Background

58. This chapter examines Iran's policies towards its region, and the implications of its nuclear programme for stability in what has traditionally been a volatile geo-political arena. Our first Global Security inquiry, into the Middle East, was published in August 2007. It included a chapter on Iran's role in the Middle East, and we do not propose to cover the same ground in the same level of detail here.[97] However, we wish to include an assessment of Iran's security relationships in the region, and to add new material on Afghanistan and the risk of nuclear proliferation (two issues not covered in our previous Report).

Iran and its Region

59. When we took evidence for our Global Security: The Middle East inquiry, Dr Howells told us that Iran was "an emerging great power" in the region.[98] We noted Iran's significant influence in Lebanon, Iraq and the Middle East Peace Process. The FCO notes that Iran has a "ballistic missile capability", which already has the potential of striking Israel and Riyadh. It is developing longer-range systems that could reach states such as Egypt. It assesses that Iran is "on a par" in terms of tanks with Jordan or Saudi Arabia, but notes "its smaller neighbours are much less well equipped". [99] It notes that Iran justifies its "active military posture" by claiming the US and its allies are "intent on the destruction of the Islamic Republic".[100]

IRAN AND TERRORISM

60. US President George Bush called Iran "the world's leading state sponsor of terror" during a January 2008 visit to the Middle East. He argued that Iran sent "hundreds of millions of dollars to extremists around the world".[101] As noted below, Iran is an active supporter of Hamas in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, backs Hezbollah against the Sunni-led Government in Lebanon and stands accused of providing weaponry to militants in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran's apparent support for terrorist activity in these areas stands contrary to a commitment it made to the E3/EU in the 2004 Paris Agreement. In this Agreement, the parties pledged that:

Irrespective of progress on the nuclear issue, the E3/EU and Iran confirm their determination to combat terrorism, including the activities of Al Qa'ida and other terrorist groups such as the MeK [the Mujahedin-e-Khalq]. They also confirm their continued support for the political process in Iraq aimed at establishing a constitutionally elected Government.[102]

In its defence, Iran denies providing weaponry to insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it also argues that Hamas and Hezbollah are not terrorist organisations. However, this does not correspond with the assessment of the international community, and Iran's cooperation on terrorism in the Middle East has been disappointing thus far.

ISRAEL

61. The Islamic Republic of Iran has never accepted the existence of the State of Israel. Iran's policies towards Israel run counter to much of the rest of the international community. In this vein, President Ahmadinejad hosted a provocative conference on the Holocaust in 2006, during which participants questioned whether the genocide against Jews actually took place. Speakers included the former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. The then Prime Minister, Rt Hon Tony Blair MP, called the conference "shocking beyond belief", and the White House condemned it as "an affront to the entire civilized world".[103] Giving evidence to our inquiry on Global Security: The Middle East, Dr Ansari told us:

The reaction in Iran to that conference was quite striking because people had to come out and explain themselves, and what on earth it was all about. If one good thing came out of the conference, it was that it engendered a certain amount of very negative reaction in Iran. People were wondering what on earth the point of it all was. It brought Iran only a lot of bad publicity and did not, to my mind, represent views there.[104]

62. Iran has recently increased its hostile rhetoric towards Israel. It has an annual military parade, during which missiles are draped with anti-Israeli slogans.[105] In 2005, President Ahmadinejad notoriously called for Israel to be "wiped off the map".[106] Mr Blair reacted by saying "I felt a real sense of revulsion" at the comments.[107] The comments have been used to strengthen arguments against Iran's nuclear programme, for instance in a recent interview by President Bush in which he defended his use of strong rhetoric against Iran:

[M]y concern that if they end up with a nuclear weapon, a generation is going to pay a terrible price. And the reason I've said that is because their own president has said that, "we want to wipe out Israel," for example.[108]

The FCO's memorandum to the Committee also notes this "great concern".[109] When we were in Iran, some interlocutors told us that President Ahmadinejad was merely expressing a desire for a one-state solution, and that his comments did not signify any military intent against Israel. Since our Report on Global Security: The Middle East, the House of Commons Library has published a paper which highlighted the difficulties surrounding the translation of the phrase used by the Iranian President, noting that some argue the word "map" was not used and that it would be more accurate to say "eliminated from the page of history".[110] Dr Howells told us:

I have heard lots of explanations of that statement of intent. The one that is used mostly is the parallel with the former Soviet Union. It has been pointed out to me that the Soviet Union does not appear on any contemporary maps any more and yet the country is still there. That is an interesting argument.[111]

Whatever the real intentions of the Iranian President, his remarks were interpreted by Israel as representing an escalation of rhetoric.

63. We conclude that the call by President Ahmadinejad for the destruction of the State of Israel and his provocative hosting of the Holocaust denial conference were deplorable and we condemn these actions unreservedly.

64. The US hosted the Annapolis Conference in late 2007 in a bid to reenergise the Middle East Peace Process. President Ahmadinejad called it "a trap set by the Zionists" and neither Iran nor Hamas were represented.[112] However, as Peter Gooderham, then the FCO's Middle East Director, told us when he gave evidence for our Global Security: The Middle East inquiry, Iran has "said from time to time that it would accept any outcome to which the Palestinian people themselves were committed".[113] In our conclusions to that Report, we strongly supported the goal of "an independent, democratic and viable Palestinian state peacefully co-existing with a secure Israel" and we continue to hold this view.[114]

65. Israel has strongly opposed Iran's nuclear programme. Its Defence Minister Ehud Barak rejected the assessment of the US National Intelligence Estimate that Iran halted work on its nuclear weapons programme in 2003. He argued: "it is our responsibility to ensure that the right steps are taken against the Iranian regime. As is well known, words don't stop missiles."[115] In a recent briefing, The Economist noted that Israeli air strikes destroyed one of Saddam Hussein's uncompleted nuclear reactors in 1981, but argued that "whether Israel would dare to go it alone in an attack on Iran is uncertain".[116]

66. We strongly oppose President Ahmadinejad's policies towards Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories and reaffirm our support for a two-state solution of an independent, democratic and viable Palestinian state peacefully co-existing with a secure Israel. We conclude that Iran is a malign influence with regard to the prospects for peace in the Middle East.

SYRIA AND LEBANON

67. Syria is Iran's main strategic partner in the region. When we took evidence for our inquiry into Global Security: The Middle East, we were told by Professor Anoush Ehteshami that President Assad "regards Iran as Syria's only reliable partner in the region." We were told that the Iranians "have been very good partners to Syria" in a number of areas, including hydrocarbons, and the two countries also share some cultural links. Syria signed a memorandum of understanding on defence issues with Iran in June 2006.[117]

68. Dr Howells told us during an evidence session for the same inquiry that he regarded Lebanon's Hezbollah movement as a "puppet organisation" run from Tehran. Though Hezbollah undeniably receives arms from Iran, Dr Ali Ansari was more cautious, arguing that the latter wasn't able to direct the former in the way some suggest. He felt the relationship was akin to that between the US and Israel. Professor Ehteshami warned us that though Iran was keen for Hezbollah to play a key role in Lebanon's domestic politics, it also served to pose a security threat to Israel (as during the 2006 war), and could be deployed by Iran if it feared a pre-emptive strike against its nuclear facilities. He also noted that Iran was funding massive welfare programmes in the Shi'a areas of Lebanon.[118]

69. We concluded in our Report on Global Security: The Middle East that Iran's influence in Lebanon was a "malign" one.[119] Its approach to Lebanon has been similar to that of Syria, and this has helped strengthen their partnership. Both Syria and Iran have also aided Hamas in recent years. However, Syria's participation in the US Annapolis Conference suggests it may be increasingly interested in reaching a peace agreement with Israel. Such a move would split Syria away from Iran, and weaken Tehran's influence in the region.

IRAQ

70. In our Report on Global Security: The Middle East, we noted, "Iraq is perhaps the most intensive and important theatre for the projection of Iranian influence across the region". We highlighted the close cultural and religious relationship that Iran has with many Iraqis, and we cited evidence from experts indicating that Iran was unwilling to allow Iraq to threaten its security following the devastation of the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s.[120]

71. Members of the Iranian regime whom we met in Tehran were keen to remind us that they enjoyed a strong relationship with Iraq's ruling parties. However, the Multi-National Forces in Iraq, present at the request of the Iraqi Government, have not enjoyed the same treatment from Tehran. Lord Archer of Sandwell told the Committee that Iran's Revolutionary Guard had a presence in Iraq and that he was almost certain "that they are training insurgents to kill British and American forces."[121] The then Prime Minister told the House of Commons in June 2007 that some of "those people who are fighting us in Iraq" were "backed by elements of the Iranian regime."[122] Dr Howells wrote to the Committee with further details of attacks against British troops in Iraq:

There is considerable evidence to suggest that a significant proportion of the equipment being used by insurgents against UK forces in Iraq is of Iranian origin, or at least has been transited through Iran. Further analysis is ongoing to determine more categorically the origin of some specific equipment. We are unable to accurately determine trend data to assess whether there has been a substantial decrease in the transiting of equipment of Iranian origin in the last three months. However, there has been a substantial overall reduction in the number of attacks on UK Forces in Iraq during this period.[123]

72. In our 2006 Report on Foreign Policy Aspects of the War Against Terrorism, we noted that there was "strong evidence" of "malign Iranian involvement" in Iraq, in particular with regard to the use of explosive devices.[124] The evidence provided by the Government for this current inquiry confirms this assessment. In his Report to Congress in September 2007, General David Petraeus, Commanding General of the Multi-National Forces in Iraq, said "Iran, through the use of the Qods Force, seeks to turn the Iraqi Special Groups into a Hezbollah-like force to serve its interests and fight a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq".[125]

73. Comments by a US military spokesperson in January 2008 demonstrated a shift in the American position from that articulated in September by General Petraeus. He said, "the number of signature weapons that have come from Iran and have been used against coalition and Iraqi security forces are down dramatically". Despite this, he maintained that levels of training and financing of insurgents by Iranian elements had not changed for the better.[126]

74. We conclude that the support originating from within Iran for Iraqi insurgents has been responsible for the deaths of coalition troops and is completely unacceptable and reprehensible. We recommend that the Government continues to take a vigorous and proactive approach in intercepting this support. We further recommend that, in its Response to this Report, the Government sets out its latest analysis of the levels of training, weaponry and finance provided by elements within the Iranian regime to Iraqi militants.

AFGHANISTAN

During our visit to Tehran, we were told that Iran had been a strong supporter of the international community's efforts in Kabul. President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan has said their two countries have "never been as friendly as they are today."[127] Members of the Iranian regime told us that they are long-standing opponents of the Taliban. However, there are again concerns that elements within Tehran have been supplying weaponry to the militant group. Dr Howells wrote to us on this issue:

In Afghanistan, we are concerned that elements of the Iranian regime are involved in supplying arms and funds to the Taleban, which could be used against NATO troops. This view was confirmed by an operation on 6 September involving ISAF troops which interdicted a number of EFP components. As part of the operation, ISAF observed the convoy cross the border from eastern Iran into Farah province, where it was intercepted. Any Iranian links to illegal armed groups either through supply of munitions, training or funding are completely unacceptable.[128]

In its July 2007 Report on UK Operations in Afghanistan, the House of Commons Defence Select Committee noted "with concern reports that explosives originating from Iran have been used by insurgents in Afghanistan."[129] Dr Howells argued to us that Iran had taken "very aggressive military action" against UK forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan. He added: "I do not think that we can say that we would not take any [military] action if that kind of situation got any worse."[130]

75. Counter-narcotics has been cited as an area with potential for increased cooperation between the UK and Iranian Governments. In 2006, the FCO estimated that 60% of all heroin entering the UK transits Iran [mostly originating in Afghanistan]. In a written answer, Dr Howells said: "Iran is actively involved in the fight against drug trafficking and seizes far more opiates than any other country in the world. We have regular constructive cooperation with Iran on counter-narcotics." Our predecessor Committee concluded in its Report on Iran that "continued co-operation between the United Kingdom and Iran in the war against drugs is important for both countries" and recommended, "it remain a priority objective of the bilateral relationship."[131]

76. Dr Howells told us that since 2004, the UK has provided over £1 million to help Iran build its counter-narcotics capacity.[132] Iran is believed to have two million opium users and 300,000 heroin addicts.[133] During our visit to Tehran, we met the Deputy Secretary of Iran's Drugs Control Headquarters, Dr Mohammed Reza Jahani, who noted that over 3,500 Iranian police officers had died fighting the drugs trade. He also called for greater cooperation between the UK and Iran on this issue. Iran has asked for equipment in dealing with traffickers emerging from Afghanistan, but the Government has assessed that the "dual-use potential" of much of this means that it is subject to the EU arms embargo on Iran.[134] Dr Howells told us that the counter-narcotics relationship has become "more difficult because of the generally frostier relationship on a more formal political level", but that it could ultimately be a "confidence-building measure between our two countries".[135]

77. We conclude that the reports that Taliban insurgents are receiving support from Iran is a matter of very serious concern. Any such assistance is unacceptable, endangers regional stability and can only hinder efforts to establish closer relations between Iran and the international community. As with Iraq, we recommend that the Government continues to take a proactive stance in intercepting any support emanating from within Iran and that in its Response to this Report it sets out its latest analysis of the level and nature of the support being provided by the Iranian regime to Taliban insurgents. We further recommend that the Government supports greater cooperation with Iran on counter-narcotics.

Nuclear Power in the Middle East

78. Paul Arkwright told us that the risk of nuclear proliferation was one of the Government's "prime motivations" in ensuring that Iran does not develop nuclear weapons. Dr Howells noted that a number of other countries in the region,

feel that if Iran is a year, two or three years away from developing a nuclear bomb, they will look at acquiring similar technology themselves. That is the most worrying thing of all; the issue is not just about an Iranian bomb but about three or four other countries in the area.[136]

At the end of 2006, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), an organisation bringing together Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, announced that it would be moving towards developing nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.[137] Mr Arkwright told us that it was "no coincidence" that Iran's neighbours were now expressing these intentions given Tehran's own programme.[138] Saudi Arabia has recently proposed that states in the Persian Gulf (including Iran) establish a consortium to enrich uranium in a third state to help resolve tensions over the crisis, although Iran has said it will not accept this if it means giving up its right to enrich on its own soil.[139]

79. The concern over the reaction of Arab states to Iran's nuclear programme highlights the tensions that have built up between Tehran and other countries in its region. In our Report on Global Security: The Middle East, we noted the power struggle between Iran and countries such as Saudi Arabia reflected through their support for opposing factions in Iraq, Lebanon and within the occupied Palestinian territories. Professor Anoush Ehteshami told us that if Iran were to acquire weapons unhindered, it would have "acquired a major lead over all its neighbours in both geopolitical and geo-strategic terms", affecting all who rely on the Persian Gulf for energy supplies.[140] There is a grave risk that nuclear development will become another theatre in the Middle Eastern power struggle. As the FCO notes, the "domino" effect in the region of an Iranian weapon would "seriously damage" the NPT and "lead to a dramatic reduction in regional and global security."[141] A further proliferation concern is that Iran may provide nuclear technology to its allies both in the Middle East and elsewhere.

80. If Iran does acquire a nuclear weapon, it will not be the first state in its region to do so. Its neighbour Pakistan is a nuclear power. Whilst Israel has not officially declared its nuclear weapon status, it too is strongly believed to have such a capacity. Dr Howells told us of the dynamic between Israel's nuclear arsenal and Iran's own programme:

Whenever I have spoken to Israelis they use the threat of an Iranian bomb as a very good reason for not giving up their bomb, and when one talks to Iranians they say exactly the same thing: "Well, why shouldn't we have a bomb? Israel has got a bomb."[142]

81. In its submission to the Committee, the FCO argued that the UK remained committed to the "universalisation of the NPT" (Israel, India and Pakistan are not signatories of the NPT) and "the achievement of a Middle East free of WMD and their means of delivery".[143] Dr Howells spelt out what this would mean in practice:

We have tried on every occasion to get Israel to sign up to the NPT and to do so as a non-nuclear state. […] I cannot see the Israelis doing it in the near future, but they must recognise that they have a responsibility too, as part of this great international bargain, to say, "Okay, if we can get some guarantees from countries like Iran, then we are prepared to throw this on to the negotiating table."[144]

However, in the current political climate, without a comprehensive political agreement in the region (including recognition of Israel by all its Arab neighbours as well as by Iran) and movement by Israel on the issue of a nuclear weapons free zone, it is difficult to see how this can be achieved. BASIC argues that a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East is "more necessary" but "less likely" than ever before. [145]

82. We conclude that, should Iran acquire a nuclear weapon, it is very likely to lead to other states in the Middle East developing their own weapon programmes. This domino effect would heighten regional tensions and seriously weaken the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It would also seriously undermine any prospect of moves to a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East.

98   Ibid, para 191 Back

99   Ev 47 Back

100   Ev 48 Back

101   "George Bush calls Iran 'leading terror sponsor'", The Telegraph, 13 February 2008 Back

102   Ev 59 Back

103  " Iran's Holocaust-denial conference: a community of hate", The Christian Science Monitor, 22 December 2006 Back

104   Foreign Affairs Committee, Eighth Report of Session 2006-07, Global Security: The Middle East, HC 363, Q 115 Back

105   "Israel challenges Iran's nuclear ambitions", The Telegraph, 22 September 2004 Back

106   "Israel should be wiped off map, says Iran's president", The Guardian, 27 October 2005 Back

107   "Blair 'revolted' by 'destroy Israel' call of Iranian president", The Times, 27 October 2005 Back

108   "Bush interview excerpts", Associated Press, 27 November 2007 Back

109   Ev 48 Back

110   Iran: The Controversy over President Ahmadinejad's Comments about Israel, Standard Note SN/IA/4491, House of Commons Library, 29 October 2007 Back

111   Q 258 Back

112   "Annapolis is a trap set by Zionists", Jerusalem Post, 22 October 2007 Back

113   Foreign Affairs Committee, Eighth Report of Session 2006-07, Global Security: The Middle East, HC 363, para 200 Back

114   Ibid, para 73 Back

115   "Israel unconvinced Iran has dropped nuclear program", New York Times, 5 Dec 2007 Back

116   "As the enrichment machines spin on", The Economist, 31 January 2008 Back

117   Foreign Affairs Committee, Eighth Report of Session 2006-07, Global Security: The Middle East, HC 363, para 137 Back

118   Ibid, paras 192-3 Back

119   Ibid, para 120 Back

120   Ibid, para 194 Back

121   Q 165 Back

122   HC Deb, 27 June 2007, col 328 Back

123   Ev 87 Back

124   Foreign Affairs Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2005-06, Foreign Policy Aspects of the War against Terrorism, HC 573, para 347 Back

125   General David Petraeus, Report to Congress on the Situation in Iraq, 10 September 2007, p 4 Back

126   "Iran continues to aid Iraq militias, US says", Boston Globe, 21 January 2008 Back

127   "Karzai calls Iran a 'very close friend'", Los Angeles Times, 5 June 2007 Back

128   Ev 87 Back

129   Defence Committee, Thirteenth Report of Session 2006-07, UK Operations in Afghanistan, HC 408, para 75 Back

130   Q 248 Back

131   HC Deb, 9 March 2006, col 1688W Back

132   Ev 88 Back

133   Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Iran: Response of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Cm 6198, May 2004, p 3 Back

134   Ev 88 Back

135   Q 271, Q 273 Back

136   Q 261 Back

137   "Gulf states announce nuclear plan", BBC News Online, 10 December 2006, news.bbc.co.uk Back

138   Q 261 Back

139   "Iran welcomes Arab uranium proposal but says it will not stop enrichment", International Herald Tribune, 3 November 2007 Back

140   Foreign Affairs Committee, Eighth Report of Session 2006-07, Global Security: The Middle East, HC 363, para 203 Back

141   Ev 49 Back

142   Q 260 Back

143   Ev 48 Back

144   Q 260 Back

145   Ev 112 Back