---

Global Security (Iran)

I am pleased to follow my good friend the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley); I agree with every word that he uttered. I now turn to my left and to other colleagues and friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) and the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) made important speeches, and I agree with some of what they said. I shall nevertheless draw upon their speeches, because I have reservations about some of their conclusions. The real problem is illustrated by the United Kingdom's attitude to Iran. It shows the dysfunctional nature of the formulation of Government foreign policy in general. It is aggravated by the high turnover of Ministers in the Foreign Office. That is why, from a sedentary position and with a slight smile, I referred to my good friend—I have enjoyed his company and his wise counsel on a range of political issues—as "this week's Minister". I said that because there is a high turnover of Ministers, particularly at the junior level. We suffer from the obsession of Prime Minister Blair and the current Prime Minister, who have played musical chairs with important ministerial portfolios. It does not matter how skilled, motivated or dedicated the incumbent Minister is—new Ministers often come from Departments totally unrelated to foreign affairs—it inevitably means that the mantra is handed down by officials whose judgment has been shown to be flawed time and again, particularly in relation to the UK's policy on Iran. To some extent, that was demonstrated by what the hon. Member for Northampton, South called their obsession; they have aggravated the PMOI and done everything that they can to disadvantage brave people in exile who stand up for human rights in their native land and who try to demonstrate to the rest of the world the pernicious nature of the Iranian regime. In my view, not only was the Foreign Office wrong in its repetition of that attitude by successive Ministers there and at the Home Office; it was madness. I am delighted that I and other Members of both Houses, across the political spectrum, were able in the case of Lord Alton of Liverpool and others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department to demolish the Government's argument. The Register of Members' Interests mentions our involvement in that case. It was important because it humbled the Foreign Office and the Home office, showing their deficiencies of judgment, and because it sent an unusual but significant signal to the regime in Tehran that the British judiciary is proudly separate from the Executive and the Government, whose approach to foreign policy is seriously flawed. I believe that the Foreign Office has too often been arrogant on Iran's dialogue with other key partners. I remember that the Russian Federation tried to explore, in a positive way, the question of Iran and other countries having civil nuclear energy, the full fuel cycle being facilitated at four or five key locations around the globe, which would allow many states, including Iran, to have nuclear energy. However, it would not be done in a way that caused nuclear proliferation or facilitated the preparation of nuclear weapons or warheads in a particular country. To my knowledge, that was dismissed by the Foreign Office. It does such things time and again as a result of its phobia and its attitude of dismissal to anything suggested by the Russian Federation. Latterly, that idea was picked up by the Foreign Office, but it was too late—it missed the window of political opportunity. So my criticism of the Foreign Office is justified because it totally and consistently misread the situation. I said that I departed from some of my colleagues' conclusions, especially in relation to the recent so-called elections and candidates. I am amazed that people fall for the argument that the electorate exercised freedom and that the elections were simply rigged by the man who came out on top and his cohorts. Whoever won, the elections would not have had legitimacy. I am rather old fashioned and think that all citizens should be able to stand as candidates, but half the people of Iran—namely women—could not, so there was blatant gender discrimination. I am amazed that politicians, the Foreign Office, some good friends and colleagues, and the BBC have given such legitimacy to this flawed election. They would not do so anywhere else. If these elections had been held in Belarus or Russia, for instance, we would be hammering home time and time again the fact that half the population was disfranchised from seeking elected office. Furthermore, the turnout was abysmally low, because hundreds of thousands of people did not want to give any credence or legitimacy to this flawed election. Colleagues have praised the candidate Mousavi. I do not share this view at all. Although he seems to have been disadvantaged in this so-called election, he is wholly part of the main thrust of the regime. He signs up fully in his allegiance to the regime's constitution and the system under which the clerics decide who can seek election and how. I do not consider him to be a liberal or the great hope or leap forward for Iran. He is the same and equally to blame for the corrupt Iranian regime. The sooner we make it clear that we do not see him as the Archangel Gabriel, but as another one of the regime's thoroughgoing rotters, the better. There is the delusion that Mousavi is a goodie, when in fact he is a baddie. That is why I am disappointed with the BBC. Of course, in all the news agencies, and in particular the BBC, there are some extremely brave men and women who collect and report the news. However, I draw a distinction between them and the editorial nature of the BBC, which accepts and repeats the mantra that Mousavi is a good person. I think that the spin doctor is the Foreign Office. It is not only wrong in spinning that; it is deceiving nobody but itself and those who listen to the BBC in the UK. Most people know that the truth lies elsewhere. I have told you, Mr. Benton, that I like the Minister and have known him for a long time, as you have. He has a very proud record of standing up for the state of Israel, which I wholeheartedly endorse. He has been very brave, but not uncritical, in supporting the state of Israel and its right to exist. I—and you, Mr. Benton, I suspect—also support that right. However, if the Minister was not a Minister but a humble Member of Parliament, he would be persona non grata in Iran. Those in the regime would not let him across the threshold. In fact, it remains to be seen whether they would let him go this very evening to Tehran. I doubt whether they would—and it would be personal, and because of his brave and consistent attitude in defending the state of Israel. They are that rotten! I would be very interested to see, if he is ever dispatched to Tehran, whether he is allowed in. I was almost cheering the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling when he touched upon the Government's response. I, too, want to flag up the fact that arms, training and explosives are coming from Iran into Afghanistan and killing UK servicemen and women. No doubt the Minister's brief will read, "This is a sensitive area—skirt it if you can." It will not say that exactly, but it will be words to that effect. It will tell him to try to avoid responding to any points made about paragraph 20, page 7 of the Government's response, which states that""we also have evidence of IRGC–Qods Force involvement in negative and destabilising activity in Afghanistan, including supplying arms and funding to the Taliban."" I have some issues with the Government, because this Parliament has never had a proper mandate to deploy our troops in Afghanistan, but we are there now and taking severe casualties. The Minister needs to tell us precisely what is in his briefing pack in relation to that point. If I am wrong, and it says nothing, why? It is not sufficient for him to write to Members; we need a wholehearted statement on how we can reconcile our recent courteousness to the regime with the fact that our armed forces are suffering and losing lives owing to the activities of the Iranian Government. How can the Government dismiss the charge, as they did yesterday in another debate, that we are appeasing this regime? Parliament is entitled to an explanation. The Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office differ greatly on this matter. That has no doubt been aggravated by the fact that the Prime Minister considers the Secretary of State for Defence so unimportant that he is number 23 in the Cabinet hierarchy. This is unacceptable. The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Des Browne), occasionally admitted that he blamed Iran for some of the deaths of British soldiers, yet that issue has never been clarified by the Foreign Office. So what does the Foreign Office have to say about the fact that we are tolerating a regime that is facilitating the killing of our armed forces and service personnel? The Government's response to the point about sanctions can only be described as pretty pathetic. They wrote:""We judge that the sanctions introduced so far have sent a clear political signal to the Iranian regime."" A clear political signal—who is the Foreign Office kidding, especially given that, elsewhere in the response, it acknowledges that Iran is also facilitating the deaths of our armed forces personnel? In an Adjournment debate this year, I described to the House of Commons how the UK had facilitated the transfer of funds from Iran, through London, to the United States to deceive the US regulatory authorities, so that the Iranian regime, under cloak and dagger, could purchase in north America technologies that it needed both to develop its nuclear side and—I believe—nuclear weapons, and to get around the existing US and EU sanctions regimes. The Government were seriously embarrassed. The particular perpetrator to which I am referring is Lloyds TSB, but other London-based banking institutions were also involved. Under the financial arrangement known as "stripping", there was a deliberate intent in London to deceive the US authorities. When I mentioned this to my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, he did not argue that I was wrong, but said instead that the ground rules in London and the European Union had been altered. Again, that demonstrates the charge that we have been doing too little, too late; that we have appeased; that we have been asleep on the job. None the less, we have the audacity to say that other countries are not being resolute and strong in homing in on those who export terrorism and other things that involve loss of life around the world. When the Minister responds, I hope that he specifically addresses the question of the export of weapons of terror to the Taliban and elsewhere. It is intolerable and unacceptable that this House should acquiesce in allowing the Government to put in a document, which is a year old, an acknowledgement that there is a problem but with no robust expression of outrage. I hope that the Minister will be much more discerning and critical of the advice furnished to him by officials. I hope he will stand up to Ministers more senior than him in the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence and No. 10 who, ridiculously, think they can buy off and placate the thoroughly rotten regime that exists in Tehran. Presumably, in the Minister's brief there are references to Camp Ashraf, or Ashraf city. The residents are Iranian exiles who have been in Iraq for many years. After the collapse of Saddam's regime, they were given protected person status under the Geneva convention. To the credit of the United States of America, they have been safeguarded time and again, despite the Iranian regime putting increasing pressure on the fragile and wobbly Iraqi Government to expel them. In recent weeks and months, the harassment of those people has increased. The United States acknowledges that they have long since disarmed; none the less, there is a danger of their becoming the Cossacks of our generation. The Iranian regime could exert its disproportionate influence on the fragile Iraqi Government to ensure that those people are expelled back to Iran, where they would face the same consequences as the Cossacks faced in 1945 and 1946. The British Government have not shown the same resolution as the US military showed in recognising their moral, humanitarian and legal obligation to the people of Ashraf city. Will the Minister tell us what the latest position is on Ashraf, and recognise that we have obligations as signatories to the Geneva convention? We want to know that we are putting diplomatic and political pressure on the Iraqi Government to recognise their obligations under the fourth Geneva convention to safeguard the unarmed people of Ashraf city.