with a certain degree of shamelessness, continue to do so, claiming, for example, that the American troops who brought about the fall of the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein provided an impulse which led to the revolutions of 2011.

It's easier to argue the opposite case: that the Iraq war of 2003 did indeed force a dictator from his palace, but it also extended the political lives of the other autocrats in the region. Iraq sank into years of civil war, and the democratic institutions set up by the occupying powers are still not working particularly effectively.

The Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, is not the only leader who has repeatedly pointed to the bloody chaos across the border in Iraq in order to make it clear to his citizens that theyany ruler who cooperated in the fight against the terrorist threat and helped to ensure regional stability would be seen as a "partner", or, as the Americans put it, as a "moderate" player, no matter how he treated his own citizens. Anyone who didn't cooperate ran the risk of being "democratised".

Islamism or Chaos

The rulers in the Arab world played along happily. Most of them were only too willing, out of self-interest, to act as the USA's partner in the fight against Al Qaeda or in the quarrel with Iran, and to receive financial support for their efforts.

"Extremely poor government": Towards the Europeans, Egypt's Mubarak presented himself as the only alternatives to chaos and radical Islam

​​Towards the Europeans, they presented themselves above all as guarantors of stability: the only