VIDEO: Iran is at crisis point

Yesterday, there was a major debate in Parliament, on Iran's nuclear weapons programme. As I wrote on PoliticsHome, Iran is at crisis-point.

You can read the text of my speech below:

Robert Halfon (Harlow): I congratulate again my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on securing the debate. Although I disagree with everything that he has said, I am grateful to him for challenging my views and those of others who oppose his motion.

 I have three fundamental points to make. First, my hon. Friend said that there is no smoking gun, but I shall argue that there is a big smoking gun and that Iran is building a nuclear bomb; secondly, the nuclear programme is not a response to sanctions, as it was happening already; and, thirdly, we cannot be sure that if Iran had a bomb it would not use one either directly or through one of the many terrorist organisations that it supports. It is worth examining those points in turn.

1) First, is Iran building a nuclear bomb? The International Atomic Energy Agency report of November 2011 states clearly that Iran has acquired the knowledge, technology and resources to create a nuclear bomb within months. Its main findings, to quote section G, paragraph 43, are that Iran has procured “nuclear related…equipment and materials”; acquired “nuclear weapons development information and documentation from a clandestine nuclear supply network”; and worked “on the development of an indigenous design of a nuclear weapon including the testing of components”.

 Putting that aside for one minute, what do Arab nations in the region say? They are in no doubt about what the Iranians are planning. As far back as 2008, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia urged the United States to “cut off the head of the snake” by halting Tehran’s nuclear programme.

Last week, I was in Kurdistan in northern Iraq. The Kurds know all too well what a nuclear Iran would be like and are incredibly concerned about the implications. That is what is at stake in the region.

2) Second, nuclear ambition was not a response to sanctions; Iran already had it. We cannot appease Iran or hope for moderates to emerge within the regime. The United Nations sanctions began in 2006 in response to Iran’s refusal to suspend uranium enrichment. As far back as 2002, the National Council of Resistance of Iran revealed Iran’s secret nuclear programme, much of which was later admitted to by the Iranian leadership on state television.

Iran has repeatedly dismissed calls to negotiate. President Ahmadinejad now insists that his nuclear programme is unstoppable. The only time when Iran suspended uranium enrichment, co-operated with the UN and signed the full non-proliferation treaty was in October 2003. Why did it do that at that time? Because a quarter of a million western troops had just toppled Saddam Hussein in Iraq and were close to Iran’s western border. As soon as that threat diminished, Iran returned to its nuclear programme, which has led us to the point that we are at today.

3) Thirdly, we cannot be sure that Iran would not use a nuclear bomb. Iranian leaders have made numerous statements calling for the destruction of the state of Israel and the Jewish people. Just last week, the Iranian website Alef published an article by Khamenei’s strategy chief, Alireza Forghani, detailing plans for the extermination of Israel. As British newspapers have reported, the dossier even pinpoints the housing estates with the highest concentration of Jewish people. That piece, which is now being run on most state-owned sites in Iran, states that because of the United States’ presidential election, the time for Iran to strike is now.

 Last week, Iran’s Ministry of Defence announced that it had tested a two-stage ballistic missile that could deliver a nuclear bomb. Earlier this month, the Deputy Prime Minister of Israel said that he had intelligence showing that that missile has a range of 6,200 km—enough to hit the United States and the United Kingdom.

I have described Iran before in this House as the new Soviet Union of the middle east: it represses its people at home and has expansionist aims abroad. It is widely recognised as the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. It provides support to insurgent groups in Iraq and Afghanistan that have attacked and killed British troops. A nuclear Iran does not just mean a nuclear Iran; it means a nuclear Hezbollah, a nuclear Hamas and so forth. As the former Iranian President, Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani, said, the “application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel”.

But the extremists in charge of Iran see their conflict as not just with their neighbours, but also with the west. That is why they threatened to bomb Turkey last year. In 2006, Hassan Abbasi, the head of the Iranian doctrinal centre for strategic studies, said: “Britain’s demise is on our agenda”. He added: “We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization…we must make use of everything we have at hand to strike at this front by means of our suicide operations or by means of our missiles.”

In conclusion, the Foreign Secretary has described the Iranian nuclear threat as the "new cold war". The situation may be worse than that because in the past, nuclear deterrents worked because of mutually assured destruction—MAD—and the clear lines of communication. However, for MAD to work, one has to be sane and the Iranian regime has shown itself not to be with its constant human rights abuses, its attack on the British embassy and its support for terrorism. Let that be a lesson for the free world.

 As I have mentioned, I was in Kurdistan last week near the Iranian border. I met Iranian Kurds who are persecuted by the Iranian regime. They knew the reality of a nuclear Iran, and they said that the only way that things would change was if there was regime change there. They asked: Why the west had not done more to support democratic and opposition movements, which would have made some difference and perhaps helped to facilitate regime change?

Finally, I wish to quote Niall Ferguson, who wrote recently in Newsweek:

“War is an evil. But sometimes a preventative war can be a lesser evil than a policy of appeasement. The people who don’t yet know that are the ones still in denial about what a nuclear-armed Iran would end up costing us all.”

by Robert Halfon - Working Hard for Harlow.

Interview on Libya with the Jeremy Vine Show (BBC Radio 2)

Today I talked to the Jeremy Vine Show (BBC Radio 2), and argued that we must do more to support the Freedom Fighters in Libya, in their struggle against Colonel Gaddafi.

The NATO operation needs to support the civilians of East Libya, to stop a humanitarian tragedy.

by Robert Halfon - www.roberthalfon.blogspot.com

Vote Gordon Brown?

by Robert Halfon - www.roberthalfon.blogspot.com

Government failure to equip our troops

If you have any doubts as to the Government's failure to properly equip our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, I urge you to read this story in The Times yesterday, and reported widely on news outlets. The report, entitled 'Death by a thousand cuts' states the following - in a somewhat chilling manner:

"The coroner was unequivocal. The last four soldiers to be blown up in a Snatch Land Rover in Afghanistan were unlawfully killed. They should not have died, and did so because they were inadequately equipped. By now, this must surprise nobody. It certainly would not have surprised those troops themselves. As the Wiltshire and Swindon Coroner David Masters reminded us yesterday, their commanding officer had requested a different vehicle for the mission, only to be told that none was available.

Corporal Sarah Bryant, Corporal Sean Robert Reeve, Lance Corporal Richard Larkin and Private Paul Stout were killed by a roadside bomb in 2008. Not only were they driving in an inadequate vehicle, but equipment shortages had also led them to be equally inadequately trained in the detection of exactly the kind of bomb that killed them. To be more specific, a lack of mine-detectors meant that many troops left the UK with no training in their use whatsoever. Once on their bases in Afghanistan, they were forced to seek informal instruction from their peers. Some troops gave evidence that their training with an Ebex mine detector had lasted under 20 minutes. Others said they had been forced to figure it out for themselves, with a manual.

Gordon Brown could not have been surprised by the coroner’s verdict on Snatch Land Rovers, either. In Afghanistan last weekend he announced that 200 new heavier vehicles would finally replace them. This sounded like a better pledge that it was. For one thing, the Conservative Party has claimed that there was an earlier plan for 400 vehicles, and Mr Brown’s announcement represented a reduction. For another, the timing was both suspiciously convenient in terms of the coroner’s inquest, and at least five years too late in terms of the military need."

And this judgement came after Gordon Brown's surprise 'election' visit to Afghanistan last week.

P.S. the response of Bill Rammell is pretty illustrative of what has gone wrong with this Government:

"I accept that the training regime was not as good at that stage as it should have been."

You can read more at this weblink.

P.P.S. You might like to read these two blog postings I have previously written on this subject. HERE and HERE.

by Robert Halfon - www.roberthalfon.blogspot.com

Political Props?

Former Prime Minister John Major has accused Gordon Brown of using the army as political props, after the Prime Minister suddenly flew to Afghanistan, a day after speaking to the Iraq Inquiry. Mr Brown's Afghan visit, came at a time when he was under fire from senior Army personnel. A number of senior members of our armed forces have complained that the Government did not equip our troops properly, when sending them to war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In 2007, in the run-up to the election that never was, Gordon Brown suddenly visited British Troops in Iraq - during the week of the Conservative Party Conference. This effort was seen by many as a party political stunt and roundly condemned at the time. They say that history never repeats itself, yet Mr Brown again, seems determined to exploit our armed forces for party political advantage.

P.S. As I write this, military top brass have made their feelings clear about Mr Brown's failure to equip our troops. You can read about it HERE.

by Robert Halfon - www.roberthalfon.blogspot.com