Previous page | Contents | Next page
The Report of the Iraq Inquiry
145.  Mr Straw was sent copies of the December 2000 and May 2001 JIC Assessments
in mid-November.76 He was told that the Key Judgements were “unchanged” and the
JIC would be reviewing its judgements and the “threat of onward proliferation of WMD
expertise and technology from Iraq to terrorist groups” later that month.
146.  The FCO informed Mr Straw that the main conclusions to be drawn included:
Iraq “probably” had the capability to strike Israel and other countries “with
missiles tipped with chemical and biological warheads”.
It was “highly unlikely” that Iraq possessed a nuclear weapon, but it had “the
motive and technology to develop a radiological device”.
UN sanctions had “prevented the reconstruction of Saddam’s conventional
military machine”.
147.  The FCO advice also stated:
Recent intelligence indicated that research and development on nuclear
weapons continued and that Iraq was seeking equipment for a uranium
enrichment programme.
Iraq’s CBW capabilities were the “greatest concern”.
It was judged that Iraq “was able to conceal large quantities of chemical and
biological stocks”.
148.  The FCO also provided a copy of the “current press lines”, including:
The UK believed the “Baghdad regime” was “still hiding weapons of mass
destruction in a range of locations”.
The “Baghdad regime” had “continued to pursue ballistic missile, nuclear,
chemical and biological programmes in breach of its UN obligations”.
Iraq had “admitted hiding chemical, biological weapons and missile parts in the
desert … caves and railway tunnels”.
The UK believed Iraq still had “chemical and biological agents and the means to
deliver them in a range of locations”.
Iraq had admitted producing chemical and biological warfare agents, the effects
of which were “horrendous”.
The UK believed the “Baghdad regime” had “recently accelerated its weapons
programmes”.
76  Minute FCO [junior official] to Dowse and PS [FCO], 13 November 2001, ‘Iraqi Capacity to Hit Back’.
This mistakenly refers to an assessment in “November” 2000.
42
Previous page | Contents | Next page