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.

What are the Lessons to be Learned from the Demise of Gadaffi?

First: the free world must stop appeasing dictators. It may work in the short term but never in the long. The last government, some of our universities and businesses, lost their moral compass when it came to dealing with the Libyan regime. Whilst senior new Labour Government figures hob-nobbed with Gadaffi and his family, our academic institutions accepted millions in blood money, whilst companies rushed to Libya to sign commercial deals. The release of Lockerbie murderer Al Megrahi marked the high point (or low point) of this appeasement by the establishment.

Let's undo this wrong by ensuring Al Megrahi returns to the UK to prison or spend the rest of his life rotting in a Libyan jail. Similarly there should be no 'exile' for Gadaffi and his family: only the international criminal court.

Sadly the appeasement of Gadaffi isn't isolated: the West did the same with Saddam - for a while - and with the Assad family in Syria. The results are always the same: bloodshed.
Second: the yearning for freedom is deep in every human breast and should be nurtured and supported. The realist school of Foreign Policy has argued for years that the 'Middle East' is not ready for democracy... that you can't drop democracy from a B52 bomber'. Actually you can, (the Nato planes showed that - as they provided cover as the rebels advanced on Tripoli) - though that is not the only way to do it.

Liberty is a human right. Sometimes it requires military intervention, other times it requires hearts and minds. Rather than appeasement, our foreign policy should be directed at supporting resistance groups to dictators, funding radio, TV stations, and the internet, in the same way the CIA did in the Cold War to undermine Communism. Where is the Middle East equivalent to Radio Free Europe?

Third: just because you have got rid of a tyrant, does not mean you have got rid of tyranny. The experience of Iraq shows that the first steps after dictatorship are the most important. Nato and Western Governments need to continue to nurture genuinely democratic forces in post-Gadaffi Libya and help to rebuild the country. Any prospect of extreme Islamists/Al Qaeda et al must be ruthlessly crushed. To those who say it may take a few years, they may be right. But so did democracy in Japan and Germany after the Second World War.

Fourth: this relates to the first lesson about appeasement. For months now the Syrian regime has been murdering its way through the country. Just as with the Libyan tragedy, there has barely been a peep from the A List celebs, politicians who so readily criticise Israel for the slightest infringement. No demonstrations. No Trafalgar Square rallies against Assad and Gadaffi bloodshed. No call for UN resolutions. Zilch. Nothing. But, there was of course a rally for Hezbollah over the weekend.

In the past few days there have been terrorist attacks against Israeli citizens, and a barrage of missiles fired on to Israeli towns. Israel reacts and there is already outrage from usual suspects. The message here is get a sense of proportion, regain our moral compass and actually support those countries in the Middle East that are genuinely democratic and are fighting the battle against terrorism and dictatorship on a daily basis.

Finally, let those who love freedom enjoy this special moment of the demise of a dictator and the celebration of the now free people of Libya. It is a tribute to David Cameron, that he had the courage to see this through, even when the armchair generals were urging retreat when the going got tough.

Britain shouldered a huge burden in dealing with Gadaffi - righting the wrongs of the past.

As I wrote before on Conservative Home: My father and Grandfather came from Libya. I hope now I will be able to go to Tripoli and retrace their footsteps.




by Robert Halfon - www.roberthalfon.blogspot.com

The sophistry of the Government

So a Libyan mass murderer, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi is let free on grounds of 'compassion', and is feted and embraced by Colonel Gadaffi. The UK Government wash their hands of it, saying that "it is nothing to do with them, and entirely the responsibility of the Scottish Executive". From Foreign Secretary David Milliband, we get sophistry, and from Gordon Brown - silence. The Prime Minister of the United Kindgdom, refuses to comment on the release of the biggest mass-murderer in British history. And when we see 'Oil' deals and other commercial actions between Britain and Libya, signed by the British Government over the next few months, this of course will be an absolute co-incidence. And of course, the fact that Lord Mandelson happened to meet Gadaffi's son, Saif al-Islam Gadaffi, in Corfu on holiday, just a few days ago, was of course another similar co-incidence.

I am glad that David Cameron has condemned the release and has written to Gordon Brown asking for his views on the matter. For the Prime Minister and his Government to hide behind the Scottish Executive Government is an absolute disgrace.

The worst outcome of the release of the Lockerbie Bomber is not just an insult to the memory of the dead from Lockerbie (and their still grieving relatives and friends), but the signal it gives to terrorists and dictators around the world. It shows that Britain is a soft touch. And that is another crime in itself.

P.S. Scroll down and listen to THIS interview given by Foreign Secretary David Milliband to BBC Radio 4 yesterday. It speaks for itself.

P.P.S. See this BBC News Video clip is also quite interesting.

UPDATE: This from The Times today:

"Mr Miliband’s assertions were apparently contradicted in a Libyan television interview with Mr Gaddafi broadcast yesterday. Colonel Gaddafi’s son said that discussion of al-Megrahi’s release had always been tied up with the oil and gas business.

“In all commercial contracts, for oil and gas with Britain, [al-Megrahi] was always on the negotiating table,” he said on the Libyan channel Al Mutawassit. Tony Blair raised al-Megrahi’s case each time he visited Libya as Prime Minister, he added. “All British interests were linked to the release of Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi.”

UPDATE TWO: Read this brilliant article by leftist commentator Martin Bright on the subject.

By Rob Halfon ~ Working hard for Harlow, Hastingwood, Nazeing, Roydon & Sheering. http//roberthalfon.blogspot.com