Iraq war inquiry told of secret discussions on regime change

British officials secretly discussed the prospects for “regime change” in Iraq in late 2001 more than a year before the Anglo-US invasion, the official inquiry into the war was told yesterday.

On the first day of public hearings in London, the inquiry headed by Sir John Chilcot heard that Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials drew up an internal “options” paper which included the possibility of ousting Saddam Hussein.

However, Sir William Patey, the then head of the FCO’s Middle East department, said the idea was swiftly rejected as there was “no basis in law” for such action.

The inquiry, taking evidence from a series of senior FCO and Ministry of Defence officials, heard the paper was drawn up amidst growing impatience in the United States with the strategy of “containment“ of Saddam.

Sir William told the inquiry: “This is a paper I commissioned from my staff.

“We didn’t go into how to achieve regime change.”

But the inquiry heard that in early 2001, some in the new administration of President George Bush were already discussing “regime change”.

Sir Peter Ricketts, who was chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), said Britain wanted a stronger “smart sanctions regime”.

He cited an article by then National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice – written before Mr Bush took office – warning that “nothing will change” in Iraq until Saddam Hussein was gone.

Sir William added: “We were aware of these drum beats from Washington. Our policy was to stay away from that end of the spectrum.”

Sir Peter said there was concern in the JIC that Saddam was accelerating his missile programmes, increasing efforts to secure material for a nuclear programme and had a continuing interest in chemical weapons.

Following the 9/11 attacks on America, Sir Peter said there was a further hardening of opinion in the US.

“We heard people in Washington thought there might be some link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden – undocumented. I don’t think we saw any evidence of it,” he said.

Sir Peter said that, from November 2001, he heard talk in Washington of “phase 2” in the “war on terror”.

Simon Webb, who was policy director at the Ministry of Defence, said the change in the US following the 9/11 attacks was “dramatic”.

“The shift in thinking was to say that we cannot afford to wait for these threats to materialise. We must be ready to engage potential threats wherever they emerge,” he said.

Mr Webb added: “The focus didn’t shift to regime change. It shifted to the weapons of mass destruction problem which, in the case of Iraq, you would probably end up having to push Saddam Hussein out of power.”

The inquiry continues.