Middle East

Priti Patel Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

Iran is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. It is now over 100 days since this conflict began, yet Iran continues to pose the most dangerous and significant threat to the middle east, peace and security and the interests of Britain and our allies and friends in the region. In recent days, we have seen the most appalling Iranian attack in Kuwait, causing injury and death at Kuwait International airport, and we have seen Iran launch missiles towards Israel. It continues to obstruct the movement of goods through the strait of Hormuz, seeking to hold us all to economic ransom; it refuses to end its nuclear weapons programme; it carries on oppressing its citizens, having butchered thousands already this year; and it continues to sponsor and support terrorist proxies throughout the region, causing bloodshed from Lebanon to Yemen and Gaza. It has shown no interest at all in pursuing peace, and it laughs in the face of sanctions.

No one in this House should have any shred of sympathy for the Iranian regime, which has caused so much terror and has blood on its hands. Iran has been the root cause of immense suffering in the middle east for far too long, in places where it has no business whatsoever—as the President of Lebanon has said in recent days, Lebanon is not Iran’s country. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm whether British assets in the region were involved in any interception efforts over the weekend, and what does this latest attack mean for our defence posture in the region?

It is all very well for the Government to call on Iran to exercise restraint, but that has never stopped it from carrying out its hostile attacks, which keep on increasing. Will there be any material consequences for Iran from Britain, such as a new wave of sanctions to further ratchet up the pressure? We on the Conservative Benches have been calling for new sanctions to prevent senior figures in the despotic Iranian regime parking their wealth in London, and to ensure that Britain cannot be a sanctuary for the forces of repression if those linked to the regime seek to flee Iran. Will the Foreign Secretary commit to taking both those actions?

As I said in the House last week, Iran’s terrorist proxy Hezbollah must be disarmed. It has caused immense suffering in Lebanon and Israel. We need to see UN Security Council resolution 1701 implemented in full, and Hezbollah must comply. When I raised that in the House last week, the Minister for the Middle East, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), said in response that

“it must be the Lebanese Government who disarm Hezbollah.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2026; Vol. 786, c. 1189.]

He is absolutely right, but he did not say what support Britain is giving to the Lebanese Government now, because we all know that they cannot do it on their own. Are the Government going beyond the traditional support that Britain has offered the Lebanese armed forces—for example by offering technical and intelligence assistance? The Foreign Secretary said nothing in her statement on disarming Hezbollah, so can she tell the House what the Government are doing?

More broadly, we hope that the ceasefires in the region can lead to a sustainable end to the conflict without a resumption of fighting, but we all know that the situation remains incredibly precarious. Specifically on the Iran ceasefire, can the Foreign Secretary update the House on what involvement, if any, the Government are having behind the scenes in mediation efforts? Has she personally seen the outline of the apparently “close” peace deal or had any input into it? Has she discussed it at all with Secretary Rubio?

The Foreign Secretary has today announced a package of measures on the west bank, Gaza and the 20-point peace plan. We all want to see an end to violence and conflict in the west bank and in Gaza. In particular, she has made important points on aid and the fact that humanitarian aid and support are not getting through. What critical discussions have the Government been having with the parties involved to see progress in this area? Can she tell the House what the changing guidance on trade will mean in practice? What are the practical effects of the sanctions announced today?

The Foreign Secretary has mentioned asking the Charity Commission to investigate certain charities. What evidence has prompted that particular request? Will she be asking the Charity Commission to investigate charities in the UK that are supporting Iran and terrorism? Is the £10 million for the Palestinian Authority new money or is it from existing resources that are already allocated? Can she update the House on the steps being taken to reform the PA and stop the pay-to-slay mechanisms?

Iran is not alone; it is backed by the authoritarian axis that we all speak about too much in this House. The Foreign Secretary has just been to one of those states—China—in a desperate attempt to get economic crumbs to bail out Labour from its disastrous handling of the economy. The House is fully aware of China’s role in supporting Iran, including by providing offensive capabilities. The FCDO press release following the Foreign Secretary’s visit states that she

“stressed the urgency of reopening the Strait of Hormuz without tolls or charges, preventing nuclear proliferation in Iran and maintaining stability in the wider Middle East.”

Did China’s Foreign Minister show any willingness to put pressure on Iran to reopen the strait and to stop the illegal and reckless attacks that we are seeing? Did the Foreign Secretary raise concerns over China’s enabling of Iran’s offensive attacks?

There was no mention in the Foreign Secretary’s statement or the press release from the Foreign Office of Jimmy Lai, which raises significant questions for his family. Did she call for his immediate release and for an end to his politically motivated show trial? Did she threaten consequences if that did not happen?

Finally, and without wanting to segue on to something too far away from the middle east, the Foreign Office also claims that the Foreign Secretary urged China “to end economic support” for Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, but will any undertakings be forthcoming? China is a critical enabler of Putin’s war, and we cannot simply turn a blind eye to that.

[Yvette Cooper]

Let me begin with the points that the shadow Foreign Secretary raised on Iran. We agree, I think, on the dangers and risks from Iran. We have seen the threats and the unprovoked strikes against the Gulf and against our Gulf partners, as well as attacks on civilian infrastructure and energy infrastructure and the operations and attacks through proxies across the region and more widely, including the attacks on Israel. That is why we have extensive sanctions against Iran, and why we have always been clear that under no circumstances must Iran be allowed to get or develop nuclear weapons. The UK, along with France and Germany, led the approach to the snapback restoration of sanctions against Iran in the autumn at the United Nations. We have also, because we recognise some of the threats from not just Iran but other state-backed organisations—including threats here in the UK—been working intensively, led by the Home Office, to draw up state threats legislation that we hope will pass swiftly through the House.

The shadow Foreign Secretary asked about the business advice. There can be no doubt that it is not just about the construction of the E1 settlements—we must discourage any settlement and any involvement of businesses in the construction, as several world leaders have said—but goes more widely. In the business advice, we are clear that we are against any economic or financial activity in those illegal settlements, because they undermine the prospects for peace and security for Israel and Palestine alike.

The shadow Foreign Secretary returned to the potential for an agreement about the strait. We desperately want to see an agreement. We are keeping in close touch with all those involved, including the mediators. I have had many discussions with Secretary of State Rubio. We are not direct participants in the negotiations—that is directly for the US and Iran and the mediators—but we are doing anything we can do to support that process and to pursue a settlement that ensures not simply a partial opening of the strait, but the full recognition of the principle of freedom of navigation and the underpinning of international law. As a maritime trading nation, we should always champion that principle. I have raised that issue directly in China and in India, and I specifically discussed with them the importance of maintaining unconditional support for freedom of navigation. In those discussions, including in China, they have recognised the importance of having no tolls on the strait of Hormuz. I have urged them to put any pressure they can on Iran to comply and to come to an agreement.

The shadow Foreign Secretary asked about Jimmy Lai. Of course I raised Jimmy Lai. We want to see him released urgently, and we have made that position clear in this House, and I made that position clear again with the Chinese authorities. We will continue to do so. I will also be keeping in close touch with Jimmy Lai’s family, because we take the case so seriously.

The shadow Foreign Secretary asked about Russia and Ukraine. I have to be honest that we have a difference of view with China on this one. We have been clear about the importance of our total solidarity with Ukraine and its people, because ultimately, Russia’s threat to Ukraine’s security is also a threat to Europe’s security and the UK’s security. I have made those points clear to the Chinese Government. As part of my visit, I also raised those issues directly with the Indian Government, who also take a different view from the UK on this crucial issue of Russia and Ukraine. We will continue to make those points.

It is important, as part of our security, that we engage with some of the biggest countries around the world on those global security issues. It is not simply about economic or trading relationships; it is about our security. Our security is strengthened if we engage with, for example, China on these issues, whether on the strait or on issues to do with Russia and Ukraine. We will raise those differences and disagreements not only because it is in line with our principles and in line with our commitment to international law, but because it is in the interests of our security and keeping people safe at home.