Britain’s ambassador to the US said Donald Trump abandoned the Iran nuclear deal in an “act of diplomatic vandalism” because it was agreed by his predecessor Barack Obama, according to the latest leaked cables.
The Mail on Sunday published details of the dispatch from Sir Kim Darroch, despite a warning from Scotland Yard that journalists who released further details of the ambassador’s communications could be in breach of the Officials Secrets Act (OSA).
The warning prompted a furious row over press freedom, with Tory leadership contenders Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt lining up to defend the right of the media to publish leaked government documents.
The latest memo to be disclosed was said to have been written by Sir Kim in May 2018 following a visit to Washington by Mr Johnson – who was then foreign secretary – in a last ditch attempt to persuade the Trump administration not to abandon the Iran deal.
Under the terms of the agreement – still supported by Britain, France and Germany – international sanctions on Iran were eased in return for Tehran accepting curbs on its nuclear programme.
Sir Kim told Mr Johnson: “The outcome illustrated the paradox of this White House: you got exceptional access, seeing everyone short of the president; but on the substance, the administration is set upon an act of diplomatic vandalism, seemingly for ideological and personality reasons – it was Obama’s deal.
“Moreover, they can’t articulate any ‘day-after’ strategy; and contacts with State Department this morning suggest no sort of plan for reaching out to partners and allies, whether in Europe or the region.”
On Friday, the Metropolitan Police said that it was launching a criminal investigation into the leak to the Mail of Sir Kim’s dispatches.
It followed the announcement Sir Kim had decided to quit, saying his position had become “impossible” following the publication of cables in which he described the Trump administration as “inept” and “dysfunctional”.
At the same time, Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu issued a warning that any further publication of the cables could constitute a criminal offence and called on journalists to return any leaked government documents.
His comments were roundly condemned by politicians and senior journalists, who accused the Met of the kind of “heavy-handed” approach more usually associated with totalitarian regimes.
In a further statement on Saturday, Mr Basu insisted the Met had “no intention” of trying to prevent the publication of stories in the public interest.
He said the focus of the inquiry by the counter terrorism command – which investigates breaches of the OSA – was “clearly on identifying who was responsible for the leak”.
However, he said they had been advised any further publication of the cables “now knowing they may be a breach of the OSA” could also constitute a criminal offence – to which there was no public interest defence.
“We know these documents and potentially others remain in circulation. We have a duty to prevent as well as detect crime, and the previous statement was intended to alert to the risk of breaching the OSA,” he said.
In a statement, a spokesman for The Mail on Sunday said it was publishing the latest leaked details – despite the threat of prosecution – because “a free press is vital to our democracy”.
“The media must be free to publish such information, in the public interest, as long as it does not endanger lives or national security,” the spokesman said.
“Our readers across the globe now have important information about how Britain tried, but failed, to stop President Trump abandoning the Iran nuclear deal.
“What could be more in the public interest than a better understanding of how this position was reached, which may have serious consequences for world peace?”
In response to the latest leak, a Foreign Office spokesman said: ‘A police inquiry into the totally unacceptable leak of this sensitive material has begun. The perpetrator should face the consequences of their actions.
“It’s not news that the US and UK differ in how to ensure Iran is never able to acquire a nuclear weapon; but this does underline that we do not shy away from talking about our differences and working together.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel