allied military personnel have been killed by its operations. Dozens of Iranian exiles, seen as enemies of the state, have been hunted down. Using local criminals and paid assassins, the IRGC has tried to silence Iranian journalists abroad, including in London, and intimidate those exposing the corruption within the heart of the IRGC itself.
The argument has always been that by banning the IRGC, Britain would lose any influence it had in Tehran – which is laughable. It's the same fantasy that drove Obama's misbegotten rapprochement with Iran – a rapprochement which was entirely one-sided, given that Tehran has never stopped proclaiming, loudly and clearly, that its hatred of the west is theologically driven, is absolute, and is unchangeable, while its chief foreign policy goal is the destruction of Israel.
Also, the IRGC, like the Iranian regime as a whole, is not going through a good period. They're suffering. We need to push against them rather than appease.
Despite bellicose threats of revenge, the IRGC had little response to the killing of Soleimani. It could not defend Hezbollah, its proxy in Lebanon, when it was all but destroyed by Israeli attacks. Its presence in Syria has crumbled since the ousting of President Assad. And it cannot suppress the jostling for power among would-be successors to the ailing Khamenei. Britain still has an embassy in Tehran and the limited ability to monitor events. It would make little difference if this was shut in response to a ban on the IRGC operating in Britain.
The evidence is plentiful, the plotting unacceptable and the risk of espionage and terrorism too great to ignore.
Leave a Reply