Barak M. Seener is a Senior Associate Fellow at the Henry Jackson Society and author of the report ‘The Long Arm of Tehran: Why the UK Should Ban the IRGC’.
Twenty.
That’s the number of potentially lethal Iranian attacks on UK soil foiled by MI5 through 2022 – 2024, according to the security service’s Director General, Ken McCallum.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), a branch of the Iranian armed forces, has consistently utilised terrorist proxies beyond its borders – such as the Houthis in Yemen and Hamas in Gaza – to destabilise its Middle Eastern neighbours. However, McCallum’s comments highlight the IRGC threat extends far beyond the region.
Concerns about the group’s activities have led to calls for the proscription of the IRGC from both sides of the aisle, with former Conservative Party leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith asserting, ‘The government should have already proscribed the IRGC’ back in 2023.
Sir Iain, joining more than 100 other MPs, wrote to then prime minister Rishi Sunak imploring him to proscribe the group. Yet, despite pressure from Labour in opposition, and within its own party, the Conservatives elected against this measure – opting for what they believed to be targeted sanctions.
At the time, ministers, including then foreign secretary Lord Cameron, argued that proscription – often used as an economic measure designed to curtail foreign terrorist fundraising – would be redundant. The IRGC, in its position as a branch of the Iranian military, already benefits enormously from the bank of Iran.
Further, Lord Cameron stated, ‘[proscribing the IRGC and cutting diplomatic ties with Iran] is not in Britain’s interest, that wouldn’t strengthen our approach, in many ways it would weaken it.’
The British government under the Conservatives saw value in maintaining diplomatic relations with Iran; a view that the current Labour government appears to be coming around to. There has also been external pressure from the United States for the UK to remain in dialogue with Iran.
The Biden administration urged the government not to proscribe the IRGC as a terrorist organisation. This was done with the view that the UK could assume the role of an interlocutor with the Iranian regime, with America having proscribed the group themselves.
While there is merit in some of these arguments, the idea that proscription is redundant because of sanctions overlooks a fundamental reality: they have not prevented the IRGC from carrying out hostile activity on British soil. As I write in The Long Arm of Tehran, this gap in the law continues to leave the UK open to Iranian-backed terror threats and disinformation campaigns.
The idea that proscription is a primarily economic tool fails to recognise its value as a domestic counterterrorism measure. The regime’s network has targeted British Jews and Iranian dissidents as well as using religious pilgrimages to recruit British citizens for intelligence operations. These are domestic threats that demand legal instruments stronger than sanctions alone.
The claim that proscription would close off diplomatic communication with Iran – diminishing British influence – is also dubious. When the US designated the IRGC a foreign terrorist organisation in 2019, it continued to engage in backchannel negotiations with Tehran.
Likewise, it is a legitimate question to ask what the fruits of our diplomatic relations with Iran have been. Tehran’s nuclear programme is ongoing and the regime has continued to send assassins and agents into the UK. If anything, our failure to proscribe the IRGC has made us appear weak, as opposed to being an important mediator in the Middle East.
As Kemi Badenoch looks to revitalise the party and define her policy platform, IRGC proscription is an opportunity to correct a misjudgement made under the previous government and clearly distinguish the Conservatives and Labour Party.
In government, the Conservatives became increasingly bogged down by external pressures – in particular Whitehall inertia on issues like this. The refusal to proscribe the IRGC became emblematic of a broader drift.
A recommitment to proscription would allow the Conservative Party to draw a sharp line under that period, showing it has the strength to take the lead. By advocating for proscription, Badenoch would help restore the party’s credentials on national security and demonstrate that a future Conservative administration will act decisively to protect the British people.
That is, of course, the first duty of any government.
