Interviewer: Today is the third anniversary of the fall of Baghdad and the toppling of that statue of Saddam. It's also, as we've heard, a day in which the papers are full of reports that America is planning to attack Iran and I'm joined now by the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw. Welcome, Mr Straw. Can I ask you first of all about these reports? They all emanate from the same source, which is an article in the New Yorker, detailed article and it suggests that plans are indeed under way by the Americans if necessary to hit various facilities in Iran.

Jack Straw: They also suggest that there's going to be a nuclear strike on Iran and they have name of Mr Richard Pearl, which should carry a health warning for any reporter associated with such reports.

Interviewer: Yes, they are called Prince of Darkness (INAUDIBLE)..

Jack Straw: Yes and rather unreliable reporter on what happens in the Administration. The idea of a nuclear strike on Iran is completely nuts. Now let me just deal with this issue of military action. I made clear the British government's position on this time and time again, which is widely shared across Europe. The American Administration, Condoleezza Rice, President Bush, use slightly different language. They say that it's not on the agenda but it isn't on the agenda. I believe it is not on the agenda and they are very committed indeed to resolving this issue, which is a complicated issue, by negotiation and yes, by diplomatic pressure. And what the Iranians have to do is to recognise that they have overplayed their hand at each stage. At each stage they calculated they split the international community. Actually at each stage the international community has ended up stronger. That's illustrated by the fact that China and Russia and the non-aligned movement have joined us in increasing pressure, including the latest statement from the Security Council on Iran.

Interviewer: And yet clearly the temperature is rising at the moment, worryingly. Would you agree with George Bush that President Ahmadinejad is comparable to Adolf Hitler?

Jack Straw: Well that's not my language and I am responsible for the British government and my…

Interviewer: It's a pretty wild thing to say isn't it?

Jack Straw: Well as I say it's up….I'm not going to comment on what President Bush may or may not have said about President Ahmadinejad. President Ahmadinejad is certainly a very difficult leader to deal with. He obviously believes that Israel, quote, "should be wiped off the map of the earth" and that is a profoundly belligerent statement and also deeply unhelpful, not only for peace and stability in the Middle East but also for Iran and Iran's future. And it's also caused very great embarrassment let me to say to the real power in Iran, which is the religious authorities.

Interviewer: I suppose one of the reasons that people give credibility to the notion that the United States might attack Iran in the future is that nothing else seems to be working. I hear what you say about the Russians and the Chinese but at the same time they are still completely against sanctions. They are against the kind of very, very tough pressure that might conceivably or not have some effect and it doesn't look like there's anything actually the outside world can do to stop the Iranian nuclear programme continuing.

Jack Straw: Well there are two reasons, let me say. I mean let's put the other one on the table, which is that people are worried that Iran is going to turn into another Iraq and that's in people's minds, so we might as well open up and discuss that. Although as Condoleezza Rice was saying last week and President Bush I've also heard him say, Iran is not Iraq. And yes, I understand people's frustration with the diplomatic process because it takes a long time and it's quite a subtle process. It's not true by the way that Russia and China have been unhelpful and let us wait and see what approach Russia and China actually take to the issue of sanctions if we….if we have to get there. Russia has been very responsible in all this. It's a neighbour. They…they are the last country in the world who want a nuclear armed Iran on their doorstep. They've also got very big investments in Iran and that's entirely legitimate and understandable. So I understand the frustration but the reason why we're opposed to military action is because of the infinitely worst option that there's no justification for it.

Interviewer: So these stories in the papers are all wrong and if it came to pass that the Americans said that we were…they were going to attack Iran, we would unequivocally say we want nothing to do with this?

Jack Straw: Yes, look I don't think it's going to happen in that way first of all. I've said it's inconceivable. Now people may say well what if Iran were to attack Israel? It's very, very unlikely. Obviously if Iran did attack Israel, the whole circumstances would change and Israel would have a right under Article 51 of self-defence, or if Iran were to attack other of its neighbours, that's a very different circumstance, or to threaten them in an imminent way. That's not the situation. I mean let's be clear at the moment, which is why I've said what I've said so clearly.

Interviewer: We wouldn't accept a pre-emptive attack?

Jack Straw: No and I don't…no, we wouldn't, wouldn't, just so I sound clear. And neither would….I don't feel…I'm as certain as I can be sitting here that neither would the United States. I mean let's just understand what the evidence is. The evidence is very clear that for 20 years Iran deceived the nuclear inspectors, that they were developing the fuel cycle on a scale quite disproportionate to the very modest nuclear electricity power programme and too that they failed to satisfy the inspectors over the last three years. There is circumstantial evidence, including the fact that there are manuals from A Q Khan, the nuclear weapons proliferator in Pakistan, about how to make bits of nuclear weapons, which adds up to high suspicion that Iran is developing a civil nuclear capability which in turn could be used for nuclear weapons. But let's be clear, there is no smoking gun, there is no casis belli (?). We can't be certain about Iran's intentions and that is therefore not a basis on which anybody would gain authority to go for military action. I think…I've been trying to be clear about this.

Interviewer: Absolutely, absolutely and you have been but a lot of people, as you've suggested yourself, will hear all of that through the prism of what was said ahead of Iraq.

Jack Straw: Well we said very different things ahead of Iraq but I understand the anxiety of course.

Interviewer: There is an anxiety there. Now you went with Condoleezza Rice to Baghdad a little while ago. You clearly have a very good relationship with her. Does that actually help? I mean are you in the situation when it comes to close calls on Iraq, or Iran for that matter, of being able to pick up the phone and deal with her in a way that cuts through the normal sort of diplomatic chatter?

Jack Straw: Well I think personal relationships make a huge difference in diplomacy as they do in life, although they are not a substitute for the fact that different countries in this case may have different interests but, and let's be clear, that there are many areas of policy where we have a difference of view from the United States as we do from members of the European Union. That's a reason for having a close relationship but..

Interviewer: You can have a frank conversation..

Jack Straw: I can have a frank conversation.

Interviewer: … and say "Condi, you're wrong on this" or…

Jack Straw: Well we have a very frank conversation. I mean we did a television interview, I'm afraid it was on the competition last Sunday, Jonathan Dimbleby, where we perfectly accepted in public that there was a difference of…of emphasis on Iran. We're grown ups. Why not? People need to understand that. I've said what I've said about military action. So far as the United States are concerned, Condoleezza Rice, President Bush say it's not on the agenda but they don't rule out any option in theory. That's their position.

. . .