, Leader of the , responding to the
Defence Secretary’s House of
Commons statement on Iran, said:
I thank the Secretary of State for an advance copy of his
statement.
Could he tell us where the Prime Minister is and what he is
doing that is so much more important than addressing parliament
on the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Suleimani, an
extremely dangerous and aggressive act that risks starting yet
another deadly war in the Middle East?
On Friday I sent the Prime Minister a letter posing a
series of questions. He has not answered any of them. Instead,
today he is hiding behind his Defence Secretary.
Isn’t the truth that he is scared to stand up to President
Trump because he has hitched his wagon to the prospect of a toxic
Trump trade deal?
Instead, at this highly dangerous moment, we find the
government giving cover and even expressing sympathy for what is
widely regarded as an illegal act, because they are in hock to
Trump.
This assassination puts British troops and civilians, as
well as the people of the region, in danger.
Mr Speaker, I have long spoken out against the Iranian
government’s human rights record. This is not a question of
Suleimani’s actions or record in the region. Whatever the record
of any state official, the principle – and the law – is that we
don’t go around assassinating foreign leaders. Without the clear
demonstration of an immediate threat, it is illegal.
So does the government regard the assassination as legal
under international law?
If so, how? And do the lawyers in the Foreign Office and
the Ministry of Defence regard it as legal?
If he really believes this was an act of self defence what
evidence has he or the Prime Minister seen of the imminent attack
on the US?
He says that the US is “confident” attacks were imminent
but US officials have been quoted in the press saying the
evidence is “razor thin”. How would he describe it?
In the past few days, the US President has threatened to
target Iranian cultural sites and attack Iran in a manner that
is, to quote him directly, “disproportionate”.
Both of these actions would be war crimes and yet still the
government refuses to condemn such threats.
On Sunday the Foreign Secretary said the onus was entirely
on Iran to de-escalate. I wonder, if Iran had assassinated an
American general, whether the British government would be telling
Washington that the onus was entirely on the US to
de-escalate?
Mr Speaker, we talk about this as a conflict between the US
and Iran but the worst consequences are likely to be felt by
Iraq, a country on the brink of further terrible violence and
instability.
President Trump has threatened Iraq with “sanctions like
they've never seen before” after its elected parliament voted to
ask US and other foreign forces to leave their country.
And he has said he will not withdraw entirely unless the US
is compensated for an "extraordinarily expensive air base" that
was actually built by Saddam Hussein in the 1980s. This is
outrageous.
The Prime Minister, when he finally resurfaced from his
trip, said he was committed to the sovereignty of Iraq. So will
the Secretary of State confirm that the government will respect
Iraqi sovereignty if the Iraqi government asks British forces to
leave?
Mr Speaker, we know the British government wasn’t consulted
by the Trump administration in advance, despite the British
interests at stake.
What is the government doing to secure the release of
Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and other dual nationals currently in
detention in Iran? This must be a terrifying time for them and
their families.
It is not in anyone’s interests for this to escalate to
all-out war. All sides should exercise maximum restraint and
allow for meaningful dialogue led by the UN Secretary General’s
office. To prevent war we need a strong plan for diplomacy. So is
the government in contact with the UN Secretary General?
And let’s not forget, Mr Speaker that there was a
diplomatic plan – the Iran nuclear deal. It was working until
President Trump ripped it up.
Mr Speaker, time and again over the last two decades the
political and military establishment has made the wrong call on
military intervention in the Middle East.
Many of us opposed the disastrous invasion of Iraq in 2003
and the failed invasion of Afghanistan in 2003. And I opposed the
catastrophic bombing of Libya in 2011. Have we
learned nothing?
This House must rule out plunging our country into yet
another devastating war at the behest of another state.
