The willingness of a British political adviser to take up arms for the Iranian regime, as we report exclusively today, ought to dispel any remaining complacency about Tehran’s influence in this country.
Hussain Shafiei is not merely another excitable voice on social media. The British-Iranian served as George Galloway’s election coordinator and has appeared on the BBC to discuss British politics. Yet he now says that he has gone to Iran and would be “quite happy to be given a gun” to defend the Islamic Republic. He has also expressed support for Iran acquiring nuclear weapons and portrayed Hamas and Hezbollah as legitimate resistance movements rather than terrorist organisations.
Whether his conduct warrants investigation is a matter for the relevant authorities, particularly following the designation of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a threat to national security. Politically, however, it plainly marks a serious escalation.
This revelation must also be considered alongside the spectacle, also reported by the JC, of British influencers travelling to the funeral of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Some presented themselves as journalists while broadcasting the regime’s propaganda to large audiences at home. They praised the architect of Iran’s machinery of repression, celebrated his terrorist proxies and relayed demonstrations at which “death to Britain” was chanted.
As Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, told the JC, people who use large online followings to glorify such a regime present an obvious danger of radicalisation. The counter-terrorism expert Roger Macmillan raises an equally important question: were any of these visits, broadcasts or social-media campaigns directed, financed or coordinated by Iranian state bodies?
Britain has witnessed the rise of sectarian politics over recent years, but these revelations suggest that the danger is entering a more serious phase. It is one thing for political movements to appeal cynically to communal grievances. It is another for the advisers and activists surrounding extremist parties to declare themselves willing to fight for a hostile regime that sponsors terrorism, targets people on British soil and inspires chants demanding Britain’s destruction.
The government was right finally to act against the IRGC, but it was also far too slow. For years, the regime and its sympathisers were able to build networks, cultivate influence and operate in the grey space between propaganda, intimidation and direct hostile activity. The new designation must therefore be the beginning of a sustained policy, not the end of a legislative argument.
The authorities should investigate whether British participants in Iranian influence operations have received money, travel, hospitality, instructions or other support from the regime. The Foreign Influence Registration Scheme must be enforced rigorously, with substantial penalties for concealment. The Charity Commission should examine religious and charitable institutions where there is reason to suspect control, funding or direction from Tehran for nefarious purposes. Immigration powers should be used against foreign nationals who promote the interests of hostile state organisations or glorify political violence. Sanctions should target not only senior Iranian officials but also the financiers, media intermediaries and front organisations through which the regime operates abroad.
None of this requires the policing of opinions or the suppression of legitimate religious practice. Free expression and freedom of worship are hallmarks of a liberal democracy and include the right to hold views that most people find objectionable.
But democratic freedoms do not entail a right to act covertly on behalf of a hostile power, assist its terrorist apparatus or turn British institutions into instruments of foreign-state indoctrination. A liberal society must ensure that the freedoms it protects are not exploited to undermine the institutions that guarantee them.
Iran has understood the openness of British society as an opportunity and the government must now demonstrate that openness need not mean defencelessness.
To get more from opinion, click here to sign up for our free Editor's Picks newsletter.