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.

Opposing the appeasement of Iran

On Monday there will be an important debate on Iran. John Baron MP has tabled a Motion opposing - under almost any circumstances - military action against Iran.

If passed, this would mean that the UK or Nato could not take action even if Britain was attacked by the Iranian Regime.

As I have written before on my Blog, Iran is the new Soviet Union of the Middle East. It represses its citizens at home and has expansionist aims abroad. The regime funds and supports terrorist movements around the globe and has been active in undermining stability in Afghanistan and Iraq - by supporting the insurgents. Iran's Leaders have also often declared their willingness to destroy the State of Israel. A nuclear Iran would pose a huge threat to not just the Middle East - but across the world.

With a number of other MPs, I have tabled an alternative to John Baron's Motion. As you can see, the amended Motion is signed by all-parties, including the former Tory and Labour Defence Secretaries.

You can see the Motion and Amendment below and HERE.

Main Business

1 BACKBENCH BUSINESS (unallotted day) [Until 10.00 pm]
IRAN
Mr John Baron
That this House believes that the use of force against Iran would be wholly counter-productive and would serve only to encourage any development of nuclear weapons; and calls upon the Government to rule out the use of force against Iran and reduce tensions by redoubling diplomatic efforts.

As an Amendment to Mr John Baron's proposed Motion (Iran):
Sir Malcolm Rifkind
Sir Menzies Campbell
Mr Bob Ainsworth
Richard Ottaway
Rory Stewart
Robert Halfon

Other MPs have since signed the Amendment:
Mr Stephen Dorrell
Malcolm Bruce
Dr Thérèse Coffey-
Mr Dave Watts
Albert Owen
Alun Michael
Andrew Miller
Jim Sheridan
Steve Rotheram
Mr Jim Cunningham
Lindsay Roy
Sir Bob Russell
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Bob Stewart
Mr Bernard Jenkin
Margaret Beckett

Line 1, leave out from 'House' to end and add 'supports the Government's efforts to reach a peaceful, negotiated solution to the Iranian nuclear issue through a combination of pressure in the form of robust sanctions, and engagement led by the E3+3 comprising the UK, US, France, Germany, China and Russia; and recognises the value of making clear to Iran that all options for addressing the issue remain on the table.'.

William Hague seeks to extend sanctions against Iran

Foreign Secretary William Hague, is rightly calling on the EU for tougher sanctions against Iran. This cannot come soon enough: Iran continues to crush internal dissent, to prop up the brutal Assad regime in Syria, supports and finances the Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist organisations - and is on the threshold of having the nuclear bomb. A tougher punitive sanction regime is needed to try and stop the regime in its tracks - if we are to avoid military action to neutralise Iran's nuclear capability.

You can see more by clicking on this weblink:

PlayPolitical.com - Conservative Party


by Robert Halfon - www.roberthalfon.blogspot.com

Is Iran declaring war on the West?

In a pre-Christmas debate on Iran in the House of Commons, I described Iran as the new Soviet Union of the Middle East.

And for good reason: the regime gives financial backing to terrorist organisations such as Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, actively supports the Assad Dictatorship in Syria, and ruthlessly deals with dissent from her own citizens. The country is also on the verge of developing a nuclear bomb.

The last few days have seen Iran step up the 'Cold War' with the West. First; by threatening to Block the Straits of Hormuz - which could threaten a world-wide oil crisis. The Straits represent 35% of the world's oil-shipments by sea - 20% of the global oil trade. Second; by testing long-range missiles - which, according to the Iranian Fars News Wire - is a new tactic "designed to prevent any movement in the strait of Hormuz if the Iranian navy so desires".

The French Foreign Ministry describes the missile tests as:

a very bad signal to the international community. We want to underline that the development by Iran of a missile programme is a source of great concern... That is why Iran is prohibited from pursuing any activity on ballistic missiles capable of delivering a nuclear warhead per a U.N. Security Council Resolution".

President Obama has described any closure of the Strait as 'unacceptable'.

P.S. You can read more HERE and HERE.