John Sawers is the Political Director of the British Foreign Office, and one of their most senior civil servants. He served as Tony Blair’s envoy to Baghdad. A letter he wrote to Tony Blair days after the occupation of Iraq was leaked. In it, he appears intelligent, insightful, and well informed.
Now another letter of his is leaked. In this one, he describes the plan the Foreign office is going to follow over the next few months. This plan is to convince Russia and China to agree to an attack on Iran. This letter documents a British diplomat talking to his counterparts in France, Germany and the US, about what appears to be a coordinated strategy. Their goal is UN approval for an unprovoked war on Iran.
This is the proof Katharine Gun called for days ago; “I urge those in a position to do so to disclose information which relates to this planned aggression…Such government activities are not paper-free endeavors…documents are being drafted now or already exist. As the political momentum builds towards a military ‘solution’, it would be wrong to wait until bombs have fallen on Iran and families destroyed before finally informing the public.”
The following memo is a government document describing how they will build that political momentum towards a military solution. Sawers writes to his colleges that they will introduce a Security Council resolution which Iran is likely to reject. He does not want to tell Russia and China what will happen to Iran at that point. This could be because they are considering nuclear attack, but that is speculation on my part. This will be another unprovoked war of aggression, though they will likely call it a pre-emptive attack. This should have happened by June of this year. The government has already set its policy objective; attack Iran. Another war is coming unless ‘we’ stop it. The plan is to win Russian consent by the G8 summit in June. This is when they (Britain, France, Germany, US) are in position to offer Russia the largest economic incentives. This makes it likely the war is also about economic incentives. (If, for example, there war were to be about security concerns, possible nuclear weapons, the UK might try to convince Russia by showing them Iranian documents and nuclear material. The UK is bargaining with money, the war is likely about money.)
The letter begins with his address to officials of co-conspiring governments.
Republished from Times Online
The UK, US, France, Germany to bring security council resolution by June
“Stanislas de Laboulaye, Michael Schaefer, Nick Burns, Robert Cooper.
Nick, Michael and I had a word yesterday about how to handle the E3+3 meeting in New York on Monday. We agreed that we would need to have a shared concept of what would happen in the Security Council after the period specified by the proposed Presidential Statement. I agreed to circulate a short paper which we might use as a sort of speaking note with the Russians and Chinese. This is attached.
Implicit in the paper is a recognition that we are not going to bring the Russians and Chinese to accept significant sanctions over the coming months, certainly not without further efforts to bring the Iranians around.
Kislyak might argue that those diplomatic efforts should start straightaway after a Presidential Statement is adopted. Our own assessment here is that the Iranians will not feel under much pressure from PRST on its own, and they will need to know that more serious measures are likely. This means putting the Iran dossier onto a Chapter VII basis. We may also need to remove one of the Iranian arguments that the suspension called for is ‘voluntary’. We could do both by making the voluntary suspension a mandatory requirement to the Security Council, in a Resolution we would aim to adopt I, say, early May.
In return for the Russians and Chinese agreeing to this, we would then want to put together a package that could be presented to the Iranians as a new proposal. Ideally this would have the explicit backing of Russia, China and the United States as well as the E3, though Nick will want to consider the scope of presenting this in that way. Our thought is that we would need to finalise this during June, and the obvious occasion to do so would be in the margins of the G8 Foreign Ministers’ meeting. The period running up to the G8 Summit will be when our influence on Russia will be at its maximum, and we need to plan accordingly.
In parallel with agreeing a new proposal, we will also want to bind Russia and China into agreeing to further measures that will be taken by the Security Council should the Iranians fail to engage positively. That would be reflected in Step Four. We would not, at this stage, want to be explicit about what would be involved then – there will need to be extensive negotiations on that in May/June.
I am not sure how far we will get on Monday. The prospect of an E3+3 Ministerial in Berlin on 30 March would give Kislyak the opportunity to push this down the road by ten days. But I suspect we will need a meeting at Ministerial level anyway to get agreement to this sort of approach, including an early Chapter VII Resolution.
We have earmarked a conference call between the five of us on Friday afternoon. Can I suggest that we do this at 1530 GMT. We will need to be circumspect on an open line, but as we are not planning to hand a paper over to the Russians and Chinese, I don’t think we need to go into detailed drafting. What we need is agreement on the concepts.
Looking forward to seeing you all in New York on Monday.”
This is the proof Katharine Gun called for days ago; “I urge those in a position to do so to disclose information which relates to this planned aggression…Such government activities are not paper-free endeavors…documents are being drafted now or already exist. As the political momentum builds towards a military ‘solution’, it would be wrong to wait until bombs have fallen on Iran and families destroyed before finally informing the public.”
The following memo is a government document describing how they will build that political momentum towards a military solution. Sawers writes to his colleges that they will introduce a Security Council resolution which Iran is likely to reject. He does not want to tell Russia and China what will happen to Iran at that point. This could be because they are considering nuclear attack, but that is speculation on my part. This will be another unprovoked war of aggression, though they will likely call it a pre-emptive attack. This should have happened by June of this year. The government has already set its policy objective; attack Iran. Another war is coming unless ‘we’ stop it. The plan is to win Russian consent by the G8 summit in June. This is when they (Britain, France, Germany, US) are in position to offer Russia the largest economic incentives. This makes it likely the war is also about economic incentives. (If, for example, there war were to be about security concerns, possible nuclear weapons, the UK might try to convince Russia by showing them Iranian documents and nuclear material. The UK is bargaining with money, the war is likely about money.)
The letter begins with his address to officials of co-conspiring governments.
Republished from Times Online
The UK, US, France, Germany to bring security council resolution by June
“Stanislas de Laboulaye, Michael Schaefer, Nick Burns, Robert Cooper.
Nick, Michael and I had a word yesterday about how to handle the E3+3 meeting in New York on Monday. We agreed that we would need to have a shared concept of what would happen in the Security Council after the period specified by the proposed Presidential Statement. I agreed to circulate a short paper which we might use as a sort of speaking note with the Russians and Chinese. This is attached.
Implicit in the paper is a recognition that we are not going to bring the Russians and Chinese to accept significant sanctions over the coming months, certainly not without further efforts to bring the Iranians around.
Kislyak might argue that those diplomatic efforts should start straightaway after a Presidential Statement is adopted. Our own assessment here is that the Iranians will not feel under much pressure from PRST on its own, and they will need to know that more serious measures are likely. This means putting the Iran dossier onto a Chapter VII basis. We may also need to remove one of the Iranian arguments that the suspension called for is ‘voluntary’. We could do both by making the voluntary suspension a mandatory requirement to the Security Council, in a Resolution we would aim to adopt I, say, early May.
In return for the Russians and Chinese agreeing to this, we would then want to put together a package that could be presented to the Iranians as a new proposal. Ideally this would have the explicit backing of Russia, China and the United States as well as the E3, though Nick will want to consider the scope of presenting this in that way. Our thought is that we would need to finalise this during June, and the obvious occasion to do so would be in the margins of the G8 Foreign Ministers’ meeting. The period running up to the G8 Summit will be when our influence on Russia will be at its maximum, and we need to plan accordingly.
In parallel with agreeing a new proposal, we will also want to bind Russia and China into agreeing to further measures that will be taken by the Security Council should the Iranians fail to engage positively. That would be reflected in Step Four. We would not, at this stage, want to be explicit about what would be involved then – there will need to be extensive negotiations on that in May/June.
I am not sure how far we will get on Monday. The prospect of an E3+3 Ministerial in Berlin on 30 March would give Kislyak the opportunity to push this down the road by ten days. But I suspect we will need a meeting at Ministerial level anyway to get agreement to this sort of approach, including an early Chapter VII Resolution.
We have earmarked a conference call between the five of us on Friday afternoon. Can I suggest that we do this at 1530 GMT. We will need to be circumspect on an open line, but as we are not planning to hand a paper over to the Russians and Chinese, I don’t think we need to go into detailed drafting. What we need is agreement on the concepts.
Looking forward to seeing you all in New York on Monday.”
Homepage:
Comments
Hide the following 7 comments
war plan iran
26.03.2006 13:20
Leaked letter in full: UK diplomat outlines Iran strategy
So finally irrefutable proof Blair is pushing for another war. And the story broke four days ago ? I'm a news junkie and I never heard about it until you posted that here, thanks for posting it.
junkie
Typical Indymedia paranoia
26.03.2006 14:44
Reality Check
The War Will Not Be Televised (because it won't be a war)
26.03.2006 19:23
Also, one thing to remember is that governments have always got all kinds of plans that are proposed for various military scenarios, most of which remain on the shelf and are never put into action, so just because there might be a plan drafted does not necessarily imply that a serious attempt to launch a war will happen.
Needless to say, we must always remain on guard and do what we can to make sure this kind of stuff doesn't happen, but realistically I don't reckon this war will go ahead. I will remain vigilant but sceptically so.
Street Piano Dude
Homepage:
http://www.streetpianos.org
Typical 'Times of London' Paranoia ?
27.03.2006 12:23
Really ? Whay haven't IM promoted the story then ? The truth is it is a London Times story, and their interpretation of it is it is clear from their title 'Britain pushes for military option to restrain Tehran'. You might want to rephrase your post ' Typical Times Paranoia' and go on to rubbish the Times credibility for being a left-wing tabloid full of anti-war conspiracy theories. Good luck with that !
>Utter bollocks.
You naming yourself 'Reality Check' ? Indeed.
>Read the letter properly: it's about persuading Russis and China to impose economic sanctions on Iran.
No, you read the article properly.
'Mark Fitzpatrick, an expert on nuclear proliferation at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said that securing a Chapter VII resolution would provide the international community with a “stick” it could use against Iran. “It would be an important breakthrough,” he said. “It would open the door to sanctions and other measures.” Before wielding any stick, however, Mr Sawers proposed that the international community give Iran a final chance in the form of a “revised offer” of incentives as a face-saving solution to allow it to back down peacefully.'
Of course if you can't think of a country that had UN sanctions imposed on it by USuk oil interests, followed by a brief flurry of bribery and temper-tantrums by USuk in a vain attempt to win genuine international support at the UN, followed by a bloody illegal invasion and failed occupation, then you probably haven't heard of a country called Iraq.
Street Piano Dude,
>My feeling is that the US and its sidekicks will not attempt to undermine Iran using military force but rather will use more subtle, less visible methods which will take place largely below the public radar.
Like increasing the supply of Afghan heroin on it's streets, or destabilisng the oil-rich south west of Iran with a terrorist bombing campaign ? You think that is a future possibility ? Oh dear.
>They will use assertive diplomacy and possible economic sanctions
They are using 'assertive diplomacy' and there are economic sanctions. I do like the euphemism 'assertive diplomacy' - Iran is EVIL and must be destroyed to stop it legally following the NPT that we ourselves are breaching.
>These guys know that there will be massive popular opposition if they seek to use military means.
What they know is that massive popular opposition didn't restrain them at all in Iraq. Say for the sake of argument the peace movement get 5 million marching against an obvious Iran invasion. Big fucking deal. They don't care. If you stop voting for Labour, their sister party, the Tories, will carry out the same attack. If you stop voting Republican, their sister party will take over the helm.
>They also know that a war would be overwhelmingly expensive,
It doesn't cost them anything - public tax pays for wars, while 'they' personally profit from their oil and weapons manufacturing portfolios. Ongoing public subsidies of the defence industry is all that keeps them going, and ongoing public subsidies require a 'bogeyman' enemy.
>and that they'd most likely end up caught up in a long drawn out quagmire - which is what they have ended up with in Iraq now.
They regard Iraq as a great success despite what you read in the Guardian. They would love to see Iran in a similar state of disarray.
>But I doubt they'd have the will or the inclination to launch another overt military attack on another sovereign country. I just can't see that happening
You can't see our leaders attacking another soveriegn country ! How wonderfully trusting you are. I suggest you read 'Rogue State' or 'Hegemony or Survival'. The US economy is based on military production, it would collapse without constant war. Without the restraint of another superpower the US has been even more aggressive recently but it has basically been at war with someone over the past hundred years, whether you've noticed that happening or not.
>Also, one thing to remember is that governments have always got all kinds of plans that are proposed for various military scenarios, most of which remain on the shelf and are never put into action, so just because there might be a plan drafted does not necessarily imply that a serious attempt to launch a war will happen.
How very reassuring. If only al-quaeda suspects could use the same defence. 'Yes, your honour, we were caught with plans to bomb London Underground, but that doesn't imply a serious attempt would happen.'
>Needless to say, we must always remain on guard and do what we can to make sure this kind of stuff doesn't happen, but realistically I don't reckon this war will go ahead. I will remain vigilant but sceptically so.
I am sure you sincerely think you are being realistic /vigilant /sceptical but you are not. Who do you think leaked this to the Times ? I'm sure no anarchist leaks to the Times, it is likely to be indicative of internal dissension in the security services, it is likely the leaked report is the tip of an iceberg. And why would the Times leak report on it in such strong terms if they didn't take it seriously ? You are being less vigilant against war then the most right-wing credible newspaper in Britain, which I find worrying - I find it worrying that this story has effectively been ignored by the peace movement simply because it comes from a right-wing source. 'They' are planning an attack, and the measures you think they are more likely to pursue instead are already being implemented if you had been paying attention.
We have been put on short notice of the next attack and not only are we doing nothing about it, we aren't even bothered about it. Maybe once we have groundtroops in Tehran then we might organise a big protest march. Great.
unreal
1st Step In US Pattern Of Deception
28.03.2006 00:25
Read recent history. This is the first step in the US Under PNAC (www.newamericancentury.org) game of "legitimizing" long-held plans for Acts of Aggression. Since we all know these Extremists have held these desires for years, nothing in the world can legitimize this deadly invasion and subsequent Occupation.
Over And Over And Over ...
legal vs moral
29.03.2006 15:05
Well, technically speaking, legally speaking, the UN can legitimise the subsequent occupation. In international law as it stands the UN could even legalise explicit genocide if it chose to. The UN is at this point in time the ulimate arbirator of international law and it has indeed recognised the occupation. It shouldn't have, especially as it bravely opposed USuk bribery and threats to legitimise the intial invasion, but it did. I'm guessing it did it to impose clear legal constraints upon the occupying forces rather than the pseudo-justice hypocracy USuk have been handing out. For instance, the duty to provide security which noone can pretend is being enacted. USuk troops have failed in their clear legal duty of care and should got the fuck out of dodge.
Of course USuk should pay reparations for the damage they have caused, another legal duty so far unfufilled.
And beyond law we have morality. Not even the UN can confer morality to any venture. Although it seems like only anarchists have been upholding international law, we aren't really, we are just comparing their platitudes to the reality of their actions.
overNout
30 day ultimatum
30.03.2006 11:51
"The Security Council requests in 30 days a report from the director-general of the IAEA on the process of Iranian compliance with the steps required by the IAEA Board, to the IAEA Board of Governors and in parallel to the Security Council for its consideration."
So the peace movement have just over four weeks to prevent war - a tall order, but prevention is better than cure, we shouldn't wait for formal hostilities to break out before we act.
JohnWayne