't in the Kurdish areas or the Sunni areas. So really its influence is with the Shias, but within the Shias there are different currents. It is not one uniform position. 

Emily Maitlis: So when you see President Trump tonight congratulating himself and the administration for handling it, there's a sense that he thinks that's job done, case closed - is that how you see it, that this is a win for America? 

Laith Kubba: I think it is a partial win, because we were all driven to a cliff, and everybody was worried, but at the end of the day Iran restrained its response, stood back, stood down, and I think spreading that fire, at least for the time being, it has been contained, but the fire is still there...

Emily Maitlis: (interrupting) Do you want the American troops to leave, then? Are they more likely to be leaving Iraq as a result, which is clearly what Iran would love? 

Laith Kubba: No Iraqi would simply like American troops to leave Iraq, for Iraq to be more or less under Iran and then for Iraq to be unstable because Daesh is back. Nobody wants that. But again, nobody wants American troops in Iraq to bypass Iraqi sovereignty and carry out attacks on Iran or anybody else. So the core issue for Iraqis is that currently the government and the state is so weak that both America and Iran feel comfortable to violate that sovereignty...

Emily Maitlis: (interrupting) And who is Iraqi anger directed against more? Is it the Americans or  is it Iranians? 

Laith Kubba: If you look at the younger generation, who wants a better country, I think they resent Iran's influence. If you look at the older generation who fought for years against Saddam Hussein, they align themselves with Iran because Iran stood by them. On balance, I think it will be a while before Iraq materialises its national agenda - it is a challenge. 

Emily Maitlis: Would you say that Iran tonight is a more powerful, more emboldened country than it was a week ago? 

Laith Kubba: No.

Emily Maitlis: You wouldn't?

Laith Kubba: No. I think the loss of Suleimani is a serious setback that will not be compensated in years, and I think it might create a real shift in how Iran pursues its goals of expanding, let's say, its influence by different means. But I do not think we can go back to the old days. 

Emily Maitlis: Laith Kubba, fascinating to speak to you. Thank you very much for coming in.