---

Global Security (Iran)

I hope not. I have great faith in the Minister's ability and approach to the whole business and I look forward to some encouraging words from him later, even though I cannot be here to listen to them. Finally, there is the Government's attitude towards the PMOI. That organisation was proscribed by the UK Government. We know from my comments about a former Foreign Secretary why it was proscribed. In December 2006 the Court of First Instance ruled that the proscription was unlawful. The Minister will know all that has happened since then, up to the events involving the Court of Appeal and the European Courts. He will know that a statement was made that, if not unique, was pretty unusual in British judicial history. I am referring to the ruling of the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission, which stated that""having carefully considered all the material before us, we have concluded that the decision"" of the Secretary of State""…is properly characterised as perverse."" The Foreign Office got it wrong, and got it wrong continually in that respect, so thank God we had 12 June, because there is a vital need to rethink in all sorts of ways. The Select Committee report demands to know why the Government resisted the court decisions on the PMOI. At the time of the Government's initial response to the report, legal matters were still proceeding. I am sure that the Minister will now tell us why the Government continued to oppose court after court and decision after decision on that issue. I believe that my enemy's enemy is my friend—the Chinese are very wise. I am not saying that the PMOI has not in its history acted as a terrorist organisation within Iran. It has never done so against the interests of the west, I might add, but in Iran that is true. I met Lord Malloch-Brown, a Foreign Office Minister, and the hon. Member for Harlow (Bill Rammell), who was also then a Foreign Office Minister, with a number of other people. When I asked why they still considered the PMOI to be a terrorist organisation, one of their senior aides said that that was because it was still involved in terrorist activities; it had never made a statement to the effect that it was not. In fact, statements have been made consistently and regularly since 2002 by the leader of that organisation—Mrs. Maryam Rajavi—and many others. They were public statements. It amazed me that the Foreign Office could make such a statement to me. That underlines again how out of touch the Foreign Office has been. We face a new situation. We need the Foreign Office to think differently—to think anew about how we approach the matter. We do not have many weapons in our armoury. I recognise that the history of Iran tells us that we do not have the ability to make a great impact on that country. There is a whole cultural problem that dates from 1911 onwards and perhaps even earlier. I know that we did not have a great cultural heritage when we opposed the Mosaddeq Government in the early 1950s and that many people feel that we supported the Shah beyond what was reasonable, decent and fair, so I understand that our influence is limited, but it is still important, in terms of working in collaboration with other nations in the western world. I ask the Minister to consider six ways in which we might react to the new situation. First, as I have already argued, we need to change thinking in Foreign Office. We need to ensure that our intelligence is up to date and that senior officials do not look as foolish as they did when making their statement at a meeting with me. It is vital that we have proper information—the Minister knows that he depends upon it—and I am sure that it will happen. I am happy to show him the letter that I quoted, but I ask that it is kept private, as it was sent to me under confidential cover. We need to change our thinking. Secondly, we need to recognise that internal regime change is now a possibility. It was not on the cards to a great extent when the report was published. It is certainly on the cards now, and we need to take that into account. Thirdly, we should end the appeasement of the mullahs. We seemed to believe that they were kindly vicars, attending tea parties and eating cucumber and cress sandwiches and dealing out compassion to their parishioners in a friendly and patrician way. That is not the case. We are talking about a fanatical Islamic society run by fanatical Islamic mullahs. They recognise only strength. They have shown that they do not understand appeasement; they think that it is weakness. We must become much stronger and more united in that respect. Fourthly, we should demand an end to Ahmadinejad's defiance of United Nations resolutions, as recommended in the report. That goes without saying. Fifthly, we should strengthen specific sanctions against vital industrial and commercial sectors, and against vital people in the Iranian Government. Sixthly, we should recognise the value of opposition in exile. I have made that point before. Some may not like the PMOI, but I am a supporter of the organisation, and I am pleased to say so. However, it has a massive ability to dispense information in Iran to the very people whom we are debating. It has the ability to gain information from Iran that ought to be of great use to the Government and the Foreign Office. We should work hard for the UN's involvement in future elections in Iran. We must put proper pressure on the Iranians in every way possible and through every peaceful mechanism available to us. I do not advocate a physical attack on the nation; that would be counter-productive and dangerous for all. However, I do advocate that we take a consistently credible and strong approach to a regime that believes that it is only strength that counts, and which will believe that even more strongly now that it is under such pressure. This debate is not only about Iran; it is not only about Iran and Israel; and it is not only about Iran and the middle east. As was stated so startlingly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling, it is about our children, our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren. It is about our country's well-being. It is about us acting in a free and democratic world. There is a real threat to that objective, but I am not willing to put up with it, for the sake of my children and grandchildren. That is why I speak so passionately. I look forward to reading the Minister's response.