Biden's Middle East trip: Following in Trump's footsteps
WATCH: Biden looks poised to betray his campaign promise to sideline Saudi Arabia. Does this really serve America's interests?
Responsible Statecraft
Responsible Statecraft is a publication of analysis, opinion, and news that seeks to promote a positive vision of U.S. foreign policy based on humility, diplomatic engagement, and military restraint. RS also critiques the ideas — and the ideologies and interests behind them — that have mired the United States in counterproductive and endless wars and made the world less secure.
Top photo credit: , First Lady of Iraq (Office of the First Lady)
Exclusive: Iraq's First Lady says 'this is not our war'
March 05, 2026
As the conflict in the Middle East engulfs more countries, recent media reports alleging that the CIA is planning to arm Kurdish ground troops to spark an uprising in Iran have been met with vehement denials by Iraqi Kurdish officials.
However, while the Trump administration has denied that report, it is engaged in outreach to the various Kurdish groups to enlist their participation in an uprising against the Iranian regime. Meanwhile, after unconfirmed reports that some Kurdish groups were already engaging in cross-border attacks on Wednesday, the Iranians launched airstrikes at what they say are “anti-Iran separatist forces” in the mountains of Western Iran.
This only underscores the concern that in wartime, even unsubstantiated claims can imperil the hard-won stability of Iraq’s northern Kurdistan region, placing it in the crosshairs of a conflict it neither started nor supports. Erbil and Sulaymaniah have already been struck by missiles.
Iraq’s First Lady, Shanaz Ibrahim Ahmed, married to President Abdul Latif Rashid, is well versed in the region’s complicated matrix of interests. She spent decades in opposition during the rule of Saddam Hussein, later joined the Iraqi National Congress, and went on to serve as representative of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) in Europe during the term of Iraq’s first post-war president, Jalal Talabani.
Speaking to Responsible Statecraft on Thursday, Ibrahim Ahmed insists this is not Iraq’s war and that the best thing for Iraq is not to get involved.
“It is not our war, and the Iraqi people should not be placed in danger of another round of destruction. Even now, we are still uncovering mass graves of people who were killed during Saddam Hussein’s regime more than 35 years ago,” she says.
The interview here:
As the war between Iran, Israel and the United States intensifies, how concerned are you about the risk of spillover into Iraq?
Well, I am very much concerned because war is just like fire. It accelerates if it is not controlled, and once it gets out of hand it becomes impossible to stop. Because we have lived through war for many years, we know the trauma that comes afterward. We know the damage and destruction. It takes years and years to rebuild any country, and even longer for human beings who have lived through war. It is not easy to erase the sounds you hear, the cries, the pain and the fear people experience.
Do you believe Iraq is prepared, politically and socially, to withstand another external shock?
Surely not. Iraq has been through a great deal, and people have only recently begun trying to return to normal life, trying to rebuild the country and restore it to where it once was as a functioning state. Mentally, socially and economically, people are not prepared to go through what they have endured before. That is why you can see fear in everyone’s eyes.
There have been reports circulating about Kurdish involvement in the Iran war. How do you respond to these reports, and what is your understanding of the Kurdistan Region’s position in this escalating crisis?
You cannot trust everything you hear. The reality may be one thing, but some media outlets and websites say something entirely different. Considering what the Kurdish people have gone through throughout history and how they have been treated, I do not think you would find any reasonable or sensible Kurd who would allow themselves to be used in such a way.
What effect are these allegations having on the stability and reputation of the Kurdistan Region? Erbil and your hometown Sulaymaniyah have both been hit by missiles. How worried are you that these attacks will inflame tensions within the Kurdish region, Iraq or with neighboring countries?
I am extremely worried. When false reports appear, they put you directly in danger and expose you to anyone who might want to attack the region. As Kurds, we have often said that we know we have no real friends in this world. So this situation is extremely sensitive. These reports are damaging and they affect the daily lives of ordinary people. I do not know whether those who are spreading such reports understand the consequences of what they are doing, but it risks making the Kurds targets once again.
Many people across Iraq fear that the region may be moving toward a full-scale “Great War.” From your vantage point, how real is the danger of a broader regional conflagration, and what steps can Iraqi leaders take now to prevent that outcome?
From what we see and hear, many countries are already involved in what is happening. This creates the impression that the conflict could expand further, because every day we hear that another country has been attacked by one side or the other. They are destroying each other’s countries and demolishing what these societies have built and been proud of.
Even if it does not become a world war, the damage is already enormous. If it does not stop now, it will continue, and more countries may become involved, whether they want to or not.
The best thing for Iraq is not to become involved in this war in any way. It is not our war, and the Iraqi people should not be placed in danger of another round of destruction. Even now, we are still uncovering mass graves of people who were killed during Saddam Hussein’s regime more than 35 years ago.
In times of crisis, misinformation spreads quickly. How damaging do you believe propaganda and unverified reports are to Iraq’s stability?
It is extremely damaging. Even without war, trust between Kurds and Arabs, between other communities in Iraq and trust with neighboring countries, is still fragile. That trust has only just begun to rebuild. False reports create divisions and drive a wedge between communities.
You are First Lady of Iraq, but also a politician in your own right, having played a key role in the exiled Iraqi opposition in the run-up to the 2003 war. At this critical juncture, what message would you send to policymakers? What should they understand about Iraq’s position, the Kurds’ position and what is at stake if tensions continue to rise?
First of all, I am really surprised and shocked because this new American administration said at the very beginning that it would bring peace to the Middle East. That made everyone extremely happy, because people were looking forward to peace and stability in the region. But it did not turn out that way.
So I would ask them: after all this destruction and war, what comes next? What are they thinking? What is their plan? Do they believe that by destroying all these countries they will eventually achieve peace? I do not believe peace can be reached through fire and destruction.
If there is a plan behind this destruction, then explain it. If sacrifice is needed, justify it. If this devastation is meant to secure stability, then demonstrate it to those who are paying the price. Recycled slogans don’t mean anything here anymore when we have endured war after war. What we need is dialogue, not war. Even the American people are tired of war.
Iraq is in a unique position in the region. Longstanding good relations with both Washington and Tehran. In the context of the current crisis, can Baghdad play a mediating role?
It is always possible. Yes, it is possible. And Iraq should be given that chance to mediate. No country wants to be part of destruction. But I believe there are countries that would be willing to take part in reconstruction and in bringing real peace to the region.
Because once the region is in danger or destabilized, it affects everyone. It affects all countries. Therefore, Iraq’s position should be taken more seriously. Its offer to mediate should be treated seriously and considered while it is still on the table.
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: EUS-Nachrichten / Shutterstock.com
France and Germany launch Europe's nuclear Plan B
March 05, 2026
Since early last year, France has been exploring with Germany and other partners the question of expanding or extending France’s nuclear deterrent to protect NATO partners in Europe.
This idea, in more modest versions advanced by France since the 1990s, always met resistance from traditionally Atlanticist Germany, concerned never to appear to doubt U.S. defense commitments to Europe. France itself has until now also been ambivalent about seeming to internationalize its force de frappe, conceived as the ultimate guarantor of France’s national territorial defense.
Germany and France have recently found common ground on extending French nuclear deterrence, so long as it complements rather than replaces the U.S. nuclear deterrent and applies equally to all European NATO members. France has also attracted interest in its proposal from Poland, Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark and Greece.
Speaking at France’s Longue Ile base for nuclear-capable submarines on March 2, Macron announced a new policy of “advance deterrence” extending deep into Europe, while retaining France’s sole responsibility for any decision to use a French nuclear weapon. Despite this reservation, the announcement represents a major shift in French nuclear doctrine. Macron argued that Europe could not “afford to stay out” of a “new age of nuclear weapons.”
He said that Paris would be willing to deploy nuclear-capable Rafale fighters to partner countries in Europe and introduce new cooperation on nuclear planning. After Macron’s speech, France and Germany said they had formed a new steering group to realize these ideas and to “add to, not substitute for” NATO’s nuclear deterrence.
In July, France and the UK signed the Northwood Declaration pledging unprecedented coordination on their nuclear deterrence policy.
The European Nuclear Study Group of experts produced a report for the recent Munich Security Conference on filling perceived gaps in Europe’s nuclear deterrence. The group has explored policy options ranging from continuing to rely exclusively on U.S. nuclear deterrence, to extending nuclear cooperation with France and the UK, seeking a nuclear weapon for Europe as a whole, or even to allowing new, independent national nuclear weapons.
The latter two of these options would breach the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which Europe has been a principal adherent. The fact that either European or national nuclear weapons have even been put on a discussion agenda reflects a momentous shift in European thinking. Germany committed not to seek nuclear weapons under the 2+4 agreement that brought about German reunification. The approach being offered by France seems the least disruptive option available if reassurance is in fact needed.
Why has this issue arisen now?
The receptivity to France’s overtures certainly reflects some loss of confidence in the reliability of American security commitments to NATO partners. Europe’s worries arise in large part because of the willingness of the Trump administration to reach an accommodation with Russia over Ukraine.
Macron and France’s partners on this initiative are in a hurry because a victory of the right populist Rassemblement National (RN) in presidential elections next April could radically change France’s stance regarding European security arrangements. The RN leadership and potential Macron successors Marine Le Pen and Jordan Bardella oppose the idea of “sharing” France’s nuclear deterrence. Macron apparently aims to put arrangements into place that would be difficult for a new president to reverse.
Why has Germany’s attitude changed?
Germany has tended in the past to resist suggestions from France to Europeanize security arrangements in pursuit of strategic autonomy. In particular, Germany feared signaling any lack of full confidence in the protections of the U.S. nuclear umbrella. Germany is one of several NATO countries involved in “nuclear sharing” with the U.S. and will not want to undermine this arrangement.
Over the last two years, Chancellor Friedrich Merz has undertaken a major conventional rearmament program, which risks overshadowing the conventional military capabilities of other European countries, including France. By far the largest economy in the European Union, Germany can pursue this program because of its comparatively sound public finances and low indebtedness. German rearmament has, however, already caused a certain wariness among Germany’s partners, leading Merz to reiterate constantly Germany’s commitment not to pursue unilateral security goals but instead always to act within a framework of collective European security. Merz emphasized this in his speech to the Munich Security Conference last month.
Participation by Germany in a French-led initiative to reinforce nuclear deterrence is a practical demonstration of Berlin’s European orientation and may offer a measure of reassurance to countries like Poland, where German conventional rearmament might otherwise be viewed with concern.
How might the US react?
The European NATO member countries have differing views on the likelihood of a permanent disaffection by the U.S. from Europe and NATO, but the tide seems to be shifting gradually toward a loss of confidence and a degree of adaptation. The U.S. threat to take Greenland by force and the commitment in the Trump administration’s National Security Strategy to support national populist parties contending for power in Europe provoked a loss of faith in U.S. security commitments.
The Europeans nevertheless hope to persuade Trump to reconsider his stance on Ukraine and his pursuit of rapprochement with Russia. At the same time, they would like to be prepared for a durable shift in U.S. foreign policy priorities away from Europe, requiring Europe to develop greater strategic autonomy, an aim long pressed by Macron.
The U.S. has not commented on the French proposal and has reportedly given private assurances that the American nuclear deterrence still applies fully to the European members of NATO. It remains an open question how fully the U.S. would wish to accommodate the extension of French nuclear deterrence to European NATO members. Russia will of course firmly oppose the French initiative, which could further set back prospects for an agreement to end the war.
There is a delicate balance to be sought between seeking insurance against U.S. withdrawal of its nuclear umbrella and demonstrating to the U.S. and others needing convincing that Europe can emerge as an independent geopolitical actor in a world dominated by great powers.
keep readingShow less
Top photo credit: Madrid, Spain - October 12, 2025: National Day Parade held in Madrid. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez attends the parade with other politicians. (Marta Fernandez Jimenez/Shutterstock)
On Iran, Spain's Sanchez rises above the bowed heads of Europe
March 05, 2026
While most European leaders have responded to the U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran with condemnations of the Iranian regime and tepid calls for "de-escalation" designed not to offend Washington, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has unequivocally condemned the war on Iran as a breach of international law.
Contrast that with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz who chose to insist at the war’s outset that "this is not the time to lecture our partners and allies" about potential violations of international law.
Meanwhile the the British Prime Minister Keir Starmer went to considerable lengths trying to have it both ways: on the one hand, appealing to the international law, on the other he allowed Washington the use of the British military bases for “defensive operations” – which, in effect, are no such a thing as they include targeting Iranian missile launchers on the Iranian territory. He still incurred President Donald Trump’s insult that Starmer is “no Winston Churchill."
The leaders of other major European countries have performed only slightly better – French President Emmanuel Macron waited for fully four days to declare that the U.S./Israel war is “outside international law.” And even then, he pledged to send air defense assets and a warship to defend the island of Cyprus from the strikes from Iran on the British military base there, in retaliation for the UK’s support for attacks on Iran.
Macron also said he wanted to build an international coalition to secure commercial shipping routes “essential to the global economy.” He said France would contribute its aircraft carrier, the Charles de Gaulle.
Sanchez’ position deserves attention because not only did he talk the talk but he also walked the walk. In foreign policy, coherence is a matter of credibility.
Concretely, Sánchez has refused to allow U.S. aircraft to use the jointly operated naval and air bases at Rota and Morón in Spain for strikes against Tehran. That decision predictably elicited Trump’s ire. He called Spain “terrible” and threatened to cut off all trade with Madrid. He also said if he wanted to use Spanish bases he would “fly in there” if he wanted to.
“We could just fly in and use it, nobody is going to tell us not to use it. But we don’t have to,” he said.
Far from folding, Sanchez doubled down by rejecting the violations of international law in a historic televised address to the nation. He dismissed the “illusion that we can solve the world’s problems with bombs” and vowed not “to repeat the mistakes of the past.” The position of the Spanish government can be summarized in four words he uttered: “No to the war.”
On Wednesday, the White House spokesperson said the Spanish had reconsidered and agreed to help after all. The Spanish Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares immediately went to the media and said it was not true. "I can refute (the White House spokesperson)," Albares told Spanish radio station Cadena Ser. "The position of the Spanish government regarding the war in the Middle East, the bombing of Iran and the use of our bases has not changed one iota."
This is is not the posture of naive idealists. It is the stance of a tough, realist leader (Sanchez) who remembers history, reads his audience, and acts to shield his country from a senseless, illegal war and its possible consequences, such as terrorist blowback, economic hardship and mass migration.
Of note, the Spanish leader invoked a memory of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. "A few irresponsible leaders dragged us into an illegal war in the Middle East that brought nothing but insecurity and pain," he warned.
The comparison is apt and resonates strongly in Spain. In March 2003, then-Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar offered full-blown support to George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq — a moment immortalized in the “Azores trio,” a photo featuring Aznar, Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair following their summit on those Portuguese islands where the decision was taken to launch the war.
The blowback haunted Spain when Al Qaeda terrorists bombed the Madrid train station almost exactly one year later, killing 193 and injuring more than 2,000 people – the biggest terrorist attack in the nation’s history. The attack preceded general elections a few days later, and, while Aznar’s government initially tried to blame Basque separatists for the atrocity so as not to harm the chances of his conservative successor, the evidence soon emerged pointing to the Islamist terrorists acting in retaliation for Spain’s role in Iraq. The Socialist opposition went on to win the election.
Like the Iraq war, the current strikes on Iran lack UN Security Council authorization. Also like the Iraq War, they are being justified by appealing to noble sentiments — in this case, solidarity with Iranian women suffering under the regime, including some Iranian exile activists who have lobbied for war to vindicate “women’s rights.”
Sánchez has been particularly sharp on this point. "Women's rights must never be used as a pretext to launch wars that serve other interests," he argued. "If we truly believe in the freedom of Iranian women, the answer cannot be more violence. It must be more diplomacy, more support, and more international law."
This is not to defend the Iranian regime. Sánchez has been explicit: "Let's remember that one can be against a hateful regime, as is the case with the Iranian regime... and at the same time be against an unjustified, dangerous military intervention.” The distinction is critical — and lost on those who equate, in bad faith, opposition to war with sympathy for Tehran.
Why does Sánchez's stance matter? Because it offers a different path, other than utter submission to Trump, for Europe. Political leaders like Merz and like-minded politicians and pundits seem to be intoxicated with the notion of Europe becoming a “hard power” and seemingly equate its exercise with becoming junior partners in a war against Iran.
Yet, as the European Union expert Alberto Alemanno recently wrote, "Europe backs a war it didn't start, won't fight, and can't afford. Washington gets the geopolitical prize. Europe gets the bill.” That bill will come due in higher energy prices, potential migration flows, terrorist threats and political instability on Europe's southern flank.
Sanchez is refusing to play a part in facilitating any of this. This is not “hard power” but self-defeating subservience to Washington as it wages an illegal war with aims that appear to change from day to day, if not from hour to hour depending on which Trump administration official is speaking at any one time. Europe’s leverage, to the contrary, lies in using its diplomatic and economic power to act in its own collective self-interest.
That means, in this context, denying the U.S. the use of any military bases in Europe for any purposes that violate international law and self-defense. As to Trump’s threats to stop trade with Madrid as retaliation, they ring largely hollow. While legally not impossible, such a move would effectively mean sanctioning the entire EU single market – a full-blown trade war that is probably a political and economic non-starter even for the Trump administration.
Sánchez, however, cannot act alone. Spain is a middle power, not a superpower. But his stance matters precisely because it demonstrates that alternatives exist.
Israel’s foreign minister has questioned whether Sánchez is on "the 'right side' of history.” It is a telling formulation. In 2003, those who opposed the Iraq War were similarly dismissed. Today, few would argue they were wrong.
The Spanish position is not anti-American. It is not pro-Iranian. It is simply pro-law, pro-peace and anti-war. In a world hurtling toward wider war, that makes Pedro Sánchez the voice of sanity Europe desperately needs.
keep readingShow less
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.
Newsletter
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.