London and Washington ready to intervenirein Iraq even without UN permission

United Kingdom and United States agree to attack the Iraq of Saddam Hussein even without UN approval.

A letter from the Secretariat of the former British premier Tony Blair reveals the agreement reached with the United States George Bush to proceed inland military five months before the start of the conflict.

The document, written by the then British Secretary Matthew Rycroft on October 17, 2002, says that in the event UN inspectors had found violations to the UN resolution 1441 on weapons of mass destruction which the Bush administration, have been held by Saddam, would not have expected a second resolution to attack.

"The only way to keep the United States in cooperation with the UN was being clear on the fact that, if Hans Blix (the head of UN inspectors, ndr) had found violations of the resolution on the part of Iraq, Saddam would not have had a second chance," writes Rycroft.

"In other words – adds in his letter – if for some reason will not be approved a second resolution, us and the States we will proceed with the action".

The content of the document addressed by the Secretariat of the former premier to some close associates, including the British Ambassador to the UN Jeremy Greenstock, is in sharp contrast to statements made publicly by the British Government during the same period. In fact, the then Foreign Minister, Jack Straw, continued to reaffirm the need to wait for the go-ahead of the glass palace. Same story as regards the press releases issued by Downing Street.

Before launching a military offensive was however required a further Council resolution that Blair and Bush had, however, chose to ignore – also because Blix not found no violation. A shortcut in the regulation, which contains the question mark on the real capacity of the United Nations as a supranational and its real power.

Although Blix had not found violations by the country in the Middle East, Blair speaks of "irrefutable" proof of the presence of weapons of mass destruction. A strategy to justify the attack. As is known, even after the invasion and the fall of Saddam, weapons were never found, so much so that the former head of the British Government is under investigation by the Chilcot on lies that have pushed the armed intervention.

But there is more. Even the secret service of his Majesty warned Blair on the inconsistency of the charges against Saddam: "Iraq does not pose a threat to the United Kingdom". The Baroness Manningham-Buller, Director General of the services at the time of the invasion, had described the campaign in Iraq as "a distraction" in relation to the objectives to be pursued, such as terrorism and Al Qaeda.

And not only: according to the counter-espionage, the war in Iraq would have had heavy repercussions on public order. Testifying last year before the Chilcot, Manningham-Buller said that the invasion led to the radicalization of groups of young British Muslims. Were "huge increase" in cases of domestic extremism by young Muslims, believe that the West was at war against Islam.

The Chilcot Inquiry final report is expected in the coming months, and only then will track the overall picture of events that led to the conflict. A picture is far from clear where, as the last elements would assume, the cowboy from easy gun was not only the Texan George Bush.