UK Government Split Over Calls For IRGC Terror Ban
The UK government is split over whether to proscribe Iran’s Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) as a terror group, according to press reports.
The UK government is split over whether to proscribe Iran’s Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) as a terror group, according to press reports.
Home Secretary Suella Braverman and Security Minister Tom Tugendhat are both said to back the move and bring Britain in line with policy in the US.
But Foreign Secretary James Cleverly is believed to be holding out against the change.
Critics say he is being badly advised by civil servants, claiming he is “too closely led by officials”.
The reports come after British-Iranian campaigner Vahid Beheshti ended his 73-day hunger strike outside the Foreign Office building in London last week. Now recovering in hospital, Beheshti has been calling for the British government to ban the IRGC. He has the support of more than a hundred members of the UK parliament.
The IRGC is designated as a “foreign terrorist organization” by the US, and has a long history of fomenting assassinations and attacks on civilians across the region and around the world. Earlier this year British counter-terrorism officers revealed that they had foiled 15 plots by Iran to either kidnap or kill British or UK-based individuals it considers “enemies of the regime”.
However, the Foreign Office is said to believe in valuing intelligence and maintaining dialogue over a “gesture”, as one source speaking to The Sun newspaper described the terror designation for the IRGC.
There is also said to be concern over how Tehran might retaliate, whether by targeting UK citizens in Iran – possibly adding to the number of foreigners who have been taken hostage – or by acting on British soil.
A Foreign Office source The Sun: “Nothing is ruled in or out. And anonymous personal comments about the Foreign Secretary will not distract from the ongoing business of the Government.”
However, Security Minister Tugendhat’s uncompromising approach over Iran was echoed by his counterpart in the Labour Party opposition, who are leading the governing Conservative Party in the polls and widely predicted to take over in government after a scheduled general election next year.
Speaking at a security conference in London, Shadow Security Minister Holly Lynch added her voice to calls for a ban on the IRGC.
She said a ban “wouldn’t simply be a symbolic measure – which would be powerful in its own right, but that is not what proscription powers should be used for.”
The shadow minister added: “Proscription would grant law enforcement the powers to take action against those supporting the IRGC and allow for a more effective dismantling of the support base necessary to facilitate such unacceptable conduct here within our borders.”
She voiced her outrage over the revelation of the 15 plots by Iran against targets in Britain, many of them in the media.
Ms Lynch said: “We have to ask ourselves what message does that send to the rest of the world, when journalists are not safe here in the UK.
“When we have authoritarian hostile states engaged in exporting tyranny into our country, pursuing those they perceive as enemies, and the heads of our security services are calling it out for the terrorism that it is, it calls for a significant and robust response from the UK.”
“Based on what I heard during the last 40 minutes they really don't have much to say on the topic, and I didn't think it was particularly useful briefing. I don't know if they really have a coherent strategy if there is one I didn't I didn't hear,” Sen. Josh Hawley a staunch Republican critic of the Biden administration said in response to our correspondent Arash Alaei.
US senators on Tuesday heard a confidential briefing on Iran by Biden administration officials eight months after long nuclear talks with Tehran reached an impasse last September and Iran continued its uranium enrichment, building up its stockpile of fissile material.
Sen. Hawley added that in his view there was no need to classify the briefing as ‘confidential’ and the senators were not given any new information. “We didn't learn anything new or remotely classified.”
Senator Jim Risch (R-Idaho) released a brief statement saying that after six months since President Joe Biden declared the 2015 nuclear accord, the JCPOA “dead” the US “is no closer to a more comprehensive Iran policy. Strategic ambiguity on Iran policy only serves to embolden the regime and push our partners closer to China.”
President Biden was heard saying in November 2020 that the JCPOA is dead, but the administration has continued to emphasize its commitment to a diplomatic solution.
After nuclear talks with Iran hit a dead-end last year, senior US officials have repeatedly said that they are no longer focused on the JCPOA.
Sen. Risch went on to say that “As Iran continues to illegally seize vessels, target Americans in the region, and support its terror proxies and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Americans deserve a policy that is more than a failed nuclear negotiation.”
Republican senator from Lousiana, John Kennedy, told reporters that he believes China, Russia and the Islamic Republic are coordinating efforts to dominate the Indo-Pacific, Central and Eastern Europe and the Middle East respectively.
“That is not a world that is safe for the US,” he said, and added, “We are in a bar fight with Putin, with Xi, with the Ayatollah,” and the Biden administration “believes in peace, but they believe in peace for weakness.”
Senator Kennedy also echoed Sen. Risch’s comment about the administration not having an effective policy. Sanctions have been imposed on Iran and Russia, but “when you ask the administration, what is your plan given that the sanctions have not stopped them, or what is your plan in addition to the sanctions, you are met with either silence or BS or both.”
The senator was also clear about what he expects from a possible nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic. “The deal I want is for Iran to give up all of its fissile materials, all of it, and give up its capability of making a nuclear bomb and to allow international inspectors to check them every other day. Otherwise, they probably won't have any deal.”
Senator Rick Scott (Rep-Fl) in response to questions expressed deep concern about Iran’s role in the region and in helping Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
“I don't think you can say there's anything good happening out of Iran.”
Iran’s advancements in uranium enrichment technology, its continuing interventions in the region and changed circumstances make the 2015 nuclear agreement out of place. However, Washington and its European allies are worried about Iran reaching the nuclear break-out point and are looking for ways to forge a new deal with Tehran.
Jalal Sadatian, Iran’s former ambassador in Britain told ILNA news website in Tehran that if the United States does not find a solution to the nuclear crisis with Iran, it might up the ante and trigger the return of international sanctions at the UN Security Council.
Sadatian argued that Washington was not after more tensions with Iran in 2021 and 2022 as it negotiated for the revival of the JCPOA, but all attempts to reach a deal failed. Now, some reports speak of a limited deal in which Iran receives partial sanctions relief in exchange for limiting the production of fissile material.
Amir-Ali Abolfat’h, a commentator on international affairs who is considered an expert on US issues in Iran, told Fararu website that a partial agreement does not seem to a feasible alternative for both sides. The US is concerned about the knowhow Iran has achieved in uranium enrichment and what it really wants is to eliminate the danger for good.
The US is concerned that if problems emerge in the future after a deal, Iran “would have plenty of means to achieve new progress in its nuclear program,” he said and added that the US cannot limit the scientific advances Iran has made, “nor bomb it out of existence.”
Iran on the other hand, would not agree to serious nuclear curbs simply for partial lifting of sanctions, Abolfat’h said.
What the United States wants from Iran goes even beyond the nuclear issue, the Iranian expert said. “They want multiple JCPOAs,” not just nuclear deal, he said. They want a comprehensive deal preventing Iran’s interventions in the region and weapons proliferation, making the revival of the 2015 accord impractical.
A recent article in Foreign Policy by university professors Ali Vaez and Vali Nasr in the United States has attracted a lot of attention among experts in Iran. The authors argued that a comprehensive deal, including a nuclear and a regional agreement would be the best solution for the Middle East. But comments about the article in the Iranian media reveal a misunderstanding by local pundits, who see the suggestion more as a partial deal than a comprehensive solution.
Abolfat’h for example argued that the proposal by the two US experts is “reductionist and unrealistic,” and Iran would not agree with any partial lifting of sanctions. He added that the two authors are close to the Biden administration and “their proposals is not necessarily compatible with Iran’s national interests.”
Sadatian, however, sounded more optimistic that reduction of regional tensions could help the process of achieving a lasting deal with the United States. He pointed out that although Iran’s March agreement with Saudi Arabia to restore relations is not a decisive factor by itself, but it can help smooth the way toward a deal with the West.
He also warned about Russia’s interest in torpedoing any agreement, echoing past concerns by many Iranian observers.
“If we want to revisit all the strange ups and downs in our relations with the West, we can easily see the footprint of Russia that has tried not to allow us to get closer to the United States.”