Regime change in Iran ‘phenomenally difficult’, says Nick Carter at Rising Bharat Summit | Full Q&A

As tensions surge in the Middle East following US strikes on Iran and retaliatory attacks across the Gulf, former UK Chief of Defence Staff Nick Carter cautioned that regime change in Tehran would be “phenomenally difficult” to achieve, warning that such a declaration could trigger a broader regional conflict. Speaking to Moneycontrol's Managing Editor Nalin Mehta and Network18 Group Consulting Editor Bodhisatva Ganguli at the Rising Bharat Summit, Carter said while Iran may be militarily outmatched in conventional terms, it retains powerful asymmetric levers — from proxy groups to the potential disruption of the Strait of Hormuz — that could dramatically escalate the crisis. Here's the full transcript of the interview:

Nalin Mehta:

Thank you very much. General Carter, a warm welcome to you for the Rising Bharat Summit. Thanks for coming down all the way to Delhi for this.

It's a good day to have a British General on the panel. We are entering a new age, as it were, in the Middle East. With Trump, as you know, General, as you're talking just off stage, has announced that regime change in Iran is the objective.

We've had attacks, retaliatory attacks by Iran at a series of targets of American bases in the region, in Qatar, in UAE, on the U.S. 5th Fleet in Bahrain. They've mostly been shot down, but we are seeing an escalation. So, sir, is regime change possible?

As a military professional who served in the region, you oversaw the withdrawal of British forces in Afghanistan. You served in various bases across there, including in Cyprus. How are you looking at this from a military point of view?

General Sir Nick Carter:

Well, I think regime change is always a phenomenally difficult objective to achieve. And I think in this particular set of circumstances, I'm no expert on Iran, but when you look at the way the regime is constructed, it's much more about a web of power rather than a sort of hierarchy like we see in this country or my own country. So I think that it may be all well and good taking out the leadership, but of course there's then the IRGC and there are a whole manner of other systems in place to make sure that the regime can survive and the revolution can endure.

So I think unless there is a genuinely popular uprising where people overcome the potential fear that the regime uses to remain in power as well, I think it will be phenomenally difficult to see it happen. Now, some of the military objectives I think may well be achievable. The idea of writing down Iran's ballistic missile program I'm sure is achievable up to a point.

It's interesting that despite the obliteration last June of the nuclear program, we're going back for more, so there must be something to be done there. And then of course there's the question of Iran's proxies. And we've not yet seen attacks by the proxies on U.S. bases in the region, but my guess is that U.S. bases in Iraq will be on a very high alert at the moment. And I suspect something will happen in northern Syria as well. And I think the question of course is, does this lead to a much wider regional conflagration? And that of course is what this country and my country are looking in on at the moment with some concern.

Bodhisatva Ganguli:

So just to ask a follow-up question, would it be fair to say that the odds are from a military point of view, military capability point of view, that the odds are stacked against Iran and that in that sense it's asymmetric?

General Sir Nick Carter:

Yes, certainly. But Iran also has, with her asymmetric capabilities, the ability to fight back. And I think if Iran can broaden the conflict, that's not going to be popular in the Gulf states, I would guess.

It's not going to be popular in the international community. And of course as we well know, 25% of the world's oil passages through the Straits of Hormuz. And as Iran demonstrated last week, they still have the capabilities to be able to certainly interdict the passage of oil and perhaps close the Straits of Hormuz.

So they've got other levers. And they've also got the ability to use terrorist tactics further afield. So beware of what you bring on I think always on these occasions.

Nalin Mehta:

So let me ask you one more thing. So you mentioned the Straits of Hormuz. Now for this country in particular, 50% of our oil supplies come through the Straits of Hormuz.

A significant part of global oil supplies go through the Straits of Hormuz. Most of Iranian oil supplies of course go to China, which is about 3% of the energy supplies. Now from what militarily, because we saw last year also in June when the strikes happened, what's different from then to now and what's the capability the Iranians have in your view?

I mean you mentioned the exercise they did last week to demonstrate the capability to sort of interdict the Gulf of Hormuz or the Straits of Hormuz. But how real is that capability from your point of view?

General Sir Nick Carter:

Well I mean I think it's interesting to sort of reflect on the fact that up until last week the oil price is as low as many of us can remember. And indeed of course one of the reasons that it was so loyal is because there was so much supply. But also I think because a lot of people have been stockpiling oil, not least the Chinese.

So I think that we're probably in a slightly different set of circumstances in the short term to what perhaps the pessimists might believe. Now if the Straits of Hormuz end up being interdicted and therefore effectively closed for a long period of time, that will have a major impact upon India's position and the global economy more broadly. But my guess is it's not going to be a long term problem.

It will be a short term problem. I think we will see the price of oil go up markedly tomorrow when markets open.

Nalin Mehta:

It's been somewhere around 70 to 75, 70 to 72 dollars a barrel last few weeks. A lot of people are saying it could go up to as much as 80 dollars a barrel pretty soon. Is that something that, what's your view.

General Sir Nick Carter:

I mean I'm not suggesting what it gets into insider trading just yet but my guess is it's going to go above 70 dollars when the markets open tomorrow morning for sure.

Bodhisatva Ganguli:

So if I may ask you, you know, if you go back to some of the wars of the Cold War, so let's say the Arab-Israeli wars, the U.S. America would back Israel and let's say Egypt would be backed by the Soviet Union including considerable supplies of weaponry. Now do you see in this current conflict, do you see China or Russia helping Iran in any significant way and B, I just also wanted to bring in this Venezuela operation where you know Maduro was taken out and so far from what it appears that Iranian air defense has not been particularly effective in countering the airstrikes, so what does that speak about the capabilities of a Russian supplied or a air defense system?

General Sir Nick Carter:

Yes, I mean I think I think what was very obvious in June last year was that Russia wasn't able and didn't seem inclined to help Iran militarily and I think what was also obvious was that it appeared relatively straightforward for the Israeli Air Force to take down the Russian supplied air defense system. Now I don't think it was the most modern of Russia's capabilities, I think there are more modern capabilities available not least what's called the S-400 but I think it does beg questions about the resilience of Russian and to a degree Chinese air defense systems if a combination of cyber and kinetic attacks can degrade them to the extent to which they've been degraded and my guess we haven't heard of it yet is that there's a degree of confidence in these latest American and Israeli attacks over Iranian airspace that the air defense system has been so degraded that they can attack with impunity. So I think it does beg questions about the challenge in the air defense world and it does beg challenge about what modern missiles in particular can do to be able to get past and around air defense systems.

Nalin Mehta:

So General you made a fascinating point outside when we were talking and with your permission if I may push you on that, you made the point that since the Second World War the West broadly speaking has only really won two wars, the Falklands War with the British Army of course won and the Saddam Hussein.

Bodhisatva Ganguli:

More the British Navy actually.

Nalin Mehta:

Yes. Of course and the war against Saddam Hussein so and you made the point about military objectives and clarity and so on that. So let me ask you on this because we are now entering a new conflagration with Iran on a scale which seems much higher than what happened a few months back. It's been what the objective of [inaudible] in America in 1979 for regime change in Iran. We now have a declared aim of regime change. Can the Americans win this war?

General Sir Nick Carter:

Well I mean, the word win of course is a provocative word because it implies defeat and victory and so on and so forth and it implies the achievement of the objective and I think you know we listen to the Donald Trump's 8-minute speech this morning and it's quite clear in that speech that regime change enabled by the Iranian population is what of course he's striving to achieve. Well in my own personal opinion that's not going to happen overnight. I think it's a extremely difficult objective to realize and to the point I made to you outside the room if you do look back over history it's a very important always that the political objectives lead to achievable military objectives and whether you're studying the campaigns in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, the list is endless.

You will pretty quickly determine that the political objectives didn't match the military objectives and the upshot of all of that was that there was no victory. So it's really important I think that in that dialogue between policymakers and senior military figures that the correct objectives are identified at the beginning of a campaign.

Nalin Mehta:

What do you think the Americans are trying here at the moment? What's the best case scenario?

Bodhisatva Ganguli:

What are the Americans trying to do?

General Sir Nick Carter:

Well I mean I think we haven't got much to go on. I mean we've heard what Donald Trump said this morning but I think most people looking in on this will be questioning the extent to which regime change, if that's the objective, is feasible and I suspect that the reason some people have been resigned early from positions close to the military advisors may well be an indication that there are other people who are concerned as to whether or not this will happen.

But you know we saw the pressure that he placed on Venezuela, we saw the removal of President Maduro and I suspect he believed that that was a victory and that that's going in the direction he wants it to go in. So it may well be that he fundamentally believes this is achievable and deliverable and I guess that we all have to give people the benefit of the doubt for a while.

Bodhisatva Ganguli:

So do you think, in fact I just want to take you up on that point, do you think that they could follow the Venezuelan model where obviously Maduro's successor does appear to be cooperating with the U.S. in a very significant manner. In fact it's been said that they're even negotiating with the Cuban leadership. So do you think a part of the Iranian leadership could possibly cooperate or you know come in line with an American vision of the world after a 7-day or a 10-day campaign? Do you think that's the game here?

General Sir Nick Carter:

Personally no, I think they are two completely different scenarios and of course there were insiders I think around Maduro who eventually sold him down the river which is why the operation was so successful. I think that's most unlikely to be the case in the Iranian set of circumstances.

Nalin Mehta:

General, you talked earlier about Iranian proxies and for a long time militarily that's been a big strategic bet the Iranians have made to have proxies everywhere from Hamas to right across to Syria and to Yemen. Those have been degraded over the last year significantly but they remain strong in pockets. So what's your sense about the Iranian counter response if you like? What form or shape would that take beyond the immediate salvos we've seen today?

General Sir Nick Carter:

Well one of the course the problems you have if you declare regime change as your objective is that that makes the war an existential problem for the regime that you've declared you want to remove and that therefore means that I suspect for them it is a total war and that means I suspect we will see Lebanese Hezbollah being mobilized to go on the offensive with Israel. I suspect we may well see Hamas being encouraged perhaps to go on the offensive in Gaza again and I'm sure we'll see the Houthis being encouraged to close the Bad Al Mandab and the bottom end of the Red Sea because these are existential issues as far as the Iranian government is now concerned which is why I think managing this in a way that it remains very focused and very constrained could be challenging. You know if you hadn't declared regime change then perhaps Iran would have responded differently. We saw back in June where that was not a declaration of intent that Iran simply gestured with one attack on an American base in Qatar. This time it's going to be different would be my guess. 

Bodhisatva Ganguli:

Do you see boots on the ground American boots on the ground?

General Sir Nick Carter:

I would be amazed if an American president who's made it very clear twice at least in election campaigns that he'd want to be involved in forever wars wanting to put American boots on the ground. Doesn't mean that might not be the old special forces operation perhaps but I would be amazed if there was anything more than that. I think it would be very difficult for him politically to do that.

Nalin Mehta:

I want to ask you about the Trump doctrine as it were. This is a president who came to power specifically among the key issues that he talked about was a retreat from universalism, return to American isolationism, talking about a much more 19th century view of the world. Specifically he railed against American military interventions over the last two or three presidencies.

But in the last few months we've seen military action in by the Americans in Yemen, in Nigeria, in Syria, in Venezuela which Bodhi talked about. Also there's been conversations around the East Pacific and the Caribbean, conversations around Colombia, Mexico and of course around Denmark and Greenland. Now you're seeing a serious escalation in Iran.

It's really impossible to have regime change without boots on the ground as you said. So what does this say about this change in Trump's doctrine if there is a Trump doctrine or do you think it's turning it on its head?

General Sir Nick Carter:

No I mean I think there is a theme to his foreign and security policy and of course we saw that published in December when the US national security strategy was published and we saw that reinforced by the US national defense strategy that was published at the beginning of January. And essentially that is a doctrine that is focused on the Western Hemisphere and therefore it's on the Americas. And that's why Greenland is significant because he would see that in geographic terms as being part of the Western Hemisphere and it's why the Caribbean matters, it's why he's done a deal with Argentina.

So I wouldn't describe him as isolationist. I would describe him as the Western Hemisphere first and foremost. Then I think it's interesting to speculate on what happens next because the doctrine would suggest that actually the challenge of China is something that needs to be counteracted and that of course means that you are drawn from the Western Hemisphere into being more globally oriented.

But the priority is still the Western Hemisphere and keeping China out of the Western Hemisphere to all intents and purposes. Anyway he's described this as what he calls the Donroe doctrine which is his take on the original Monroe doctrine of the 19th century. And of course that's led to a rupture in his relationship with Europe.

And I think one of the most important conclusions that this audience could draw from the way the world has changed is there is this now this division between Europe and the United States in terms of how we see security and indeed resilience looking forwards. And that's why of course I think he was exactly right to call Europe out and say you've got to defend yourselves now. You know it's no good for the U.S. to continue to bankroll you any longer. You've got to step up to the plate which I'm sure was absolutely right. But it has led I think to many European leaders believing there is now no longer going to be that strength of relationship across the Atlantic in the way that perhaps we've all had as a luxury over the last 80 years.

Bodhisatva Ganguli:

I just want to take off you know having done one aspect that you raised on I mean there's a lot that you lot to unpack there. But one aspect that you said on China. Do you think that at some stage Xi Jinping sometime I mean various dates have been tossed about like 2027 or end of the decade. But do you think that Xi Jinping will risk an invasion of Taiwan. And if he does would America defend Taiwan?

General Sir Nick Carter:

Well I think I think if you're if you're Taiwanese you're probably nervous at the prospect of a Donald Trump-Xi Jinping summit coming up. Because of course the other thing about the Donald Trump foreign policy is it's very much a developed from his lived experience. And of course his lived experience is very much about being a property wheeler and dealer.

And his view on international relations is I win you lose. Whereas the diplomats in the audience would know that actually international relations tends to be about I win you win. So there are some questions I would have thought in some minds as to whether or not we're going to see at this summit.

But being some maybe sort of watching not spoken loudly deal between Xi Jinping and Donald Trump over the future not just of Taiwan but also of Chinese dominance in the South China Sea. Now I think it would be very unlikely in the near future for China to mount a military intervention in Taiwan for a number of reasons. First of all because at the moment it is genuinely ambiguous as to how the U.S. would respond. And I don't think the Chinese Communist Party would want to risk what that ambiguity might mean. Secondly I personally don't think that the PLA is ready to mount what is a phenomenally difficult operation. I mean a very, very difficult operation which we can go into if you if you want to.

But also I think because there's a great degree of instability in the PLA's chain of command at the moment. And the removal of the Deputy Chairman for CMC recently Zhang Yuxia, a man I knew because he was my opposite number. He was a very wise man and a man who genuinely would have spoken truth to power.

And suspending people like that and the commander of Eastern Command last week that will have an impact upon the PLA.

Nalin Mehta:

General Carter let me ask you on this, as you're talking with the PLA. This year of course or last year we've seen Operation Sindoor here in this part of the world. The conflict with India and Pakistan.

The PLA was directly involved with satellite imagery and so on with the Pakistanis. There was Chinese equipment that was used in that war from where you sit as a former head of the British Armed Forces. Someone who served in the region in Afghanistan and now of course there is conflict between Afghanistan and Pakistan in the last couple of days.

What did you make of Operation Sindoor and that military operation and the strategic calculus now between India, China and Pakistan?

General Sir Nick Carter:

I mean I think that it's probably very useful for China to test some of their military technology with the Pakistanis and I think you know the narratives vary. There's been a lot of talk that some of it was quite effective and I don't know enough of the detail to be sure whether that is the case or not. But I do think it's worth reflecting for a while given India's strategic position in relation to China on the extent to which the PLA is an effective and competent military.

And if you look back to some of the activity that's going on in the South China Sea and in particular in what the Filipinos would call the West Philippine Sea, you'll recall that last August there was a collision between a Chinese warship and a Chinese Coast Guard vessel in pursuit of a Philippines Coast Guard vessel. And what was fascinating about that collision is in the four hours leading up to it there was absolutely no radio traffic between the warship and the Coast Guard vessel. So no clear coordination or command and control.

And what I think that tells you is that the PLA is a very stovepiped organization and I suspect not very capable at integrating land with air with maritime with cyber with space and all of the other ingredients that modern militaries need to be able to do if they want to conduct joint or multi-domain operations. And I'm sure there are lots of reasons why that's the case. And until the PLA is able to operate in an integrated way they will not be as effective.

Nalin Mehta:

So that's the point that a number of observed because we've seen now there are Pakistani officers now deployed in China, well working closely with the PLA, but there is an argument that just I mean you know the NATO operations very well are integrated in the past European militaries and the Americans have been. There is a view that the Chinese are still some distance away from it although there are a lot of help in terms of jointness, joint integration where India faces a two-front threat really and that's a real threat now for the last year or so. What's your view on that?

Bodhisatva Ganguli:

I mean the last time the foreign war was in 1979.

General Sir Nick Carter:

Yeah I mean and I think you know Zhang Yuxia who I talked about a moment ago he was very proud when he first met me to tell me that he was the only officer in the PLA with combat experience which he'd earned in their defeat in Vietnam in 1979. And there's no doubt about it armies, navies, air forces they need combat experience because until you've actually had that combat experience it's very difficult to understand how the military instrument should be used and indeed its limitations. And that is another reason why I think you know the demise of Zhang Yuxia is sad because you know he's somebody who understood how risky combat is and the effect and the nature of war which we know never really changes.

So I think that the PLA will be hungry to get experience the question of course is how they obtain that experience.

Bodhisatva Ganguli:

So why is why is Xi sacking so many of his generals? I mean what is the motivation behind these actions?

General Sir Nick Carter:

Well of course the narrative is that they're all corrupt and they need to be hounded from power as a result of being corrupt. I think it's probably more complicated than that and I'm going to speculate and I would like Mr. Chatham to be sitting over the top what I'm saying but I know he's not. I mean I suspect that probably President Xi Jinping for whatever reason it was felt slightly threatened by some of these powerful figures, would be my guess.

Nalin Mehta:

Can I ask you something about Pakistan and what's happening in relation to what's happening in in the Gulf right now. There are reports that some American aircraft took off from bases in Pakistan for these airstrikes. Of course there's been a complete shift in the US Pakistani relationship since Operation Sindoor with the with Field Marshal Munir you know pledging all full allegiance to Donald Trump.

Pakistan was persona non grata is now back on the diplomatic table it's supporting Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize so on and so forth. But Pakistan is also being made part of the deal of Trump's Peace Board as it's called. So where does this where do you see Pakistan strategic positioning right now?

Because they're trying to sort of run with the hounds and well and hunt with – well run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. So where do you see the Pakistani strategic problem for positioning of the military right now?

General Sir Nick Carter:

Well, I think we were all surprised by the closeness of the relationship that appeared to develop between the Army Chief and President Trump over the last year or so. And I think to your point about Pakistan's closeness to China you know it does look quite contradictory in terms of a relationship. And again I think one has to examine the motivations behind it and I don't know the detail but my guess that some of the financial aspects to it are probably helpful from one side or the other which may well be underpinning what we're seeing going on here.

There are probably interests there. I mean I don't know whether Pakistani bases has been used for operations. It may be that that was necessary given that I don't think Diego Garcia was made available by my own government for this operation Iran.

But I don't know the background and I suspect it may well be possible. But yes I mean I think it's an interesting slightly contradictory position perhaps that they find themselves in. And of course they are now fixed by their so-called declaration of war against Afghanistan.

And we well know from many, many years indeed hundreds of years of experience with war in Afghanistan that that doesn't always end very well.

Bodhisatva Ganguli:

What's your view on the Diego Garcia issue? What's your view of the wider the dispute between the US and the UK on Diego Garcia?

General Sir Nick Carter:

It's not a dispute between. I mean in essence the UK government and to be fair to this government it was the previous government's decision as well – was that the Chagos Islands which Diego Garcia are a part of technically and in terms of international law the Mauritian claim on those islands was stronger than the claim that the British government had. And on that basis if you are going to respect international law it was very likely that there would be a claim filed in the International Court of Justice.

And under the terms of UN law that would have led probably to the Mauritians winning the claim. So the UK government's view was that in obeying international law it would make sense to negotiate a deal with the Mauritian government on the basis of leasing it back over 99 years. Now going back to the words that I think the defence minister used in my very seat here about 45 minutes ago the answer is in a world where might is right you can see why perhaps President Trump took the view that possession is nine-tenths of the law rather than leasing it back. So that I think is where the issue lies at the moment.

Nalin Mehta:

So let me ask you something since you mentioned about Trump's doctrine of might is right. Now there is a recalculation happening in Europe for the last year, year and a half on what Trump is doing is he's bringing down or putting the shutters down on the post-World War II order as it was designed. Especially the military security architecture, the economic architecture and all of that.

Where does now a lot of European countries are now rearming there's a whole thing of imagining a future without the Americans. The British of course have had a special relationship with the Americans. Where does that place Britain and in a America less security umbrella of Europe because you've gone on record talking in the past about our armed forces have been hollowed out and the enemy knows it.

How do you see India's role in beefing that up and with the UK agreement or the India-UK agreement there's a lot of shift around the strategic partnership around defense cooperation and so on and so forth. So as you enter this period of flux from a security point of view from Britain where do you see India within that and your future of the defense of Britain post the Americans?

General Sir Nick Carter:

Gosh how long have we got? You raise a lot of issues there and I'll see if I can tick as many off as possible. I mean I think first and foremost we should be in no doubt that Donald Trump as I said earlier was right to call out the other members of NATO because don't forget it's not just European members of NATO it includes Canada for not spending enough on defense.

I'm sure that was absolutely right. Second point I'd make is I don't think this means the end of NATO. I mean it's interesting to recognize that the only time that Article 5 of the NATO treaty has ever been tabled was after 9/11 when all the members of NATO went to the help of the United States and we all got involved in the so-called war against terror thereafter and lost a lot of lives and spent a lot of treasure doing it.

Now I don't think NATO is dead by any stretch of imagination I just think it is being rebalanced in terms of the burden of effort and the burden of sharing within it. Now what I do think though is relevant to all of this are some of the remarks that Prime Minister Mark Carney made at Davos in late January when he talked about the so-called rules-based system no longer being a thing and I think to be realistic it's probably been in decline ever since 9/11 for all sorts of reasons we don't need to go into now.

And I think that the best we can hope for which in a sense is what he was suggesting I think is some form of multilateral liberal order which I think is something that your country and my country…

Nalin Mehta:

And he talked about a concord between the middle powers which is…

General Sir Nick Carter:

Coming on to middle powers because of course his definition of middle powers would be those who would subscribe to a multilateral liberal order one where you don't have to be in one sphere of influence or the other but if you collaborate and cooperate based upon liberal values and that means the rights of the individual and the other things that we espouse then you can actually carve out some form of global commons in which we can all do business together and do it on the basis of it not being transactional but about it being based upon genuine alliances that are based upon predictability and trust and those sorts of values.

Bodhisatva Ganguli:

So we are I think beginning to run out of time and there are more conflicts to cover. So the Ukraine war. We've just crossed the fourth anniversary of the Ukraine war. What is the end game there? There have been on-off negotiations between the US and Russia to end the Ukraine conflict where do you see this, where do you see the end game there?

General Sir Nick Carter:

I think it's very difficult to see an obvious end game I mean what of course has been striking is that the Trump negotiating position has been very much based upon his lived experience and I think the same experience of Mr. Witkoff which is from the property world this is about a land transaction whereas of course they're up against somebody in the form of Mr. Putin who sees this as an ideological problem and those two positions are irreconcilable to my mind. And that of course leads the Ukrainians in a very awkward position between being between a rock and a hard place to all intents and purposes.

So to my mind this war is going to continue and I don't see a decision quickly because we've ended up in what a lot of military strategists might call a stalemate where it has become a war of attrition and it'll be whichever side collapses slowest but most quickly at the end of it and I don't see that happening during the course of this calendar year for sure.

Nalin Mehta:

General Carter, we've seen two very important speeches by American leaders in the context of Europe in the last couple of months. One is JD Vance speaking in Europe, on how the European need to rearm for their own defense and the second one which was a much more well less direct well more polite but argument but missing the same thing which was by Secretary of State Rubio, basically talking about Western values, Western civilization and Europe and America should be coming back together. Now that sort of reminded me a little bit about Samuel Huntington's idea of Clash of Civilizations because that's what it's very specific at the centre of the argument that Secretary of State Rubio was making, where do you think Britain should be in this debate and where does that leave your special relationship?

Bodhisatva Ganguli:

Although this is more about a clash within a civilization. And then Vance to be a [inaudible].

General Sir Nick Carter:

I mean I I've always been an advocate of alliances and I feel very strongly that alliances are essentially the bedrock of stability and security in our world so that would always be my starting point. I was not an advocate of Brexit, for example. You know, I believed that Britain's future was almost certainly better found inside the European Union even though the European Union has many problems that need to be need to be resolved. So I think where you know where I would stand on this is that the UK is going to be better if she operates with allies. And I profoundly believe that you know the relationship for example we have with India or other middle powers is going to be the core of a better future for all of us.

Nalin Mehta:

Let me ask you a final question as a global strategist what would your – and with the given the state of flux that we are in the internal system what would your advice to India be? How should India play this at the moment?

General Sir Nick Carter:

I mean I think it's entirely right that India has enough political clout and leverage and economic value to be able to be and plough its own furrow right to say and that of course is what your Foreign Secretary talks about when he talks about the India way and I've always agreed with that perspective. I think that this year we will find that India is probably the fourth largest economy in the world. There are many things that need to be resolved of course but the reality is that India should Board of Peace or the UN Security Council or whatever and I think that India should absolutely double down on its democratic values and what it espouses and it should look for other middle powers that espouse the same values and in a sense do what you're doing with France or with Britain or further east and trade and cooperate and collaborate with those who see in the world through the same principles that you've always seen the world through.

Bodhisatva Ganguli:

Or to ask the same question in a slightly different way. I mean I think there is a statement attributed famously to Deng that in the context of China obviously that China should hide its strength and you know bide its time which is obviously change energy. So should India follow the Deng dictum at least for now? 

General Sir Nick Carter:

Sorry, should you follow…

Bodhisatva Ganguli:

The Deng dictum where China should basically keep a low profile and you know till the times comes in international affairs a statement attributed to Deng Xiaoping that China should hide its strength and then you know bide its time.

General Sir Nick Carter:

Yes, perhaps. I mean I think that you know in this slightly more Hobbesian world that we now occupy you know the entry ticket is hard power, so India needs to double down and retain hard power but it's also about having something to trade. You know India has got a lot to trade you know when you think of an extraordinarily young and potentially very skilled workforce that is something to trade. So I think that the opportunities are there for India in a way that they are not for China.

If you look at China's challenges and she has many. You know her demography is going in absolutely the wrong direction. She has real problems with her domestic economy. You know household consumption only represents 35% of her GDP whereas in India it's between 65 and 70% would be my guess. That's why they have to export so much. I think there are real opportunities for India which you need to double down on.