Britain has "absolutely no plans" for military aggression against Iran and Syria, said Blair

LONDON, April 3 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) – Differences between London and Washington over the future of the Middle East intensified when British Prime Minister Tony Blair implicitly condemned the Pentagon's bellicose language against Syria and Iran.

Challenged in the House of Commons by anti-war Labor MPs over speculation that Syria and Iran might be the next “hit list” after Iraq in the weekly question period Wednesday, April 2, Blair made it clear that his country had "absolutely no plans" for military aggression against either country.

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld last week warned Syria against supplying military equipment to Iraq.

He also said the entry into Iraq of "military forces, intelligence personnel, or proxies" from Iran would be treated as a “hostile act”.

British diplomats said Rumsfeld's harsh language was likely to inflame Arab opinion and be counter-productive in Syria and Iran.

Syria, the only Arab country currently on the U.N. Security Council. vehemently dismissed the U.S. accusations, with its ambassador to the U.N. saying they are only meant to cover a humiliating military failure in Iraq.

And Syrian President Bashar Assad described the U.S.-led war on Iraq as "clear occupation and a flagrant aggression against a United Nations member state."

“Not True”

However, the two staunchest allies in the war against Iraq did not find the same ground for agreement on Syria and Iran.

Although Rumsfeld also warned Iran to stay clear of Iraq and turn its armed proxies away from the battlefield, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said earlier that the Government would have nothing to do with such an approach.

Iran was an emerging democracy and "there would be no case whatsoever for taking any kind of action", Straw told BBC radio.

President George W Bush has already identified Iran as part of an "axis of evil", Washington views the leadership in both Damascus and Tehran as part of the global terrorist network.

Britain was working hard to improve relations with Syria. But Straw urged the Syrian government not to allow its territory to be used as a conduit for military supplies to Iraq.

Blair later emphasized that Britain would not find it acceptable if Syria supported elements in Iraq attacking allied forces.

Straw was asked whether he was worried that an impression was being created that once Iraq had been tackled, Syria and Iran might be next in line.

"It would worry me if it were true," he said. "It is not true, and we would have nothing whatever to do with an approach like that."

Straw has made extensive personal efforts to improve relations between Britain and Iran, while Blair has worked to improve contacts with Syria, according to the British daily.

“Not Americans”

“We would have nothing whatever to do with an approach like that," said Straw

Blair assured in his weekly question time session that Iraq should be run by Iraqi people as soon as possible after the war ended, an approach contradicted with Washington’s plans to set an American, named as Jay Garner, a former U.S. general, at the helm of the Arab country.

“Iraq in the end should not be run by the Americans, should not be run by the British, should not be run by any outside force or power," Blair told the Commons.

The British prime minister believed that an Iraqi-ruled government is a public request in Iraq.

"I am quite sure that is what the vast majority of the Iraqi people want to see," he stressed.

Downing Street said it envisaged that there would be a three-stage transition towards a new Iraqi government. As soon as the war was over, the military would be in charge, followed by an "interim Iraqi authority", leading to a "fully representative Iraqi government".

The rift between London and Washington first surfaced when Blair met Bush at Camp David on Thursday, March 27.

Blair insisted that a new U.N Security Council resolution is needed to authorize an interim U.N. administration and release funds for reconstruction.

British companies complained that a select group of U.S. construction firms are to land a lucrative government contract to rebuild a postwar Iraq the U.N. Development Program (UNDP) estimated it would cost up to 30 billion dollars over the next three years.