Iran

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but I will wait for the Minister to respond to the debate.

I am deeply concerned by reports of threats made to organisations in the UK that support the rights of protesters in Iran, including the recent petrol bombing in outer London of a location affiliated with the National Council of Resistance of Iran. Thankfully, as it was the early hours of the morning, no one was inside, but the situation could have been extremely grave with loss of life.

The mass murders by the IRGC are shocking, but perhaps not surprising. In 1988, the current President of Iran, President Raisi, was responsible for the prosecution of 30,000 political prisoners, all of whom were executed. Of those 30,000, 90% were members or supporters of Iran’s main opposition movement, the People’s Mujaheddin Organisation of Iran. That indicates that the regime has no qualms whatsoever about executing people who represent a threat. It has made clear that that is what it intends to do. The 1988 massacre holds many similarities to today’s uprising, rooted as it was in a fundamental conflict with the people of Iran, who were demanding freedom, democracy, and economic and social development after the overthrow of the Shah.

The IRGC has created, funded and armed a vast network of middle eastern terrorist groups, from Hezbollah in Lebanon to the Houthis in Yemen, all spreading war and violence around the region. Iran has supplied Hezbollah alone with some 150,000 missiles, which are regularly fired at innocent Israeli civilians. Hezbollah’s 2012 bomb attack in Bulgaria, which killed five Israeli tourists and a Bulgarian, led the EU to list the organisation’s military wing as terrorists, while leaving the political arm of the organisation untouched. In creating that artificial distinction, which even Hezbollah rejected, the EU avoided banning the group in its entirety. It consequently continues to recruit and fundraise in EU member states and the UK, which has not yet banned the group separately.

Furthermore, the IRGC and Hezbollah are at the forefront of Iran’s brutal campaign to keep the Syrian Assad regime in power. Since 2015, when Russia joined the fighting, the two regimes have partnered in despicable war crimes that have killed hundreds of thousands and left millions as refugees of war. The growing alliance with Russia has been further strengthened with the current war in Ukraine, with Iran supplying advanced drones to Russia since August.

Iran’s people have risen to defeat religious tyranny and its repression and terrorism. They have chosen to pay the price of freedom with their blood. The UK and the whole international community should rise in solidarity by helping the Iranian people realise their democratic aspirations, which the UK Government can do by taking the following necessary steps.

The Government should demand that the Iranian regime immediately halt trials, convictions and executions of protesters in Iran. The UK Government lag behind their European counterparts, who are even sponsoring individual protesters who are in prison and at high risk of execution. We could follow that lead.

We should recognise the legitimacy of the fight of the Iranian people against the evil and terrorist forces of the IRGC and officially recognise the Iranian people’s revolution to establish a republic based on democratic values.

We should recognise that the people of Iran have a democratic alternative, the goals of which are enshrined in the 10-point plan articulated by Mrs Maryam Rajavi, the president-elect of the NCRI. The Government should support that Iranian solution, as was recommended by more than 230 Members from across the parties in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords in our joint statement in December 2022.

The Government should refer the appalling dossier of the regime’s systematic violations of human rights and crimes against humanity to the United Nations Security Council for the adoption of binding deterrent measures. The regime leaders must be brought to justice to end impunity and prevent the cycle of crime and terror.

Next, we should proscribe the IRGC in its entirety to deny it the funds and resources it needs to crush the nationwide uprising and export terrorism abroad.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)]

I will make an additional suggestion, if I may. Within 48 hours of every state murder of a protester, the west, our allies and the UK should impose specific sanctions, because otherwise there is no direct response to prevent each individual execution.

To go on for one more moment, there is much discussion on Twitter and the television about whether my hon. Friend is bleeding while giving this speech, which he is not. It would be helpful if he could clarify that he is in a fit state of health, because we in this House would never allow our good friend to go on bleeding while discussing such matters.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am going through a menu of points that I want the Government to follow, and she is absolutely right that I am not bleeding. I had an accident on Monday, and I am very grateful to the wonderful people in the national health service for assisting me at the time.

We must close the regime’s embassy and affiliated institutions, as well as expelling diplomats and agents of the regime in the UK who provide support for the violent repression of dissidents and activists in the UK. We must widen sanctions to target the political leadership that is responsible for the conduct of the regime—the supreme leader, the President, the IRGC and everyone within the governing structure—and encourage our allies to do the same.

We must stop any form of negotiation or concessions to the criminal rulers of Iran. In view of the death sentences against protesters detained during the current uprising, we must act immediately, together with international partners, to ensure that the international fact-finding mission created by the UN Human Rights Council visits the prisons in Iran and speaks with the detained protesters and political prisoners as soon as possible.

Jointly with our P3 allies, we must announce a definitive and permanent end to efforts to secure a nuclear deal. Iran’s nuclear activity is merely a symptom. We should be tackling the disease: the regime itself. It is not good enough simply to say, as the United States has done, that the deal is not the focus right now. Iran’s protesters want to see a harder line. Deterrence, rather than talks, is the appropriate posture.

I look forward to hearing many powerful and robust arguments made by my colleagues, but as I come to the end of my speech, I leave the House with one final thought. Iran is the country responsible for the second highest number of executions each year, behind only China. It is responsible for the greatest tally of female executions in any country. Whatever people’s views on capital punishment, it cannot be acceptable that that position persists.

It is high time we worked together to banish this unlawful regime, to protect innocent protesters and to champion free democratic rights across the world—something we often so easily take for granted. To oppose the Iranian regime is no longer a political calculation, but a simple humanitarian choice. I look forward in particular to the contribution and answers from my hon. Friend the Minister as the debate winds up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)]

It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), whose contribution brought such acute awareness of exactly the sort of situation that families across the world face as Iran continues to industrialise hostage taking. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for securing the debate. We have all, throughout the House, been passionate about raising our voices for those whom the Iranian regime is trying to silence.

It has been almost five months now since an Iranian-Kurdish woman was arrested and severely beaten, and later died in custody. Mahsa Amini is a symbol for what so many women around the world face, and for what women across Iran have faced for too long: denial of their basic rights, subjugation, and the suggestion that they do not deserve to be treated as even the most basic of human individuals, that they are lesser and have no rights, that anything can happen to them, and that men have the right to dole out punishments, as they see fit, for their own joy and fulfilment. That is what this is: misogyny entrenched within an institution and within a Government; the taking of joy from violence against women because we are lesser. We see that across the world, and we have to raise our voices against it. We in Britain can be a leading voice on that.

Mahsa Amini’s tragic and needless death has shown the enormous courage of the Iranian people and reminded us of just how repressive the regime is. As we speak, the regime in Tehran continues to act with brazen disregard for life and humanity, whether through state murders, violence on the streets of Iran, or the rape of virgins who are arrested for not wearing head scarves enough and told, “You will now go to Allah sullied, as you deserve to be.” That is what is happening in Iranian prisons. Yet we have not sanctioned all the guards at Evin prison. We have sanctioned former guards—who are not there perpetrating crimes currently—but not those who are in the prison now. I ask the Minister to look at that urgently, because it is something that we can change overnight.

The case of the British-Iranian dual national Ali Reza Akbari has also been raised. Last night, we all heard that he was sentenced to death. Like those who have spoken, I hope that he is still alive and that the situation can be changed. But the issue here is that Iran does not recognise British-Iranian dual nationality. There are two questions about why his death sentence has been brought forward. He has been held for a long time—a traditional tactic of the Iranian regime is to hold people, ready for when it needs to use them. As the Iranians are sanctioned—as they should be—they have few cards left to play, so they hold our British nationals in prisons until they need to use them.

Is the Iranian regime bringing forward the death sentence because it wants to prove its point that it is not the Iranian people who are rising up organically against a cruel, evil and repressive regime, but the UK, the US, the west, the Israelis and all those awful people forcing a fake revolution in that country? Iran could be doing it to make that point. It could also be doing it because Akbari used to be a deputy Defence Minister, and the individual for whom he deputised is now secretary-general of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council. That individual has been the most moderate voice in the Iranian regime over the last few months, and has been the most likely to call for moderate responses, behaviour and dialogue. Is this a warning to him? We do not know, but either way, the result is the same: a British-Iranian national is being used as a hostage to negotiate for what the Iranians need, including the domestic headlines. That is absolutely wrong.

I echo the Foreign Secretary, who said that, if Iran does not halt this, there must be consequences. If Akbari is killed, there must be sanctions. We must consider expelling the chargé d’affaires here in London and recalling our ambassador. It would be helpful to receive from the Minister an update on what progress our ambassador believes he is making in Tehran. I understand that, more often than not, it is better to keep someone on the ground for the small conversations that can take place, for the small support of civil society that can be provided, for the negotiations that need to take place, and for understanding the dynamics of what is really going on. But I question whether we have seen meaningful results from our embassy in Tehran over the last five months. That is not a criticism of our ambassador and our diplomatic staff there, because what they are doing is impossible, but if they can have no meaningful effect, remaining there sends the message that we support a continued relationship with the Iranian regime, and we have to question whether we wish to send that message.

Iran is detaining hostages en masse. Sixty-six foreign and dual nationals have been detained since 2010, 15 of whom have definite links to the UK. We owe it to Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and to the Ashoori family to end the Iranian regime’s bartering with human lives. To do so, we need to decide whether we need a special envoy for hostage taking, or a multilateral response, working in some way with the Canadians under their leadership. That is why the Foreign Affairs Committee is holding an inquiry into state hostage taking. I hope that the results will be listened to carefully by the Government.

It is clear that those responsible must be sanctioned. While the regime continues to repress people in Iran, we must also look at its activities in the UK and the west and how they impact on us. We heard last year from the head of MI5 that Iran has plotted the assassination and kidnapping of at least 10 British residents and has crossed over into launching terrorist attacks on British soil, if it can. It has undertaken more assassinations in western Europe in the last five years than any other country. As the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) pointed out, the regime also intimidates British journalists, which is utterly unacceptable.

That comes down to how we make ourselves more resilient to the Iranian state, and that is where the discussion of proscription comes into play. This is by no means a straightforward conversation, and I would like to reflect on some advice by Jonathan Hall, the Government’s terrorism adviser. There are challenges to proscribing the IRGC—I do not suggest that it would be easy—but they are not insurmountable. It all comes down to the application of the Terrorism Act 2000.

Modern states, from the Jacobins, have been responsible for the most lethal instances of terrorism, with the term first used around the French revolution. Terrorism is a tactic that we know states use, and it is in its most devastating form when states pursue it. The enduring policy of the UK Government has been to treat terrorism by states as falling outside the Terrorism Act 2000, but that appears to be a policy position rather than an interpretation of the Act, which I suggest gives us some room for manoeuvre. The best illustration of that is the Salisbury attack by Russia in March 2018. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) was incredibly strong in her response, but the Government were scrupulous in treating the attack as hostile state activity, and no counter-terrorism powers were used.

There is no authoritative ruling by the courts on whether state terrorism can be included within the Terrorism Act. However, the High Court suggested in 2006 that, although the Act’s words were,

“taken by themselves, broad enough to cover all lawful acts of war,”

it was a “misconception of the definition” for acts by some states to fall within it.

The effect of proscribing the IRGC would be to accept, contrary to our long-standing policy position, that state forces and therefore states can be “concerned in terrorism” under the Terrorism Act 2000. That requires great consideration, because when a state force uses or threatens violence, it normally complies with the laws of war, known as international humanitarian law. We would therefore have to say that the activities of the IRGC fall outside the definition of terrorism.

Now, I suggest that the House is probably united in believing that the IRGC’s actions fall outside international humanitarian law. It follows that, if the IRGC were proscribed on the basis that its violence amounted to terrorism, the argument would be that acts of violence carried out by friendly state forces—any European partner could be named—are not terrorism because they are carried out in accordance with international humanitarian law.

I recognise that Ministers may be receiving all sorts of complex legal guidance from civil servants, but it has been a policy decision, not a legal decision, so far not to proscribe. Although there are profound implications of that decision, state forces are capable of being “concerned in terrorism”, so the question is more how the definition of terrorism applies to other state forces. We will have to address that, at the risk of upsetting the meaning of terrorism in domestic law, but I argue that it is absolutely the right thing to do. I hope that sets out that, while there are many reasons to say that proscribing the IRGC is insurmountable, it is actually achievable.

I wish to finish by talking about the UK’s commitment to the joint comprehensive plan of action. To all intents and purposes, the JCPOA has failed to deter Iran in any meaningful way. Iran has enriched uranium and is progressing its development of nuclear weapons; all it now falls for it to do is to work out how to put the uranium into a mobile weapons system that it can move and deploy. That is not easy, but Iran has come a long way, and that is because progress is frozen and you might say that the JCPOA is dead.

I get quite frustrated when I hear politicians say that the JCPOA is dead. I ask, “In what way is it dead? What do we do next? Where do we go from here?” That is one of the challenges. If the JCPOA is dead, Britain has to seize the initiative, with its allies, and come up with a new format that rightly calls out human rights abuses, alongside nuclear proliferation, and it must make sure that it finds a new way forward. However, the system currently is not working.

There is an additional problem: while the Government helpfully confirmed over Christmas that the IRGC is sanctioned in its entirety, it is sanctioned only in the context of the JCPOA, which expires in October. That means that, from October, the IRGC will no longer be sanctioned in British law. I suggest that, given the time it takes to do sanctions, we need to act now if we are to make sure that, in October, we do not end up with the IRGC no longer being sanctioned by the British Government.

When we look at why the IRGC is a terrorist organisation, we should not forget its activities in its immediate region. In Iraq, we have Iranian militia committing massacres against religious minorities, ostracising communities, threatening politicians and making Iraqi politics inherently unstable.

In Syria, the Iranian regime has allowed the country to become a drug superstate. I urge all Members to look at that. The Assad regime is heinous. President Assad paid a photographer to take photos of the people who were tortured and killed in his prisons, because he wanted evidence that his wishes were being carried out. I spent two and a half years of my career having to look through all those images, and I will never forget them. I will never forget meeting the women who were forced to watch their husbands be raped in prisons until they gave up whatever their husband, who was supposedly part of the opposition, knew or did not know.

The Iranian regime is part of the reason Assad is still in power. It was never the intention of the Government to bring down Assad—I never heard that sentiment uttered once in my time working there—but did we think that he could not bring peace, stability or freedom to the people of Syria? Absolutely. Iran has now turned Syria into a drug superstate, with class A drugs—especially things such as fentanyl—produced en masse. Those will make their way to British shores. They may only be in Lebanon, Jordan, Israel and neighbouring countries at the moment, but they will come to Britain if we do not recognise that our Indo-Pacific tilt cannot mean that we forget the middle east. We have historic commitments and promises to those communities, and the Foreign Affairs Committee’s recent recommendations for the review of the integrated review make it clear that the middle east has to be a priority.

In Lebanon, Iran is destabilising en masse. We have cholera outbreaks and all sorts of appalling fragilities in that country that should not be there. Hezbollah and Hamas continue to be stood up by Iran.

I argue that Iran is a terrorist regime, whether because of its activities at home, in Europe, in the UK or in its region, and we must act. President Obama’s greatest regret about his time as President was that he did not stand up for the green revolution, and that he listened to his civil servants when they said, “If you raise your voice to the protesters, it will give the Iranian regime more evidence that this is an American plot.” We must not listen to that advice again. We must heed President Obama’s warning. That is why we need sanctions after every single state murder, we must consider recalling our ambassador, we must reconsider whether we are having any meaningful impact in Iran, and we must make sure that we look at a new international, multilateral effort to prevent nuclear war from coming to the middle east and allowing this terrorist state to get those powers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Leo Docherty]

We note the approach of the United States, and that will be taken into consideration when the Government form their view and make an announcement.

Let me turn to the contributions of other colleagues. I was very pleased that the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) spoke eloquently of the plight of women protesters under the banner of “Zan, Zendegi, Azadi”. She spoke movingly of her constituent’s cousin. Although I cannot comment on that specific case, I am sure that the noble Lord Ahmad would be very pleased to meet her and her constituent to see what action can be taken. I think the House was moved by her reflections on that young man.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, illustrated very comprehensively the state-sponsored nature of the brutal misogyny and violence that protesters are suffering. She asked a specific question about the guards at Evin. I cannot comment on possible future sanctions, but, following her remarks, the Department will certainly look at whether any more ground should be covered with regard to specific individuals.

My hon. Friend spoke about a number of cases involving the death penalty. She pointed out that these were cynical uses of the death penalty by the regime and that those who are currently held are effectively political hostages held for political effect. She asked about the utility and the progress of our ambassador in Tehran, Simon Shercliff. There is utility in having him there, because he is able to deliver strong messages into the heart of the regime, and he is doing his best to deliver those messages. She spoke interestingly and expertly about the regional contacts, especially in Iraq and Syria. I can give her an assurance—speaking of the view of her Committee—that our Department believes that, absolutely, the middle east does still matter.

[Alicia Kearns]

One severe activity in the region that I failed to mention during my speech was the heinous attacks by Iran on the people of Kurdistan within the Kurdistan Regional Government. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the Kurdistan region in Iraq, I would be very grateful if the Minister would consider meeting the representative of Kurdistan to discuss this matter. Only a few weeks ago, we saw missiles fly in and murder innocent people. That is severely concerning, given that the Kurds continue to hold in their camps Daesh terrorists who would come and hurt the UK. The Kurds were our foremost allies against that terrorist group at the time and should not now be forgotten.

[Leo Docherty]

I am sure that the noble Lord Ahmad will give that matter consideration, as this is his portfolio.

The hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) spoke about the plight of prisoners in Evin jail and those under the banner of “Zan, Zendegi, Azadi”. However, I must correct her on one thing: there is absolutely no way that the UK is supplying riot equipment to the state of Iran. There may have been some suggestion —fake or not—that British equipment was used. Perhaps it was pre-1979 or perhaps it was fake, but I can give her an absolute and forthright assurance that we do not supply the Iranian regime with riot equipment or, indeed, any other equipment.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) spoke interestingly on Iran’s role as an exporter of terror. He made an eloquent call in support of the people of Iran and a strong argument for proscription, which I note.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) added his support to the voices calling for proscription, for which I am grateful. He also spoke interestingly about the impact of the Iranian supply of drones, with which I certainly agree. Drones were also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord), who helpfully put Iran’s activity into a regional context, expressly with regard to the Gulf. I say to my hon. Friend that we should be proud of our forthright stance in the Gulf, especially when it comes to the excellent activities of our Royal Navy minesweepers operating out of our naval base in Bahrain, which, I am sure, is something everyone in this House would celebrate and thank the Navy for. My hon. Friend also made a strong call for IRGC proscription, which is noted.

The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) spoke of the bravery of protesters and made some very thoughtful remarks about what leverage we have. She is no longer in her place, but she did ask a relevant question about our leverage. It is the case that—[Interruption.] Oh, she is there. The hon. Lady has moved, but she is still present. Hers was a good question. Of course, we have huge leverage. The fact that Iran has a crippled economy and is a pariah state is due to the activities of the regime, and Iran really does feel that. The possibility of it being welcomed back with an expanded economy and normalised relations is indeed huge leverage, so we must be confident in our ability to effect an outcome for the good of the Iranian people.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) spoke about refugees in her constituency. She also had some interesting reflections in a cultural context from her aunt in Persia, which showed the difference between pre-1979 conditions and now. She made a strong call for proscription, which is duly noted, as did the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). We were grateful for his reflections on the labour system in Iran.

The hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) called strongly for the release of prisoners and mentioned the appalling and very moving case of the young judo champion, Mehdi Karami. We are grateful to her for putting that on the record, as it illustrates the cruelty being carried out in Iran.

The hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) reflected on the bravery of the protesters and the scale of the protests, which I thought was an interesting angle, as well as the abhorrent use of the death penalty, as did the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford for summarising the sheer determination and bravery of the protesters, with which I agree, and for his description of the lack of religious freedom in Iran. His comments as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief were welcome.

The SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara), spoke of some of the heroines of the protest who have suffered appalling treatment and murder at the hands of the regime, which I found moving. I reiterate his remarks that they are not alone. I think this debate serves as an opportunity to reiterate that point.

I was grateful to the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous), for joining in the condemnation of the use of the death penalty in Iran. He movingly read out the names of those facing execution, which was a sobering reality check. He raised an interesting question about the safety of the diaspora. Of course, we take all these issues extremely seriously. We continue to monitor and take seriously the activities of cultural centres and anything else in that regard. With regard to sanctions, we strive to exert maximum pressure on anyone associated with the regime through our sanctions regime.