Blair: No private deal with Bush over Iraq

Tony Blair today rejected claims that he struck a private deal with President George Bush over Iraq 11 months before the invasion.

But the former British prime minister said he pledged British backing to America if military action was needed to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

He confirmed that, in one-on-one talks at the president’s ranch in Crawford, Texas, in April 2002, he told Mr Bush he would be “with him”.

Mr Blair said he had always been clear publicly that the Iraqi dictator had to be confronted over his supposed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) but he insisted that he had left open how it should be done.

“What I was saying – I was not saying this privately incidentally, I was saying it in public – was ’We are going to be with you in confronting and dealing with this threat’.

“The one thing I was not doing was dissembling in that position. How we proceed in this is a matter that was open. The position was not a covert position, it was an open position.

“We would be with them in dealing with this threat and how we did that was an open question, and even at that stage I was raising the issue of going to the UN.”

Pressed on what he thought Mr Bush took from the meeting, he went further, saying: “I think what he took from that was exactly what he should have taken, which was if it came to military action because there was no way of dealing with this diplomatically, we would be with him.”

He said that the “calculus of risk” relating to Saddam’s supposed WMD changed “dramatically” following the 9/11 attacks on the US the previous year.

“The fact is, force is always an option. What changed after September 11 was that if necessary – and there was no other way of dealing with this threat – we were going to remove him,” he said.

Sir Christopher Meyer, the former British ambassador to Washington, previously told the inquiry that it appeared an agreement had been “signed in blood” by Mr Blair and Mr Bush during the ranch meeting.

But Mr Blair responded: “I don’t think Christopher Meyer was ever at the critical meeting.”

Opening his evidence, Mr Blair emphasised the impact that the 9/11 attacks had on his thinking and the thinking in the US.

“Up to September 11 we thought he was a risk but we thought it was worth trying to contain it. Crucially, after September 11 the calculus of risk changed,” he said.

“If September 11 had not happened, our assessment of the risk of allowing Saddam any possibility of him reconstituting his programmes would not have been the same.

“After September 11, our view, the American view, changed and changed dramatically.”

He said he wanted to make clear that countries developing weapons of mass destruction “had to stop”.

“The primary consideration for me was to send an absolutely powerful, clear and unremitting message that, after September 11, if you were a regime engaged in WMD, you had to stop,” he said.

“My assessment of risk prior to September 11 was that Saddam was a menace, that he was a threat, he was a monster, but we would have to try and make best.”

Mr Blair insisted that he kept open his options for dealing with Iraq in the run-up to the Crawford talks.

An “options paper” was drawn up in March 2002 which outlined the choices open to Britain for tackling Saddam, including continuing the current containment policy with “smart sanctions”, as well as regime change.

Mr Blair said he consulted foreign secretary Jack Straw, defence secretary Geoff Hoon and Ministry of Defence officials about the courses of action open to him.

He also held a meeting at his country residence, Chequers, before flying to Texas.

Mr Blair said: “We did have a very structured debate with the people. I mean, the fact that it happened at Chequers rather than Downing Street I don’t think is particularly relevant to it.

“I think the simple answer is. did we consider those other options? - absolutely. That’s why we had the paper drawn up.”

Mr Blair sought to play down his comments in a BBC interview with Fern Britton in which he said he would have thought it right to remove Saddam, even if he had known that he did not have WMD.

“Even with all my experience in dealing with interviews, it still indicates that I have got something to learn about it,” he said.

“I didn’t use the words ’regime change’ in that interview and I didn’t mean in any sense to change the basis.

“Obviously, all I was saying was you cannot describe the nature of the threat in the same way if we knew then what we know now.

“It was in no sense a change of position. The position was that it was the approach of UN resolutions on WMD. That was the case. It was then and it remains.”

Mr Blair confirmed that he discussed "military options'' with Mr Bush at Crawford 11 months before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.

He said: “It was obviously a possibility that military action would be the outcome of what was going to happen.

“So there was a general discussion of the possibility of going down the military route, but obviously we were arguing very much for that to be if the UN route failed.”

The former prime minister told the inquiry he supported military advice that Britain should deploy a large land force in support of any US invasion rather than opting for a smaller-scale option.

“If we think it’s right, we should be prepared to play our part fully,” he said.

Mr Blair was asked if he felt in 2002 that the link between terrorism and Iraq’s supposed WMD was a potential threat to the UK.

He replied: “Yes, because for the reasons that I have given, if Saddam, freed from sanctions, was able to pursue WMD programmes, I was very sure that at some point we were going to be involved in the consequences of that.”

He added: “This is a profoundly wicked, I would say almost psychopathic, man. We were obviously worried that after him his two sons seemed to be as bad, if not worse.”

Mr Blair admitted that Britain did not accept any connection between Saddam and al Qaida, but pointed to Iran’s alleged backing for insurgencies in the Middle East.

“There are very strong links between terrorist organisations and states that support or sponsor them,” he said.