Iraq action is delayed but 'certain' The Times
April 08, 2002
By Philip Webster, Political Editor, in Crawford, TexasMILITARY action aimed at toppling Saddam Hussein is likely to be delayed for at least a year but is certain to happen because it is an “article of faith” for President Bush, senior American and British diplomats have disclosed.
In spite of renewed warnings from Mr Bush that he wants to end the Iraqi leader’s reign, the President is understood to be reconciled to a lengthy approach designed to bring on board world opinion and ensure that Saddam is replaced by a leader more acceptable to his people and the rest of the region.
During prolonged talks at Mr Bush’s Prairie Chapel ranch at the weekend, Tony Blair and the President are believed to have envisaged a three-phase plan to tackle the Iraqi dictator: first recreating a coalition for action by convincing Iraq’s neighbours that Saddam can be ousted; then taking military action against him; and finally ensuring that a successor regime is capable of running the country.
The conflicting signals that have continued to emerge from the two leaders — Mr Bush has used gung-ho language while Mr Blair has appeared more cautious — are thought to be caused by the expectation that it will be many months before an Iraqi campaign could be launched.
Those differences in emphasis were evident, despite the obvious warmth between the two men, at their press conference in a school gymnasium in Crawford, Texas, on Saturday.
Mr Blair went out of his way to reassure those who feared “precipitate” action. It would not happen, he said. But Saddam could not be allowed to develop weapons of mass destruction “without let or hindrance”. The Prime Minister, however, preferred to challenge Saddam first on the weapons inspectors. “He has to let the inspectors back in: anyone, any time and place,” he said. It is Mr Blair’s preferred method of keeping the international coalition on board. If Saddam refuses to allow the inspectors access — an unlikely scenario — he will be in breach of UN resolutions. “The whole world will then believe he has something to hide,” a diplomatic source said. “Then Mr Blair feels world opinion on action against Saddam will change.”
US and British sources close to the talks say that there was no rift on principle. A well-placed source said: “The President believes Mr Blair will back him when the time comes. The difference here is that Mr Bush has come to office determined to finish the job that his father started — certainly before the next presidential election in 2004 — and Mr Blair has to tread much more carefully because of opposition in Europe and in the Labour Party.
“But that does not mean that Mr Blair does not support action against Iraq. He does, but he wants as many people on side as possible to counter the failure of Saddam to fulfil UN resolutions,” he said.
British diplomats say that Mr Blair has no doubt about the President’s determination to tackle Saddam. They say that his decision to change policy on Israel was his recognition that progress in the Middle East was essential to keeping on board key Arab allies for any action against Iraq.
Mr Bush told the press conference: “I explained to the Prime Minister that the policy of my Government is the removal of Saddam and that all options are on the table.”
Mr Blair was then asked if removing Saddam was his policy as well. He side-stepped the question saying: “It has always been our policy that Iraq would be a better place without Saddam Hussein.” But he insisted that no decisions had been taken. “How we proceed in this situation, how we make sure that the threat, posed by weapons of mass destruction, is dealt with, that is a matter that is open.”
He added: “How we approach this is a matter for discussion.”
Sensing Mr Blair’s discomfort Mr Bush interrupted: “Maybe I should be a little less direct and a little more nuanced and say we support regime change.” But the President’s passion over Iraq was plain in the answer to a later question on whether there was link with the War on Terror.
“I see the linkage between someone who is willing to go into his own neighbourhood and use chemical weapons in order to keep himself in power and, at the same time, develop weapons that could be aimed at Europe, at Israel, anywhere. I cannot imagine people not seeing the threat and not holding him accountable.”
Then he delivered the words which appeared to confirm that Mr Blair has given him the private assurances he needs. “History has called us into action. The thing that I admire about this Prime Minister is that he does not need a focus group to convince him of the difference between right and wrong.”
Mr Blair said it rather differently: “All the options are open. After September 11 this President showed that he proceeds in a calm and measured and sensible but firm way. That is precisely what we need in this situation, too.”