Jack Straw - Foreign Secretary, 2001-2006 HARDtalk

Welcome to HARDtalk. All sanctions relating to Iran's nuclear programme

have enlisted in a deal labelled historic. -- in listed. A change in

their history had begun to be my guest is Jack Straw who served under

Tony Blair. -- begun. He supports closer ties with Iran. What is he is

response to critics who believes that this will bolster the

hardliners in the country, exacerbate regional rivalries, and

instil a sense of terror in the Middle East.

Jack Straw, welcome. The Iranian Foreign Minister said the lifting of

sanctions on Iran would be good for Iran and the region and the world.

Is he right? Yeah. The people doubt that, but they need to think about

the alternative. If sanctions have not been lifted and Iran made a

pariah state. What would have happened? In my view, if the

sanctions had not been agreed by President Obama and the US, the

hardliners in Iran would have eclipsed President Rouhani and the

nuclear weapons programme, which is generally accepted, that would have

restarted. The world would have definitely become a more dangerous

place. This guarantees Iran, even if it wants to, cannot restart it is

nuclear weapons programme for 15 years. You are satisfied that all

the checks the US says are there will be carried out vigorously...

You are satisfied they are OK? They are. You can never be completely

satisfied, but nuclear weapons programmes are much more difficult

to hide than chemical and biological weapons programmes. The IAEA is the

agency responsible for checking this and it is all over Iran and has a

lot of a ground knowledge. The key country is the United States. --

background. They often called the US the great Satan and part of the axis

of evil. You have got people in the US who are very concerned, Obama

will be on his way out soon, I will give you one example, Marco Rubio,

one of the Republican presidential candidates, he has thwarted Obama

for rewarding Iran despite it's atrocious record. There is huge

mistrust. -- its. There is. If you go to Tehran and see the slogans of

death to America still on the walls... The British embassy... The

liberal Satan, they called Britain. We are in the same company. In the

side streets around the compound is the Bobby Sands street named after

the IRA bomber... It is more the mistrust in the US I was talking

about, a key nations a pillow there is of course huge distrust. --

nation. -- much of that has been whipped up by the Israelis. This may

sound patronising... Amongst the body politic in the US, there is a

level of under information verging on ignorance about international

affairs which is often terrifying. When he says Iran has an atrocious

man rights record he has a point. -- human rights. They execute more

people than any other country apart from China. 160 juvenile offenders

on death row... A very poor record. But is that a reason for not

agreeing to this deal in respect to nuclear weapons? I suspect, I don't

know, I suspect the reformers who have agreed this deal would also

like to see a change in their human rights record. Bear in mind that the

judicial read and elements that of the forces that arrest people are

not in control of the government. -- judiciary. I would also say that

China has a horrible human rights record and so does Saudi Arabia.

Absolutely atrocious. A terrible record in terms of the treatment of

women, far worse than Iran. And, don't forget, in Senator Rubio's

home state, Texas, they have one of the worst records of capital

punishment as well. He is just one of many voices. The point is you

cannot just criticise the message because there is substance to the

message. Another example with Iran. The Foreign Minister said no country

has one, this is a draw. But the idea that Iran is being rewarded

even though it isn't being asked to changes behaviour... -- won. The

National Security Council says they tend to back Shiah populations and

insights them to violence and provide them with the wherewithal to

do so. Thus, the Iranians have become deeply embroiled in the wars

of the region. That is true. But it is true in the opposite way with

Saudi Arabia. It is embroiled in the other way. It is a given that Iran,

the leader of the minority Shia community within the Muslim world,

should have a natural association with other Shia communities in

Lebanon and Syria and Iraq and along the golf as well as in the western

part of Afghanistan. -- the Gulf. The question is how do you engage

with Iran in those... So even Bashar al-Assad, the offshoot of Shiahism,

responsible for the death of many in Syria... That is understandable? As

a matter of social and geographic loyalties and historic connections,

yeah, that is not in the least to excuse President Assad and his

brutal regime... And his allies, Iranians, the Revolutionary Guard

fighting on the ground alongside him. And his allies. The Syrian

conflict is incredibly complicated, as you know. The Assad regime is

also being supported by the Shia, but also the Christians who feel

under threat from the Sunnis and some Sunni business people as well.

The question is not, are you going to break these long-standing

connections, it is what a few going to do about them's you are far more

likely, from my ex variants in dealing with Iran and other

countries, to get Iran to help, if Iran is around the table it is much

easier. -- them? If you want some political solution to the series of

war, which we do, of course, you have to have them around the table

along with countries that Russia. -- Syrian War. The first Geneva accords

were doomed to failure because the British and US governments decided

to exclude Iran. The reverse is also true. If Iran is around the table,

they have made it clear, and so has Russia, yeah, Bashar al-Assad will

have to be part of the solution in terms of the agreement, but as soon

as there has in a piece, the Assad's family's duties will lie elsewhere.

-- been a piece. Saudi Arabia, of course, the major Sunni force in the

region, a huge rivalry with the Iranian. We see all sorts of Roxy

was laying out between the two of them. -- proxy wars. Backing the

Houthis... All sorts of rivalries in the region. The Saudi Arabians are

incredibly unhappy about this. They are. One of the reasons President

Obama pushed for this is to make them unhappy. It may sound odd, but

there is anxiety in Washington and European capitals about the

direction of travel of the Saudi regime. I believe that part of the

sub agenda of these talks and this rapprochement has been to secure a

different balance of power in the Gulf. If the West is able to get

normal business with Iran and foreign policy as well... That will

make relations with Saudi Arabia more balanced. Is that a strategy

you back? Having Iran as a counterweight? Do you believe that

the West and the UK is too close to Saudi Arabia? Is neat to be. -- it

needs to be rebalanced. Just as the process of breaking out of the trap

of sanctions in Iran is actually in the long-run helping the reforms...

I will ask you about that then. Just to finish the Southee in. You

believe that is the correct strategy? -- Saudi thing. Is that

because you believe that western nations are to close to Saudi

Arabia? -- Western. You can criticise me for this, but in the

absence of Iran and a proper relationship, there is only one

serious capital in the least, Riyadh. That has now changed. --

Middle East. We have to have terms where they acknowledge that they

have a neighbour across the Persian Gulf who has a different set of

viewpoints and they have to work with them. And there is also concern

about the internal situation in Saudi Arabia. They need a council

thinking about that. When David Cameron says the relationship with

Saudi Arabia is important for our security in the UK, what do you make

of that? Is the wrong or right? He is right that it is important. --

he. Don't want to see them going up. But you want to die muted? --

dilute it. I don't believe that if we have a better relationship with

Iran it sucks the power and influence out of the relationship

with Saudi Arabia. The sensible approach in international diplomacy

is to have good relations with all. If you want better stability within

the region, you need to have Saudi Arabia and Iran finally accepting

that their destiny in that region, however difficult, lies together.

That will not happen. Wendy Saudi Arabian Foreign Ministry chose

Iran's record has been one of fear and destabilisation and interference

in the affairs of other countries... -- says. That is just

one quote from the Saudi Foreign Minister. And also a Saudi Arabian

journalist to have equated and is a former adviser to the Foreign

Minister, saying that if Saudi Arabia gets a nuclear bomb... -- --

been quoted. He gets excited in contrast to his predecessor. I don't

think he would have said things in this way. Look, you have a terrible

hopelessness with no end to it with civil war in the Yemen. The only way

that can be resolved is by negotiations with Saudi Arabia and

Iran. They are fighting a proxy war. They have negotiations, may be

brokered in turn by the United States, Russia and the EU. They have

to start trying to live together. Obama's strengthening of the Iranian

government, in my view, in homes is that prospect. The you tend own

Saudi Arabia's actions in Yemen? -- condone.

I am worried, as it turns out, British military personnel involved

in giving assistance in terms of targeting. Nobody I speak to who

knows it much better than I do, thinks that this conflict in Yemen,

is anything with more tears. And the people of Yemen are renowned for

just carrying on fighting. So should Britain then stop... If there is a

far better explanation offered, we should withdraw that support and

work towards a political solution. There are concerns that there have

been attacked to have been attacks with kill people within that area. I

defend the British government's policy the supporting the US and the

French in the strikes in cereal and northern Iraq and sometimes

civilians will be killed but that sometimes is a very sad consequence

and very necessary action. I don't see the same case as Forest Yemen is

concerned. It is a little reported war in terms of how the West has

reported. But it has huge potential for destabilisation. The thing I do

not understand is how that Saudi's think they can contain this within

the borders of Yemen. The borders between Yemen and Saudi Arabia are

very porous indeed. Just a final thing on this Saudi and Iranian

relationship, you have other vested interests like Sudan and other

countries field. Don't forget in Bahrain there is a Shia majority.

don't buy into what I see is a naive view in terms of trade

relationship. I'm not in any doubt that if you can improve trade and

raise the common interest, then you reduce the security threats to

country. And I'm sure that why the council in the UAE will recognise

that. They are completely relaxed about Iran and a very happy about

what has happened. Going back to Iran now, you said several times

that lifting of the sanctions relating to Iran's sanctions has

left something like the dollar exchange restrictions due to Iraq's

listed missile brought new sanctions on 11

individuals. And those still exist up in terms of the nuclear

sanctions, you have consistently said that will bolster the moderates

at the expense of the hardliners. Why are you so sure of that Russian

yellow because I've developed an understanding of the politics within

Iran -- so sure of that? You were the first key Western politician to

visit. I visited just after 9/11. He had been elected in 97 and he was a

reformist. He was tried to open things up. You then had 9/11. In

Baghdad, Saddam Hussein organised celebrations against the Americans

to celebrate the fact that our kinder had taken down the twin

towers. In sharp contrast, the president organised the jewels in

sympathy with the victims of 9/11. He reached out to the west and that

is one of the key reasons I went there so quickly. And the

consequence was that Iran was fantastically helpful for the West

until President Bush pulled the rug from under the feet of the Iranians

with his access of evil speech. Why do think they will be strengthened?

If they help the moderates, they will help us. And the reverse is

also true as I saw so starkly in the years after the access of evil

speech when Iran was lumped in with Iraq -- axis. Know there were

concerns the other Gulf states the list $100 billion that has often

been quoted now as the sanctions relief one way or another will come

to Iran in time, it's going to be used to Iran two males are more in

the region. -- meddling. All of the big countries... Just with Iran

honour they could use the money with that. It is the people within the

Revolutionary guards and the businesses they control and who have

been most opposed to the president beginning in this and signing this

deal. They were putting the supreme leader under three great pressure to

refuse authorities to make those deals. We are where we are now. And

you are asking me how can I be certain, you can never be certain in

international relations but I'm far more certain than I ever was that

this deal will help moderates. On this 100 billion... I know it will

happen gradually. And the Iranian economy needs restructuring. You

cannot be certain because you have asserted it and we know that the

other conservatives and the hardliners with Parliamentary

elections in February coming have been prevented from standing because

they are too reformist. Berry still a long way to go with that. I want

to ask you as a senior Labour figure about your party because when it

comes to action like the intensified air strikes against Syria and when

the British royal air force came in, the new Labour leader was

opposed to that, you might key members of the Shadow Cabinet

supporting air strike. Is that kind of position tenable to have a key

figure like her so out of step with the leader? Hillary was supporting a

substantial proportion of the parliamentary party. It is something

we have to live with at the moment that the party is somewhat divided.

That as a consequence of the electoral system that produced a

leader, Jeremy Corbyn who was perfectly elected. Is it tenable?

When you were Foreign Secretary you supported the invasion of Iraq and

Tony Blair was a huge proponent of that. The state-of-the-art in, and

you are out of step as Hillary is with Jeremy Corbyn, would you have

remained in the government if you disagreed with him? Not in

government. I differed with him. If you were in Hillary's shoes you

would... You are in a very different position. This is not the first time

that senior opposition leaders have disagreed that that happened in the

1950s, it was optically pretty and it was not particularly pretty at

the moment. But it is a fact of life. In opposition we are making

decisions in government. It does not matter. It does matter but it does

not have the same affect. If you are saying you cannot be an effective

opposition, and the Labour leader asking further unilateral

disarmament and the future of Trident and the nuclear warheads

whether they should go on the submarines are not, and when you

have a leader like that who was a large part of the Labour Party

disagree with him, his days are numbered, surely? I disagree. It was

not a system that he created. The rest of the party needs to accept

that he was elected perfectly fairly by a system that he had no control.

You cannot blame the candidates are using the system. I don't happen to

agree with Jeremy on a lot of things, but as it happens, we were

on the same page with the future of Iran. He was democratic elected and

one wailed another the Parliamentary party and Jeremy Corbyn's leadership

will have to reach some accommodation. It is a painful

process and it is something that happened for the first time 50

years. Gifford coming on HARDtalk. Thank you. -- thank you for coming

on.