The British official confirmed the disagreement in the London cabinet regarding action against the IRGC

According to Fars News Agency’s International Group, one of the senior officials of the British Ministry of Interior confirmed the previous reports regarding the disagreement in the cabinet of this country’s government to take action against Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

“Tom Tagenhut”, the security advisor of the British Home Secretary, who is considered one of the hard-line officials in the British government against Iran, criticized another group in the cabinet who are apparently against taking action against the Revolutionary Guards.

Before this, the English newspaper The Times claimed in a report that the British Foreign Ministry expressed concern about the closure of communication channels with the Islamic Republic of Iran as a result of the action against the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and prevented it. In that report, it was stated that the British Interior Minister is one of the ministers who supports the declaration of the IRGC as a so-called terrorist organization.

Speaking in the House of Commons, Tom Tagenhut called the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as an “evil organization” and reminded that the United States included this organization in the list of “foreign terrorist organizations” in 2019.

Tagnehut said in this meeting that he and his boss, Suella Bowerman (UK Home Secretary) are in agreement on this issue. In response to a question from a member of the British parliament, he mentioned the differences in the cabinet on this issue.

Tagenhut said: “He should know someone about this issue [دولت را] I am not convinced and there are many things that I support doing. I can assure them that this government will fully listen to what they said. The Minister of Interior and I agree to do this.”

As The Times newspaper reported a while ago, the officials of the British Foreign Ministry explained the reasons for opposing action against the IRGC, stating that the IRGC, unlike “terrorist groups”, is the official military institution of a government.

“State Department officials have real concerns about such a move because they want to maintain their access,” a source said. The Ministry of Interior and, on a broader level, the government support this action (against the Revolutionary Guards). The Revolutionary Guards should have been listed by now, but the whole process has been put on ice. [به معنی اینکه به تأخیر افتاده است.]»

“The Interior Ministry seems hopeful that the listing will eventually happen, but the process is expected to be delayed by several weeks, if not months,” the Times wrote.

A British government official told The Times: “While the government is reviewing the list of terrorist organizations, we do not comment on whether or not a particular organization is under review for inclusion in the list.”

Last month, while there were reports of the British government’s intention to take action against the IRGC, the Independent newspaper reported that a monitoring body warned that declaring the IRGC as a “terrorist organization” would destabilize Britain’s definition of terrorism, and forces The military puts London’s international allies under the Terrorism Act.

In the report of the Independent, Jonathan Hall KC, the head of the government organization “Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Laws”, warned that the official declaration of the IRGC as a terrorist group would have wide-ranging consequences.

In a report seen by the Independent, it was stated: Prohibiting a government entity under the Terrorism Act 2000 is a departure from the unchanged and decades-old policy of the United Kingdom and calls into question the definition of terrorism that has been effective until today. If it is possible to link state forces with terrorism, the question of how the definition of terrorism should be applied to other state forces should be addressed, at the cost of the risk of upsetting the fixed meaning of terrorism in domestic laws.

He warned that if UK Home Secretary Suella Braverman were to ban the IRGC, “the logic would be that all government forces, including allied forces, must at some point or all time be associated with terrorism”. He added, “It is one thing to consider militias and people who overthrow the government through violence as terrorists, but it is completely different to use the word terrorist for government institutions that traditionally have a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.”

End of message/T 712