John P. Hannah is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and former national security advisor to U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney.John P. Hannah is a political pundit and advisor who served as a national security aide to former Vice President Dick Cheney. After leaving government service, Hannah became a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), a hawkish “pro-Israel” advocacy organization originally established as a policy counterpart to the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Hannah held his WINEP post until early 2010. In March 2011, the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) named Hannah a senior fellow.We contacted the Professor Hannah to discuss the current situations in Iraq and Kurdistan Region and he replied to our questions in an exclusive interview to Gulan Magazine as the following:

* All the expected bad scenarios, for Iraq after the withdrawal of US forces, are happening and the political process is tremendously in danger. To what extend this situation of Iraq is threatening the future of the country and the whole area?
- I do believe that the political situation in Iraq has deteriorated dangerously in the wake of the U.S. withdrawal. Properly deployed, American engagement -- diplomatic, economic, and security -- played a vital mediating function in Baghdad, providing reassurance, balance, and stability. Its premature removal has unquestionably created a vacuum that I worry is being filled by escalating mistrust, sectarianism, power grabs, paranoia and foreign meddling. That's a potentially lethal combination, an unvirtuous cycle that could be disastrous for Iraq and the wider region if not broken by determined and far-sighted political leadership -- first and foremost by Iraqis, but with the active help and support of the United States and other true friends of Iraq as well.

* Currently prime minister, Nuri Al-Maliki, shares conflict with Allawi on one hand and
with Kurdistan region on the other hand. The reason refers to ignoring the agreement which has shaped the Iraqi government and everyone describes Maliki as Authoritarian. Do you think if Maliki turns to become dictator and autocrat there will be sectarian war and violence in Iraq?
- I am worried about the possibilities for renewed violence resulting from a breakdown in the political process. After the horrors of 2005-2006, I'm sure that the last thing the Iraqi people want is to return to those dark days that threatened to destroy the country. But the hopes of the people must find expression in consistent acts of statesmanship -- the art of principled compromise -- by their political leaders. Together, they need to re-dedicate themselves to the core principles of the Constitution, the rule of law, and to building an effective government of limited powers and of checks and balances that guarantees the rights and freedoms of all Iraq's citizens. And I think the United States and the broader international community need to be vigilant in helping and encouraging Iraqi leaders to fulfill their responsibilities to their people.

* Iraqis have already passed through the undesired experience of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship. We all know that dictatorship can only rule in Iraq through using force and oppressing the different elements of the country. So, to what extend there is the risk of dictatorship taking place in Iraq again?
- The dangers to Iraq's young democracy are very real. This is hardly surprising, based on the country's political history and the history of its region. To say that the Middle East has not been hospitable soil for decent, limited, representative government that is accountable to the people is a gross understatement. Sadly, dictatorship and authoritarianism have been the default positions, certainly in the last half century. It would be foolish not to be constantly on guard against the reversion to non-democratic methods of governing. But I think it would be equally foolish to simply throw up our hands and say that democracy is impossible in Iraq and that the country is destined either for dictatorship or disintegration. The challenges and risks are formidable, no doubt, but so too are the rewards and benefits if Iraq's future as a federal, democratic state can be secured over time. That's a cause that I still believe is worth struggling for. The key, as always, will be the quality of political leadership across all Iraq's communities, and their resolve to work together -- with strong support from their key international partners -- on behalf of a common vision, grounded in the Constitution and a determination to thwart the myriad of threats that Iraq's democracy faces, both internal and foreign.

* The relations between Kurds and Baghdad are collapsing, Kurds have already made it clear that they no longer accept the autocracy and dictatorship of Maliki, and have also asked for returning back to dialogue and implementing constitution as soon as possible, but Maliki is not likely to do that. If the third aspect does not get involved, how long Kurds can go further with Iraq?
- Over the last two decades, what the Iraqi Kurds have accomplished -- with significant help and support from the United States -- is simply remarkable. They live on their land. They have their own government and regional security force. They have been blessed with ample natural resources and an economy that is growing impressively year-on-year. Their relations and links with the outside world are expanding. Yes, lots of problems remain. Good governance and the rule of law must be strengthened. Corruption must be fought. The benefits of economic growth need to be felt by more and more people. But the progress and gains that have been achieved are real and historic -- especially in light of the Kurds' tragic past in a very dangerous and unforgiving neighborhood. No one should ever lose sight of how far the Kurds have come in a very short time, and no one should ever take this success for granted. It must be protected, consolidated and expanded -- not by rash moves driven by emotions and unrealistic expectations, but by careful, patient, methodical strategic planning and preparation; by wise and visionary political leadership that maintains its historical perspective and long-term focus; and by close, candid consultation and coordination with the Kurds' friends internationally who care deeply about their wellbeing, and about the stability and security of the broader region.

* There is the probability that if Maliki doesn't resolve the problems, Kurds, Sunnis and part of Shiite will withdraw from the government. But some observers think that, even if Kurds and Sunnis withdraw from the government but Maliki will not step down from the authority. So, don't you think that Iraqi political process will fail if Kurds and Sunnis withdraw from the government?
- The Iraqi Constitution exists, as do Iraq's political institutions. Provisions have been made for a system of checks and balances, up to and including changing governments that have lost he confidence of the Iraqi people and their elected representatives. It is up to Iraq's political leaders to use and invigorate the democratic mechanisms and institutions that have been provided by Iraq's Constitution, rather than to dismiss, disregard or ignore them. I still believe that those Iraqi leaders who in good faith are committed to protecting and developing Iraq's federal, democratic system by working within the Constitution in a spirit of compromise, reconciliation, and inclusion have enormous power to neutralize those who aim to derail Iraq's democracy and independence -- especially if supported by a well-informed Iraqi public and an engaged international community.

* Last Question: All the probabilities lead us to pessimistic outcomes. To what extend the failure of the Iraq will harm US interests in the Area and how far United States are prepared to intervene so as to resolve the problem?
- Iraq's failure will be bad -- first and foremost for the long-suffering Iraqi people, but for the region and the United States as well. Anyone with a stake and interest in a stable, secure Middle East that enjoys growing prosperity and accountable government will lose. Iraq's strategic importance to U.S. interests is quite evident to me -- its large population, its enormous energy wealth, its geographic location at the center of one of the world's most important and volatile regions, bordering critical countries like Iran, Turkey, Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Iraq's future development will have a major impact on America's interests -- for good or for ill. Whatever view one takes of America's military intervention to remove Saddam Hussein from power, I believe that the U.S. has a deep and abiding national interest in wisely deploying our diplomatic, economic and military power to support Iraq's success and the success of the Kurdish region. The dangers and risks of simply turning our backs and disengaging are, in my view, too great.