Straw faces Chilcot inquiry into letter to Blair

He urged PM to look at options apart from British troop involvement

Last updated:
2 MIN READ

London: The former foreign secretary Jack Straw is to face potentially explosive questioning at the Iraq inquiry next month over a private letter he sent to Tony Blair on the eve of the invasion, urging the prime minister to look at options apart from pressing ahead with British military involvement in the attack.

It is understood that the inquiry is to receive a copy of the personal letter sent by Straw, written after discussions with Sir Michael (now Lord) Jay, the Foreign Office permanent secretary, on March 16, 2003, two days before the Commons voted to back the war.

Straw was on Wednesday named by the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war as one of its star witnesses next month. Ten serving or former cabinet ministers have been called, including Blair, the former attorney general Lord Goldsmith and the former defence secretary Geoff Hoon.

But the inquiry has controversially decided not to cross-examine Gordon Brown before the general election, on the basis that it would be wrong to interrogate any serving minister still holding ministerial responsibility for Iraq. Straw is not exempted on this basis because he is now lord chancellor, with responsibility for the justice system.

It has been claimed that in the letter Straw suggested the United Kingdom should offer the Americans "political and moral support" in their campaign against Saddam Hussain, but not military backing.

He reportedly urged Blair to tell George Bush that British troops would help clear up the mess and keep the peace once the war was over, but could play no part in Saddam's overthrow.

The US president had offered Blair the chance to pull out, and the then chief of the defence staff, Lord Boyce, has told the Chilcot inquiry that the US invasion would not have been delayed by more than a week if British military forces had been held back at the last minute.

Downing Street has never denied the existence of Straw's letter, but claims he did not oppose British involvement in the war, and instead merely set out the options for how the UK could remain involved in Iraq's reconstruction in the event of MPs voting to oppose British military involvement.

The dispute over the letter's precise contents and motives is one of the great mysteries of the high politics of the British invasion. If Straw did urge restraint at the last minute, it will place an extra onus of responsibility on Blair himself for the decision to go to war. It will also raise questions as to why Straw decided to defend the war so strongly subsequently.

In public Straw has always argued that the invasion was lawful and that Iraq is a better place for the downfall of Saddam.

He has also maintained that the whole of the western intelligence community genuinely believed Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Sign up for the Daily Briefing

Get the latest news and updates straight to your inbox