Perhaps because Saddam's WMDs could destroy Britain in 45 minutes, which Blair claimed in a speech, so it would be dangerous to attack Iraq.We need more detail. Why is he opposing it?
Could they even reach Britain? Would Saddam be that insane considering Britain's nuclear triad?Perhaps because Saddam's WMDs could destroy Britain in 45 minutes, which Blair claimed in a speech, so it would be dangerous to attack Iraq.
We need more detail. Why is he opposing it?
Saddam did not have any WMDs, but Bush and Blair claimed that he had, and Blair said that they could reach Britain. (But that is from memory, so I might be wrong.)Could they even reach Britain? Would Saddam be that insane considering Britain's nuclear triad?
Without Britain, Bush's "coalition of willing" amounts to, well, the US and maybe the Marshall Islands, roughly. There would be zero support for thing internationally. Perhaps even Bush would reconsider.
They were indeed, and so was Poland, but Britain being in lockstep with France and Germany on the issue would probably be enough to change that I think.For the record, I believe Spain was on-board at the beginning.
Bearing in mind you are quoting from memory and admit this might be wrong, it is more or less the way I remember OTL too.Saddam did not have any WMDs, but Bush and Blair claimed that he had, and Blair said that they could reach Britain.
CIA getting inefficient in their old age - shouldn't they have taken some WMDs along to "find " at the right moment?Could they even reach Britain? Would Saddam be that insane considering Britain's nuclear triad?
Blair seems to have cooperated in giving the Americans the "evidence" they were waving IIRC (so did Italian intelligence, but I am not positive that Berlusconi was on it. He did not participate directly in the invasion in the end, he was busier with a bolder project: making Russia join NATO, and no, I am not joking).Bearing in mind you are quoting from memory and admit this might be wrong, it is more or less the way I remember OTL too.
But in fact, as you note, there weren't any WMDs. (Technically there were--decayed, decrepit old mustard gas shells. Which the western powers, led by the USA under Reagan, and thus a lot of guys who were the same Bush Jr admin people testifying falsely as to nukes, made sure he did have to use against Iran. But talking up nukes and then pointing to these gas shells is yet another layer of mendacity, obviously).
Therefore there was no way British intelligence could have positive information that Hussein surely did have nukes or anything else anyone could reasonably speak of as WMD in a 21st century context--they didn't exist, so no way to positively verify they did.
It might have been reasonable for British intelligence to believe there was a certain chance he might have some undetected, but that is a different narrative. The sale of the invasion of Iraq was purported to be on grounds of Hussein having nuclear weapons, verified. Which was a falsehood.
The question then becomes, did Tony Blair believe an American falsehood? Did he piece together British intelligence confirming it was not impossible Hussein had some nukes, and make a leap of faith in the good faith of the Bush administration, for whatever reason?
Did Blair personally doubt Iraq had them, but choose to roll with American claims for other reasons?
Or did he know it was almost certainly a mendacious American lie?
The obvious POD is, Blair believes British intelligence, and maybe goes further to order his own people verify specific American claims and they come back with the proof the Yankees are lying on important points, and therefore communicates (presumably through quiet back channels, not to pointlessly slap the President in the face publicly) that he will not be urging Parliament to approve British participation until and unless the Americans produce real evidence.
In short, Blair grows a brain, principles or a backbone, whichever combination he was lacking OTL, and refuses to take a nation to war based on lies.
It seems pretty straightforward to me. Don't be fooled by people with a long reputation of playing fast and loose with facts, particularly when they've been telegraphing for a decade they are bound and determined to go to war with Iraq for quite different reasons and demonstrating they will not rest until they find a pretext.
That's what many expected at the time. The fact they did not bother to fabricate evidence may suggest they genuinely believed their own lies.CIA getting inefficient in their old age - shouldn't they have taken some WMDs along to "find " at the right moment?
I might be persuaded that the US intel establishment, particularly since the White House was not so much telegraphing as sending marching bands into the streets parading its wishes, fooled itself, drawing worst case inferences from confusing evidence and presenting as confirmation, and thus fooled themselves into the expectation they'd be vindicated in fact.That's what many expected at the time. The fact they did not bother to fabricate evidence may suggest they genuinely believed their own lies.