
Tony Blair was urged to delay US invasion of Iraq, archives reveal
The prime minister flew to Camp David in January 2003, two months before the invasion, to urge the president of the United States to wait until at least March to allow for diplomatic solutions to work.
Recently released documents from the National Archives have revealed how government officials told Blair to slow down Bush, who was described as 'implacable', 'impatient' and 'Manichean' in his preparations.
Files from government officials between December 2002 to January 2003 recommended that Blair convince Bush to wait for either a 'smoking gun', indicating weapons of mass destruction were definitely in Iraq, or for the UN security council to agree on a resolution specifically authorising the use of military force.
The correspondence demonstrated the 'clear divergence between the UK and US' over the 'timetable for military action' described in the Chilcot inquiry in 2016.
On December 18, 2002, Christopher Meyer, the British ambassador to the US, sent an annual review to the prime minister's office from Washington.
He wrote: 'Much of the impulse for deposing Saddam Hussein comes from Bush himself. More than anything else, he fears another catastrophic terrorist attack on the homeland, especially one with an Iraqi connection.
'His view of the world is Manichean. He sees his mission as ridding it of evildoers. He believes American values should be universal values.
'He finds the Europeans' differentiation between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein self-serving. He is strongly allergic to Europeans collectively.'
Meyer added that although some groups such as 'conservative ideologues, Likud fellow-travellers' were pressing for war, this did not include 'the American people at large'.
'Apart from a single oil man in Houston, I failed to find anyone keen to go to war with Saddam. But most Americans trust Bush and will likely follow where he leads,' he wrote. These lines were highlighted.
In the new year, just two days before Blair's visit to Camp David and one day after Bush's state of the union address to the US Congress, on January 29, 2003, Meyer wrote again.
'The prime minister will find on Friday a pretty implacable Bush: impatient, deeply disillusioned with France and Germany, convinced that his — and Mr Blair's — critics will be routed by an early and easy military victory,' he said.
Meyer then referenced the Blair administration's desire for a second UN resolution from Hans Blix, the executive chairman of UN monitoring, verification and inspection commission.
'If the notorious smoking gun can be found, this will make things much easier. Otherwise, a sequence of fortnightly reports from Blix saying that the Iraqis are still not cooperating will be the next best thing,' he wrote.
'Bush does not look to have the patience to let Blix make the case. I said in an earlier report that exhausting the UN route was likely to mean different things in Washington and London. Bush is undecided about a second Resolution: whether it will be worth going for and, if it is, what should be put in it.'
The next day, January 30, foreign policy adviser David Manning wrote a note to the prime minister recapping his meeting with US national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.
'The argument is over timing. Bush still wants to rush his fences,' Manning wrote. 'You need to stick very strongly to the arguments in your Note and spell them out in a way that leaves no scope for Bush 'interpretation'.'
He later added: 'Unless we can be far more certain than we are now of securing a quick second resolution, you should stick to the late-March date. It is only eight weeks away, which is a pretty intense timetable anyway.'
Other notes from these months reveal how Blair was encouraged to turn down an invitation to give the commencement address at Harvard University in the summer of 2003.
Matthew Rycroft, Blair's private secretary on foreign affairs, wrote in January: 'You have said that you want to do this. Others in the office have argued against. You are seen as travelling abroad too much already and paying insufficient attention to domestic concerns.
'If you have a major speech to give, you should give it in the UK. And we do not know how things will stand in June. Yet another visit to the US may be untimely.'
Another email from the British embassy in Washington asked when Buckingham Palace put its Christmas lights up, as the White House wanted a photo of Bush at the building during his winter state visit in 2003.
In December 2002, Blair was also sent a copy of a New York Times article entitled 'Blair for President', suggesting he should be given a green card to run as the Democratic candidate.
The handwritten note on top reads, 'PM To cheer you up for xmas. I think a 'draft TB' movement will start now.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
What has Starmer demanded of Netanyahu ahead of recognition of a Palestinian state?
Sir Keir Starmer has issued an ultimatum to Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, warning he will recognise a Palestinian state in September unless a series of conditions are met. The prime minister 's decision comes after mounting pressure from his backbench MPs, and even cabinet ministers, to recognise Palestine as a state. Sir Keir held an emergency meeting of his cabinet on Tuesday to condemn the 'increasingly intolerable situation' in Gaza and discuss a UK-led peace plan for the region which David Lammy presented to allies in New York. But the PM went further, updating Labour's position on the recognition of a Palestinian state. The Independent looks at what the change of stance means, and what conditions Sir Keir has set out ahead of recognition. What does it mean? Recognition of a Palestinian state is a largely symbolic move given the situation on the ground in Gaza and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The Montevideo Convention of 1933 established several criteria which must apply before an entity can be recognised as a sovereign state. These are a permanent population, a defined territory, an effective government and the ability to conduct international relations. But the process would offer tangible benefits to the Palestinians. It involves the establishment of formal diplomatic relations, including the opening of embassies, the exchange of ambassadors, and the signing of bilateral treaties. Recognition also grants the recognised state access to certain rights in international organisations. For Palestinians, such recognition would strengthen their claim to sovereignty and facilitate greater international support. Added to that, the UK recognising a Palestinian state has a special significance because it was Britain which in effect created the modern state of Israel with the Balfour Declaration in 1926, signed by then Foreign Secretary Sir Arthur Balfour. Britain also brings extra influence as the former colonial power and current member of the UN Security Council. Who else has recognised Palestine? France has committed to recognising a Palestinian state in September, when Sir Keir's own promise to do so will take effect if Israel ignores his demands. Emmanuel Macron 's promise put his country on course to be the first in the G7 to recognise Palestine. But already 144 of the 193 UN member states, including Spain, Norway, Ireland, India, Russia and China recognise it as a state. Critics have argued that recognition has not helped resolve the problems on the ground or brought peace. They also note that Palestine does not fulfil the criteria of a state with a permanent population, a defined territory, a stable government, and the ability to enter into relations with other states. What has Keir Starmer called for? Sir Keir has set a series of conditions for the Israeli prime minister, warning that if they are not met, Britain will recognise Palestine alongside France at the UN General Assembly (UNGA) meeting in September. The first is for the Israeli government to take 'substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza', which is seeing thousands of Palestinians starving as aid is unable to get into the strip. The second is for Mr Netanyahu to promise no annexation in the West Bank. And the third is a commitment to a long-term peace process that will deliver a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine. The prime minister has also said the UK and its allies need to see "at least 500 trucks entering Gaza every day" to deliver aid. Notably, Mr Netanyahu and right-wing elements of his government have abandoned the promise of a two-state solution and pushed for a one-state solution. Sir Keir also called for Hamas to release remaining hostages, agree to a ceasefire, disarm themselves and rule themselves out of government in Gaza. But there are concerns that he has not linked Palestinian state recognition to his demands of Hamas. Is either side likely to agree? In short, no. The prime minister's ultimatum is likely to be largely ignored by Mr Netanyahu, leaving recognition of a Palestinian state by Britain looking almost inevitable. Hamas is also unlikely to agree to the prime minister's conditions and will continue to hold on to its hostages. There is a danger that while US president Donald Trump in effect said he would accept the UK recognising a Palestinian state, his US State Department is strongly opposed to the move and it could damage the special relationship. The prime minister promised an assessment of how far both sides have progressed towards meeting his tests before UNGA. But the news about Britain's plans now looks set to dominate the conference.


STV News
an hour ago
- STV News
In pictures: Donald Trump's visit to Scotland
Donald Trump has left Scotland after a five-day private visit during which he played golf and met with political leaders. The US President was greeted by large crowds as he landed at Prestwick Airport on Friday evening. On Saturday morning, Trump was surrounded by a major security operation as he teed off at his South Ayrshire golf course. Snipers were perched on sand dunes and vantage points around Turnberry throughout the weekend. Getty Images Police snipers are seen on the roof of the Trump Turnberry. Getty Images The Republican leader spent Saturday playing golf at Turnberry during his visit, which has been described as a working holiday. He also played a round on his brand new 18-hole golf course in Aberdeenshire on Tuesday after he cut the ribbon during an opening ceremony. Getty Images Donald Trump tees off at a new 18-hole course at Trump International Golf Links on July 29. Getty Images Trump met with Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer on Monday to discuss progress on the UK-US trade deal, hopes for a ceasefire in the Middle East, and applying pressure on Vladimir Putin to end the war in Ukraine. The pair took questions during a lengthy press conference in a ballroom at Turnberry before they travelled to Trump's second golf resort in Aberdeenshire. Getty Images President Donald Trump and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer at Trump International Golf Links on July 28. Getty Images Trump's visit has also been marked by protests and arrests across the country. A 'festival of resistance' was held near his Aberdeenshire golf course on Monday afternoon, and hundreds of protesters gathered in both Edinburgh and Aberdeen on Saturday to voice their opposition to Trump's visit. Getty Images Demonstrators gather in Aberdeen protesting against the visit of President Trump to Scotland on July 26. Getty Images On Tuesday, Trump's fifth and final day in Scotland, he cut the ribbon and teed off in celebration of the New Course at Trump International Golf Links on the Menie Estate. Later, Trump returned to Washington on Air Force One. Getty Images President Donald Trump cuts the ribbon at the ceremony at a new 18-hole course at Trump International Golf Links on July 29. Getty Images Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country


Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Trump is winning his trade war. Only the Left-wing media refuses to admit it
The deal 'will bring stability. It will bring predictability', said EU President Ursula von der Leyen at Donald Trump's Turnberry golf resort in Scotland on Sunday. 'Stability' and 'predictability' are not words the EU typically employs when discussing anything connected with the US president. But when you lead an economic bloc that has just been comprehensively outmanoeuvred in a trade dispute, forced into a deal that even your own side says favours the US, you could be forgiven for acting out of character. The basic rate of 15 per cent that will now be charged on most European goods entering the US was perhaps not coincidentally the same rate that Trump had extracted from Japan in a similar deal last week. It is the same rate that could, pending an announced review, become a new general norm in US foreign trade relations. It is also substantially higher than the less than 2 per cent effective rate that the US charged the EU before Trump returned to office. It was 'the best we could get', von der Leyen said almost apologetically in a news conference after the deal was announced. Indeed, a hard US-imposed deadline to conclude negotiations loomed on August 1, only four days after the agreement was reached. Without the deal, US tariffs on EU imports, which form about 20 per cent of the US's total foreign purchases, would have shot up to 30 per cent across the board, with high levies on automobiles, pharmaceuticals, and other key industries in which the EU has a competitive advantage left painfully in place. In other words, Trump appears to be winning his trade war. US markets were flat on Monday, largely in anticipation of corporate earnings reports, and have risen strongly in the year to date. Wiser commentators have also come to the realisation that Trump's tariff strategy is not the economic disaster that so many of them had predicted – noting robust aggregate data and little sign that households are under pressure. The IMF's latest forecasts indicate that the US will continue to significantly outperform its developed world rivals. The president has secured commitments for considerable new investment in the US from a range of trading partners, alongside a more level playing field for American exporters. America's discredited legacy media, however, refuses to accept that there might be any advantages to the president's approach. 'Few are cheering,' said CNN of Trump's EU deal. It also felt compelled to argue that the agreement will not allow the president to escape questions about the simmering scandal around the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. For good measure, the Left-wing news network featured a human interest story claiming Trump's tariffs could 'ruin' a women's golf apparel brand. 'Questions, critiques and discrepancies are hanging over the framework agreement,' declared a sceptical New York Times analysis, apparently written by seven reporters, who accused the deal of having 'drawn plenty of grumbling' from critics just hours after its announcement. On Monday, a follow-up New York Times article warned that the tariffs could inflict higher prices for Botox, Ozempic, and other cosmetic drugs. One could argue that the former paper of record, as it is often called, knows its remaining audience, but that same day it also unironically published an article observing that doctoral graduates in economics, an academic field overwhelmingly critical of Trump's tariffs, now face poor employment prospects. In fairness, on Tuesday, it did acknowledge that the slew of deals 'has seemingly proved Mr Trump right that his tariff threats are a powerful bargaining tool ', but it couldn't resist casting doubt on whether they would prove an economic success. 'Much of this would have happened anyway', sniffed the lead editorial in the Wall Street Journal of the EU's commitment to invest hundreds of billions more in the US. Pointing out that EU investment increased by about $200bn from 2023 to 2024, it joylessly observed that 'those investment inflows will increase the US trade deficit because of balance-of-payments accounting'. Perhaps some of these criticisms will be proven correct. But it is not hard to detect an unwillingness among the president's detractors to accept any upside to his approach, or to acknowledge when their own gloomy predictions have been proven disastrously wrong. Not all observers are so down in the mouth. ' The stock market is at record highs … I don't see a country in a depression … And I would have thought … that these tariffs were going to f‑--ing sink this economy by this time, and they didn't,' admitted the liberal American comedian and political commentator Bill Maher, a sometime Trump critic who has a record of giving the president credit when it is due. If the rest of the news media wants to recover ground among the 69 per cent of Americans who say they place little or no faith in it, its practitioners should recognise a good thing when they see it.