Middle East

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, events in the Middle East over the past week have brought into sharp focus a truth that we ignore at our peril: that the Islamic Republic of Iran remains one of the most dangerous and destabilising forces in the world today. The United States’ targeted strikes on Iranian nuclear infrastructure were a necessary and vital act in the face of a regime that continues to enrich uranium beyond civilian thresholds, arms proxies across the region and openly calls for the destruction of its neighbour, and our ally, Israel. Yet, amid this defining moment, the response from His Majesty’s Government has been almost non-existent. Over the weekend, in the media and in the Foreign Secretary’s Statement made in the other place yesterday, not once has the Government even had the courage to come out in support of this vital action.

It seems bizarre to us on these Benches that decisive action to neutralise the nuclear threat posed by one of the world’s most dangerous and volatile states is not openly welcomed by the Government. I want to ask the noble Lord for some clarity. Will he now take this opportunity to come out in support of the strikes undertaken by the US on Iran’s nuclear facilities? If not, can he explain why? Could it possibly be a result of the legal advice reportedly issued by the Attorney-General that it could be illegal for Britain to play any role in the Iran campaign except for defending our allies? Does the Minister no longer consider Israel an ally?

My noble friend Lord Wolfson has made clear that the UK has a strong legal ground for supporting this action. There is at least, I am sure the Minister will concede, a legal debate to be had on this question. Why did the Government choose to come down on the side which went against our allies in the US and Israel? I wonder what quite was going through the mind of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, when he issued this supposed advice. I cannot imagine why anyone witnessing a showdown between democracy and tyranny, between our ally Israel and an unhinged murderous caliphate, would conclude that we better not get involved because we might break the rules.

One shudders to think what might have happened had such advice been followed in 1939 or 1950 or 1990—or in 2022 when our friends in Ukraine were barbarically attacked. Fortunately, in those instances, our willingness to support our allies was not governed by academic hesitation. We must be clear that history will not smile on us for this, however much the Government swaddle themselves in grand talk about international law. For the noble and learned Lord to encourage the UK to stand idly by while Israel faces the real risk of genocidal nuclear attack seems to be a serious misjudgment.

It is deeply regrettable that Ministers have failed to issue a clear and immediate statement of support for our closest ally. The US acted to uphold international security and defend the global non-proliferation regime. That it did and continues to do so without our support is something we should be ashamed of. Let us be clear: Iran is not just a regional threat; it is a global threat. It bankrolls terrorism from Gaza to Beirut, from Baghdad to Sanaa. It plots assassinations on European soil, it disrupts shipping lanes in international waters and it is actively pursuing the technological means to blackmail the world with nuclear force. For the Government to equivocate in the face of such aggressive and dangerous action from Iran is both morally questionable and, in my view, strategically short-sighted. We should have stood shoulder to shoulder with our allies, and the Government failed to do so.

Let me also address this morning’s announcement of a temporary ceasefire. If it holds, it will be welcome because any cessation of violence offers a chance to de-escalate and protect civilian lives. But let us not be naive. Already this morning, Israeli officials have reported that Iran violated the ceasefire. That is a reminder of the challenges we face when dealing with bad actors who have no interest in peace and further underscores the fundamental threat that Iran poses to peace and lives in the region and wider world.

We must also support our allies in ensuring that de-escalation does not mean appeasement. I therefore ask the Minister to explain to the House what steps the Government will take from today to ensure that any remaining nuclear capability that Iran has is dismantled. If the Government remain so intent on pursuing a purely diplomatic solution, how will they change their approach to make sure that any agreement reached with Iran holds firm?

Let us not forget that diplomacy failed to prevent Iran acquiring uranium enriched to 60%. Let us not forget that, already, it appears that Iran has violated the terms of a diplomatic settlement to broker a ceasefire with Israel. The approach the Government have adopted has not been very successful. I hope the Minister will take this opportunity to set out what the Government will do differently in future. It is not enough to say that we are pursuing a diplomatic solution, because that has been unsuccessful.

Finally, I have some questions about our country’s relationship with the US and our allies. As noble Lords will be aware, the Prime Minister is in The Hague today at the NATO summit. I am sure that, in the light of this, the Minister and his colleagues will have asked themselves this question: how did they get it so wrong on the US and Iran? The Government’s fundamental assumption, that there was time for negotiation, was clearly just wrong. It is a fact that the Government were blindsided on a matter of huge geopolitical importance and completely failed to understand what the Americans were thinking. The Prime Minister has been adamant that the President would not intervene in Iran. He went so far as to say he was in “no doubt” about the matter, despite very public indications to the contrary.

We are supposed to have a special relationship with the United States. This seems to be in doubt given how the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have acted in this case. In the light of this, does the Minister still believe that the US and the UK have a special relationship? Does he think that failing to come out in support of the US has damaged this relationship?

The events of recent days have exposed not only the growing threat posed by Iran but the shortcomings in the Government’s response. At a time when clarity and strategic resolve are required, Ministers have offered neither. They have failed to support our closest ally, misjudged the geopolitical landscape and clung to a diplomatic approach that has proved ineffective. The regime in Tehran thrives on hesitation; it exploits weakness, distrusts peace and seeks power through terror and provocation. If we are serious about international security, non-proliferation and our relationships with our allies, our response must be firm, united and credible. The US and Israel acted decisively and justifiably; the question is whether this Government will finally find the courage to stand with them.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, every casualty in the Iran-Israel conflict is one that could have been avoided, but it is worth remembering that, in the same period, almost as many people have been shot in Gaza simply queuing for food, and the crisis in the region continues.

On Iran, the US clearly decided to escalate to de-escalate. It may yet re-escalate, because the whiplash of posts from the President this morning are hard to follow with a degree of reassurance, but I hope that a ceasefire can be operational, even though the most recent updates require us to be somewhere between pessimistic and cautiously optimistic. The Trump Administration seem to think that war plays out like a reality TV show, but this is real violence with real deaths and real-life consequences, not so much for egotistical men in their 80s and near-80s as for the victims, who are primarily civilians—women and children in particular.

The Tehran regime is clearly homicidal, but we may find out that it is probably not suicidal. The US and Netanyahu Governments are clearly tactical, but we will find out that they are probably not strategic. The Minister told the House last Thursday that the US was seeking to de-escalate at the very time it was deciding to escalate. The immediate repercussions are being seen, and we cannot now know for certain what will follow.

Trump and Hegseth said the Iranian nuclear programme was obliterated and ended. Now US officials are giving a more sober view of “damaged” and “delayed”. The IAEA’s information is probably more reliable: that it is likely that there has been significant damage—but this is difficult to verify. Even more difficult to verify is the impact the strikes will have on preventing weaponisation in the medium term. The IAEA warned against military strikes for the very reason that they would likely make it even harder to verify, and I suspect that may be the reality now.

Unquestionably, Iranian options in the next period are more limited than they would have been 10 days ago, but it is rash to think that we know whether Iran will continue to act immediately or play a game of time on a calendar it has operated under for many years. I was in Iraq the last time Iran claimed the US would pay irreparable damage, for the killing of Soleimani outside Baghdad Airport; instead, it signalled and then performed a largely performative display of attacks near Erbil. Full escalation or controlled tit-for-tat is a delicate dance where miscalculation is deadly, but it may well be being played out.

We therefore cannot predict the next 48 hours from Tehran, not to mention the next 48 days; nor for that matter, and with deep regret, can we necessarily predict that from the Trump Administration. We can predict heightened rhetoric taking on increasingly macho and jingoistic terms. From loose talk of regime change, the current Tehran regime will likely become even more repressive, and more secretive and patient in rebuilding its proxy relationships and other interests.

Last week in the Chamber, and just a few moments ago, we heard noble Lords drumming a jingoistic beat. We also heard—more rightly in my view—caution. I would advise the House to listen to the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Lamont—the noble friend of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. These Benches agree with the Government’s position of not participating.

As much as I agree that Iran should not have nuclear weapon capability—and I strongly agree that Israel should have the ability to defend itself against unacceptable calls for its destruction—we continue to see too many tacticians and too few strategists. As an Iraqi friend, who, incidentally, detests the theocratic dictatorship in Tehran, told me recently, Netanyahu was a cheerleader for regime change in Baghdad 20 years ago and helped persuade Bush and Blair. He handed it to Iran. He wanted Gaza to be in violent competition with the West Bank to prevent a two-state solution and bolstered Hamas. He successfully lobbied Trump for the US to leave JCPOA, which restarted the weapon capability path of nuclear Iran, and now he has positioned Trump into looking weak if he did not join his tactics on bombing and regime-change rhetoric. At each step of the way, quick tactical wins led to strategic errors.

We of course hope for a ceasefire with Iran, but we fervently hope for respite for the civilians in Gaza and the West Bank too—so I close with regard to the situation there. It is alarming, after all the suffering of the civilians within Gaza, to see the recent reports of Hamas now recruiting. The very circumstances exist now for Hamas to regain strength. This is what we were told would be inconceivable with the war aims of the IDF. Reconstruction preparedness is now even harder, given the policy choices for the Gaza Humanitarian Fund to be a mercenary and profiteering operation to supply food and medicine.

So I ask the Government: what work are they doing with our allies to ensure that food is being supplied, and on the restrictions at the border—not assisted by the Knesset law preventing UNRWA working with third parties to co-ordinate the delivery of food and medicine—to ensure that the people of Gaza no longer have to experience the indignity of queuing in danger areas for food? Will the Government provide clarity on the future funding for both programme and humanitarian assistance for the people of Gaza delivered through UNRWA after July?

The medieval scenes that we see, of people having to queue to receive food and medicine across an apocalyptic backdrop, mean that the current situation must end. The GHF approach has been a deadly failure, and the acute shortage of food, deliberately being withheld at the Gaza border, must end. I hope that, if there is breathing space with Iran and Israel, we can at least focus on getting the aid in, which is desperately needed.