Disarmament Documentation

'The idea of a nuclear strike on Iran is completely nuts', British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw MP, April 9, 2006

'STRAW INTERVIEWED ON IRAN, IRAQ AND HAMAS (09/04/06)', Edited transcript of an interview with the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, on BBC 1, April 9, 2006.

Interviewer: Today is the third anniversary of the fall of Baghdad and the toppling of that statue of Saddam. It's also, as we've heard, a day in which the papers are full of reports that America is planning to attack Iran and I'm joined now by the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw. Welcome, Mr Straw. Can I ask you first of all about these reports? They all emanate from the same source, which is an article in the New Yorker, detailed article and it suggests that plans are indeed under way by the Americans if necessary to hit various facilities in Iran.

Jack Straw: They also suggest that there's going to be a nuclear strike on Iran and they have name of Mr Richard Pearl, which should carry a health warning for any reporter associated with such reports.

Interviewer: Yes, they are called Prince of Darkness (INAUDIBLE)..

Jack Straw: Yes and rather unreliable reporter on what happens in the Administration. The idea of a nuclear strike on Iran is completely nuts. Now let me just deal with this issue of military action. I made clear the British government's position on this time and time again, which is widely shared across Europe. The American Administration, Condoleezza Rice, President Bush, use slightly different language. They say that it's not on the agenda but it isn't on the agenda. I believe it is not on the agenda and they are very committed indeed to resolving this issue, which is a complicated issue, by negotiation and yes, by diplomatic pressure. And what the Iranians have to do is to recognise that they have overplayed their hand at each stage. At each stage they calculated they split the international community. Actually at each stage the international community has ended up stronger. That's illustrated by the fact that China and Russia and the non-aligned movement have joined us in increasing pressure, including the latest statement from the Security Council on Iran.

Interviewer: And yet clearly the temperature is rising at the moment, worryingly. Would you agree with George Bush that President Ahmadinejad is comparable to Adolf Hitler?

Jack Straw: Well that's not my language and I am responsible for the British government and my...

Interviewer: It's a pretty wild thing to say isn't it?

Jack Straw: Well as I say it's up....I'm not going to comment on what President Bush may or may not have said about President Ahmadinejad. President Ahmadinejad is certainly a very difficult leader to deal with. He obviously believes that Israel, quote, "should be wiped off the map of the earth" and that is a profoundly belligerent statement and also deeply unhelpful, not only for peace and stability in the Middle East but also for Iran and Iran's future. And it's also caused very great embarrassment let me to say to the real power in Iran, which is the religious authorities.

Interviewer: I suppose one of the reasons that people give credibility to the notion that the United States might attack Iran in the future is that nothing else seems to be working. I hear what you say about the Russians and the Chinese but at the same time they are still completely against sanctions. They are against the kind of very, very tough pressure that might conceivably or not have some effect and it doesn't look like there's anything actually the outside world can do to stop the Iranian nuclear programme continuing.

Jack Straw: Well there are two reasons, let me say. I mean let's put the other one on the table, which is that people are worried that Iran is going to turn into another Iraq and that's in people's minds, so we might as well open up and discuss that. Although as Condoleezza Rice was saying last week and President Bush I've also heard him say, Iran is not Iraq. And yes, I understand people's frustration with the diplomatic process because it takes a long time and it's quite a subtle process. It's not true by the way that Russia and China have been unhelpful and let us wait and see what approach Russia and China actually take to the issue of sanctions if we....if we have to get there. Russia has been very responsible in all this. It's a neighbour. They...they are the last country in the world who want a nuclear armed Iran on their doorstep. They've also got very big investments in Iran and that's entirely legitimate and understandable. So I understand the frustration but the reason why we're opposed to military action is because of the infinitely worst option that there's no justification for it.

Interviewer: So these stories in the papers are all wrong and if it came to pass that the Americans said that we were...they were going to attack Iran, we would unequivocally say we want nothing to do with this?

Jack Straw: Yes, look I don't think it's going to happen in that way first of all. I've said it's inconceivable. Now people may say well what if Iran were to attack Israel? It's very, very unlikely. Obviously if Iran did attack Israel, the whole circumstances would change and Israel would have a right under Article 51 of self-defence, or if Iran were to attack other of its neighbours, that's a very different circumstance, or to threaten them in an imminent way. That's not the situation. I mean let's be clear at the moment, which is why I've said what I've said so clearly.

Interviewer: We wouldn't accept a pre-emptive attack?

Jack Straw: No and I don't...no, we wouldn't, wouldn't, just so I sound clear. And neither would....I don't feel...I'm as certain as I can be sitting here that neither would the United States. I mean let's just understand what the evidence is. The evidence is very clear that for 20 years Iran deceived the nuclear inspectors, that they were developing the fuel cycle on a scale quite disproportionate to the very modest nuclear electricity power programme and too that they failed to satisfy the inspectors over the last three years. There is circumstantial evidence, including the fact that there are manuals from A Q Khan, the nuclear weapons proliferator in Pakistan, about how to make bits of nuclear weapons, which adds up to high suspicion that Iran is developing a civil nuclear capability which in turn could be used for nuclear weapons. But let's be clear, there is no smoking gun, there is no casis belli (?). We can't be certain about Iran's intentions and that is therefore not a basis on which anybody would gain authority to go for military action. I think...I've been trying to be clear about this.

Interviewer: Absolutely, absolutely and you have been but a lot of people, as you've suggested yourself, will hear all of that through the prism of what was said ahead of Iraq.

Jack Straw: Well we said very different things ahead of Iraq but I understand the anxiety of course.

Interviewer: There is an anxiety there. Now you went with Condoleezza Rice to Baghdad a little while ago. You clearly have a very good relationship with her. Does that actually help? I mean are you in the situation when it comes to close calls on Iraq, or Iran for that matter, of being able to pick up the phone and deal with her in a way that cuts through the normal sort of diplomatic chatter?

Jack Straw: Well I think personal relationships make a huge difference in diplomacy as they do in life, although they are not a substitute for the fact that different countries in this case may have different interests but, and let's be clear, that there are many areas of policy where we have a difference of view from the United States as we do from members of the European Union. That's a reason for having a close relationship but..

Interviewer: You can have a frank conversation..

Jack Straw: I can have a frank conversation.

Interviewer: ...and say "Condi, you're wrong on this" or...

Jack Straw: Well we have a very frank conversation. I mean we did a television interview, I'm afraid it was on the competition last Sunday, Jonathan Dimbleby, where we perfectly accepted in public that there was a difference of...of emphasis on Iran. We're grown ups. Why not? People need to understand that. I've said what I've said about military action. So far as the United States are concerned, Condoleezza Rice, President Bush say it's not on the agenda but they don't rule out any option in theory. That's their position.

Interviewer: Absolutely. President Mubarak is the last, latest person I suppose to suggest that Iraq is actually at a state of civil war. There's been another member of the Iraqi government has said something very similar over the last 24 hours and of course we had the former Prime Minister, Mr Allawi, saying the same thing on the programme. Isn't it now obvious, everybody who is on the ground looking around more or less agrees that that's what's happening, the country is breaking up?

Jack Straw: I don't agree with that. The situation is very serious. Let us be in no doubt. I was in Baghdad last Saturday, Sunday and Monday, the third visit I've made since Christmas. It's very frustrating because the leaders are taking far too long to form this government, which was elected or the parliament was elected on December 15th, almost four months ago. What's happening is that Al Zarqawi, the al-Quaeda terrorist, other terrorists associated with al-Quaeda and some of the Bathist extremists are trying to provoke a civil war. So far, despite huge slaughter, they have not succeeded, above all because of the restraint exercised within the Shia community by the Ayotollah Sistani and by other leaders, for example Abdul Aziz al-Hakim or leader...

Interviewer: I mean day after day, week after week, reports of 50 people a day, 70 people, 100 people. I mean it is a level of slaughter which compares to the start of civil wars in history.

Jack Straw: Well it is a high level of slaughter, so I understand why people are saying this. I also say that most people..most of the leaders in Iraq take a different view from President Mubarak or for example from Ayah Allawi. Can I just say something about about something else that President Mubarak said because he also said that he felt that Shia across the Arab world, including in Iraq, had a greater loyalty to Iran than they do to their own countries. Now I have to say I have a difference of view from him. I have spoken to many, many, many Shia leaders in Iraq and indeed elsewhere, for example in the Gulf, but so far as Iraq is concerned, these people are Shia, just as around Europe you've got people who are Catholics rather than Protestants. They are Shia but they are Iraqis first. More Shia died fighting for Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war than did members of other confessional groups. And it's my belief that of course there will be a Shia-dominated government because this is a democracy emerging in Iraq but they will be people who will want good relations with Iran, as with the other neighbours, but they will be Arabs and see themselves as Iraqis and Iraqi nationalists first.

Interviewer: You've spoken of your frustration. When are we going to see do you think a government?

Jack Straw: I can't put an exact time on it. I was on the telephone to our people in Baghdad this morning, as I was yesterday, and the purpose of the visit by Secretary Rice and myself last Sunday and Monday was to push this process. Now why...and I don't deny for a second there's terrible carnage, right. Why I am hesitant about saying there's civil war is because what's so frustrating about this we're on the verge of seeing the beginnings of a democratic and permanent government there which would be all party and confessional.

Interviewer: But if that doesn't happen, that's it really isn't it? I mean if you can't get that...

Jack Straw: Well no, nothing's never it. Where it not to happen, we face a more serious situation. I think the other very wise thing President Mubarak said was to point out that it would be a disaster if the UK/US troops and other coalition troops were suddenly withdrawn. No leaders actually want that but of course the dangers are there, whether you call it civil war or anything else, and that's why we've got to push this process very hard.

Interviewer: One other imminent issue on your agenda at the moment is the funding for Hamas.

Jack Straw: Yes.

Interviewer: Now the Americans have made it clear they're not having anything to do with this. There were reports that the Europeans weren't going to fund Hamas. I think you've got a meeting tomorrow.

Jack Straw: We have a meeting of foreign ministers tomorrow. I mean the European Union and the UK, one of the largest funders of the Palestinian authority, we're committed to ensuring that the ordinary Palestinians don't starve and that in the UK's case half of our money bilaterally goes to non-governmental sources and always has done to keep people alive and....and at school and healthy. The problem for us - and it's something we've got to work through with the Palestinian authority - is that this money comes from our taxpayers. We have to be clear that the money is not going to filter through Hamas front organisations into funding terrorism or terrorist related activities or for example education of people to hate Israel and to hate the West.

Interviewer: But it is possible we will carry on funding people...

Jack Straw: It depends. The quartet, which includes the United States, the European Union, the Russian Federation and the UN, has set up three conditions which the Hamas leadership need to meet, which is that they recognise the fact of Israel, not worship the flag of Israel but recognise the fact of Israel; they respect the international agreements which have been entered into and they maintain the ceasefire and that's what we're pushing the Hamas leadership to achieve.

Source: UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office, http://www.fco.gov.uk.

Back to the Top of the Page