The Report
of the Iraq Inquiry
133.
The JIC judged
that Hizballah, Hamas and Palestinian groups did not
“currently
intend to
target UK interests”. That “could change if the situation in the
Middle East
deteriorates
further”, but only Hizballah’s External Security Organisation had
capability
to “carry
out significant attacks”.
134.
Addressing the
potential threat from Usama Bin Laden, the Assessment
stated:
“In the
context of UBL’s jihad, casualties and destruction could be an end
in
themselves
as much as a means to an end.68
He has no
interest in negotiation and
there is no
indication that he can be deterred. Further major attacks by those
who
share his
agenda cannot be ruled out, and may be more likely if UBL himself
is killed
and/or the
US retaliates against Afghanistan. While his focus remains on the
US and
the Gulf,
he has the capability to mount operations against the
UK.”
135.
The Assessment
concluded:
“Further
attacks in the near future are possible … Nor should we conclude
from the
volume of
intelligence on Islamic extremists’ aspirations that we necessarily
face an
escalating
spiral of increasingly frequent attacks. Many will be disrupted …
Major
attacks on
anything like the scale seen in New York are likely to remain
relatively
infrequent.
But the capacity to undertake them demonstrably
exists.”
136.
After 9/11,
concerns in the UK about the risks of nuclear, biological,
chemical
and
ballistic missile proliferation intensified.
137.
In a speech
addressing the Assembly on Terrorism on 1 October, Mr Kofi
Annan,
the UN
Secretary-General, stated that, after the attacks of 9/11, “no one
can dispute the
nature of
the terrorist threat, nor the need to meet it with a global
response”.69
He added
that that
would require:
“… Member
States to live up to their responsibilities under international
law. They
must deal
firmly with the reality of armed groups and other non-State actors
who
refuse to
respect common principles of human dignity.
“It is hard
to imagine how the tragedy of 11 September could have been
worse.
Yet, the
truth is that a single attack involving a nuclear or biological
weapon could
have killed
millions … The greatest danger arises from a non-State group –
or
even an
individual – acquiring and using a nuclear, biological, or chemical
weapon.
Such a
weapon could be delivered without the need for any missile or any
other
sophisticated
delivery system.”
68
“UBL’s
stated objective is to secure US withdrawal from the Middle East
or, failing that, to provoke a
reaction
which would further demonise the US in the eyes of Muslims and
destabilise moderate Arab
states that
he perceives as un-Islamic.”
69
UN Press
Release, 1 October 2001, Secretary-General,
Addressing Assembly on Terrorism, Calls for
‘Immediate
Far-Reaching Changes’ in UN Response to Terror.
40