The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and
First Secretary of State ()
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on
the Iran nuclear agreement known as the joint comprehensive plan
of action.
I addressed the House yesterday on wider concerns in relation to
Iran’s conduct in the region. The strategic aim for the UK and
our international partners remains as it has always been: to
de-escalate tensions; to hold Iran to account for its nefarious
activities; and to keep the diplomatic door open for the regime
to negotiate a peaceful way forward. Iran’s destabilising
activity should serve as a reminder to us all of the danger to
the region and to the world if it were ever to acquire a nuclear
weapon. We cannot let that happen.
With that in mind, today, the E3, consisting of the United
Kingdom, France and Germany, has jointly taken action to hold
Iran to account for its systematic non-compliance with the JCPOA.
As the European parties to the deal, we have written to the EU
High Representative, Josep Borrell, in his capacity as
co-ordinator of the JCPOA. We have formally triggered the dispute
resolution mechanism, thereby referring Iran to the Joint
Commission.
Let me set out the pattern of non-compliance by the regime that
left us with no credible alternative. Since last May, Iran has
step by step reduced its compliance with critical elements of the
JCPOA, leaving it a shell of an agreement. On 1 July 2019, the
International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran had
exceeded key limits on low enriched uranium stockpile limits. On
8 July, the IAEA reported that Iran had exceeded its 3.67%
enriched uranium production limit. On 5 November, the IAEA
confirmed that Iran had crossed its advanced centrifuge research
and development limits. On 7 November, the IAEA confirmed that
Iran had restarted enrichment activities at the Fordow facility—a
clear violation of JCPOA restrictions. On 18 November, the IAEA
reported that Iran had exceeded its heavy water limits. On 5
January this year, Iran announced that it would no longer adhere
to JCPOA limits on centrifuge numbers.
Each of those actions was serious. Together, they now raise acute
concerns about Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Iran’s breakout time—the
time that it would need to produce enough fissile material for a
nuclear weapon—is now falling, which is an international concern.
Time and time again, we have expressed our serious concerns to
Iran, and urged it to come back into compliance. Time and time
again, in its statements and more importantly through its
actions, it has refused, undermining the very integrity of the
deal and flouting its international commitments.
Iran’s announcement on 5 January made it clear that it was now
effectively refusing to comply with any of the outstanding
substantive restrictions that the JCPOA placed on its nuclear
programme. On that date, the Iranian Government stated that its
“nuclear program no longer faces any operational restrictions,
including enrichment capacity, percentage of enrichment, amount
of enriched material, and research and development.”
With regret, the E3 was left with no choice but to refer Iran to
the JCPOA’s dispute resolution mechanism. The DRM is the
procedure set out in the deal to resolve disputes between the
parties to the agreement. Alongside our partners, we will use
this to press Iran to come back into full compliance with its
commitments and honour an agreement that is in all our interests.
The European External Action Service will now co-ordinate and
convene the DRM process. As a first step, it will call a meeting
of the Joint Commission, bringing together all parties to the
JCPOA within 15 days. This process has been designed explicitly
to allow participants flexibility and full control at each and
every stage. Let me make it clear to the House that we are
triggering the DRM because Iran has undermined the objective and
purpose of the JCPOA, but we do so with a view to bringing Iran
back into full compliance. We are triggering the DRM to reinforce
the diplomatic track, not to abandon it. For our part, as the
United Kingdom we were disappointed that the US withdrew from the
JCPOA in May 2018, and we have worked tirelessly with our
international partners to preserve the agreement. We have upheld
our commitments, lifting economic and financial sanctions on
sectors such as banking, oil, shipping and metals. We lifted an
asset freeze and travel bans on listed entities and individuals.
We have sought to support a legitimate trade relationship with
Iran. The UK, France and Germany will remain committed to the
deal, and we will approach the DRM in good faith, striving to
resolve the dispute and bring Iran back into full compliance with
its JCPOA obligations.
As I made clear to the House yesterday, the Government in Iran
have a choice. The regime can take steps to de-escalate tensions
and adhere to the basic rules of international law or sink deeper
and deeper into political and economic isolation. So too, Iran’s
response to the DRM will be a crucial test of its intentions and
good will. We urge Iran to work with us to save the deal. We urge
Iran to see this as an opportunity to reassure the world that its
nuclear intentions are exclusively peaceful. We urge the Iranian
Government to choose an alternative path and engage in diplomacy
and negotiation to resolve the full range of its activities that
flout international law and destabilise the region.
I commend the statement to the House.
1.08 pm
(Islington South and
Finsbury) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement.
For all of us who regard the Iran nuclear deal as one of the
crowning diplomatic achievements of this century and a path
towards progress with Iran on other issues of concern, it is
deeply distressing to see Iran join the United States in openly
flouting the terms of the deal, as the Foreign Secretary has
described.
I firmly agree with the action that has been taken today
alongside our European partners. I welcome every word of the
joint statement issued at the weekend by Britain, France and
Germany in relation to the JCPOA. I agree with their commitment
to uphold the nuclear non-proliferation regime. I agree with
their determination to ensure that Iran never develops a nuclear
weapon.
I agree with their conclusion that the JCPOA plays a key role in
those objectives. I would have been stronger in my wording.
Although I agree with their “regret” and “concern”, I would have
said “revulsion” and “condemnation” over the Trump
Administration’s attempted sabotage of the JCPOA and their
re-imposition of sanctions on Iran.
I agree with the E3’s attempts to preserve the agreement despite
the actions of Donald Trump and the reciprocal actions of the
Iranian regime, to which the Foreign Secretary referred in his
statement. I also agree that Iran must be obliged to return to
full compliance with its side of the agreement. That was a
sensible and balanced statement on the JCPOA, stressing the
international unity around the importance of retaining and
restoring it, and accepting that both sides have breached it in
terms and that neither has any justification for doing so.
That is what makes it all the more remarkable that this morning
we heard from one of the signatories to that statement—our very
own Prime Minister—telling “BBC Breakfast” the following:
“the problem with the JCPOA is basically—this is the crucial
thing, this is why there is tension—from the American perspective
it’s a flawed agreement, it expires, plus it was negotiated by
President Obama…from their point of view it has many many faults.
Well, if we’re going to get rid of it let’s replace it—and let’s
replace it with the Trump deal. That’s what we need to see…that
would be a great way forward. President Trump is a great
dealmaker by his own account, and by many others…Let’s work
together to replace the JCPOA and get the Trump deal instead.”
In the space of two or three days, the Prime Minister has gone
from signing a joint statement with France and Germany calling
for the retention and restoration of the JCPOA, to calling for it
to be scrapped and replaced by some mythical Trump deal. The
Foreign Secretary did not refer to any of that in his statement,
and we could be forgiven for thinking that he and the Prime
Minister are not exactly on the same page, but perhaps in his
response he could answer some questions about the Prime
Minister’s remarks.
First, will the Foreign Secretary confirm that in his discussions
with his American counterparts, they have said that one of the
problems with the JCPOA is that, to quote the Prime Minister,
“it was negotiated by President Obama”?
We all suspect that that is Trump the toddler’s main issue with
it, but can the Secretary of State confirm that the Prime
Minister was correct?
Secondly, can the Foreign Secretary tell us how this supposed
alternative Trump deal, which the Prime Minister is so
enthusiastic about, differs from the current JCPOA—or, like his
mythical middle eastern peace plan and his mythical deal with the
North Koreans on nuclear weapons, is it simply another Trump
fantasy?
Thirdly, can the Foreign Secretary tell us why on earth Iran
would accept a new deal negotiated with Donald Trump, with new
conditions attached, when he has shown his readiness to tear up
the existing deal and move the goalposts in terms of what it
should cover?
Finally, based on what the Prime Minister said this morning, are
we now to understand that—despite everything the Foreign
Secretary said in his statement just now and everything contained
in the joint statement at the weekend—it is now the official
policy of the UK Government to replace the JCPOA and get a Trump
deal instead, and that that would represent a “great way
forward”? If that is not official Government policy, why did the
Prime Minister say it, and why is he walking all over the Foreign
Secretary’s patch?
I thank the right hon. Lady for her support for the action we
have taken today and the action that we are taking as part of the
E3. She made a number of valid points at the outset of her
remarks about holding Iran to account for the technical failures,
and also about the importance that we certainly attach to leaving
a diplomatic door ajar for Iran to come back from its
non-compliance into compliance and to live up to its
responsibilities.
The right hon. Lady made a whole range of comments about the
Prime Minister, which I will address. First, it is Iran that is
threatening the JCPOA, with its systematic non-compliance. The
Prime Minister fully supports the JCPOA and bringing Iran back
into full compliance; that is the clear position and he has said
so on many occasions. [Interruption.] The right hon. Lady should
draw breath and allow me to respond to her remarks. As usual, she
made a whole series of attacks on the US Administration, which
seemed rather to cloud her judgment in this area. In fact, not
just President Trump but also President Macron has argued for a
broader deal with Iran—a deal that would address some of the
defects in the JCPOA, which is not a perfect deal but is the best
deal we have on the table at the moment, and that would address
the wider concerns that the US and many other states, including
the United Kingdom, have about Iran’s broader destabilising
activities in the region. The US and our European partners want
us to be ambitious in our diplomatic approach with Iran, and I
fully subscribe to that. I fear that the right hon. Lady is
rather confusing her attacks on the US Administration with sober
and sensible policy making in this area.
As of now, we—the Prime Minister and the whole Government—believe
that the JCPOA is the best available deal for restraining Iran’s
nuclear ambitions, and we want Iran to come back into full
compliance. Equally, as was discussed in Biarritz last year, the
Prime Minister, the United States and our European partners are
fully open to a broader initiative that would address not just
the nuclear concerns, but the broader concerns about the
destabilising activity that we have seen recently, in particular
in relation to the Quds Force.
The choice of the regime in Iran as of today is very simple. It
can take the diplomatic path. It can come back into full
compliance with the JCPOA and thereby give this country, our
European partners and our American partners—and, crucially, many
partners in the region—reassurance about its nuclear ambitions.
If it wants to, it can also take the diplomatic path to resolve
all the outstanding concerns that the international community has
about its conduct. That is the choice for the regime in Iran. If
it is willing to take that path in good faith, we will be ready
to meet it with British diplomacy.
(South West Surrey) (Con)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his support for the Iran
nuclear deal, because the simple truth is that if had not negotiated it, Iran
would have nuclear weapons today and the middle east would be
immensely more dangerous. However, it has caused a lot of
stresses in the western alliance, and I would like to ask the
Secretary of State’s view as to the best way to strengthen that
alliance, because however tattered and strained it is, it is a
vital foundation of our peace and prosperity, and has been for
the past 70 years.
My right hon. Friend, of course, knows a lot of the recent
history of this situation as well as—if not better than—I do. As
always, the answer is for Britain to exercise its judgment and
the full energy of its diplomacy to ensure that we forge common
purpose with our European and American friends. I have been in
the US and Brussels over the last two weeks, and will continue
that endeavour. The worst thing that we could do right now would
be to allow or foment divisions in that partnership, because that
would only encourage the hardliners in Tehran.
(Stirling) (SNP)
I commend the Foreign Secretary on his statement, and I have to
say that I agreed with every word of it. The Scottish National
party very much supports actions against nuclear proliferation in
the middle east. There was ample scope to trigger the dispute
resolution mechanism, so I am glad that the External Action
Service is going through the gears on that. I very much liked the
phrase in his statement that these efforts are to “reinforce the
diplomatic track”. We all agree on that. So let us go back to
this morning’s interview with the Prime Minister on breakfast TV,
because I think it bears repetition. He said of the JCPOA:
“let’s replace it with the Trump deal. That’s what we need to
see…President Trump is a great dealmaker by his own account, and
by many others…Let’s work together to replace the JCPOA and get
the Trump deal instead.”
I am very happy to support the Foreign Secretary from the SNP
Benches, but it seems that he is getting more support from the
SNP than his own Prime Minister. How seriously does he think
Tehran takes us all right now?
We engage with the regime on the basis that I have set out, which
is that it has a choice. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his
support. This is not about the UK position or any nuance
regarding the Prime Minister. This is the position of the E3 at
leader level. The E3 made clear in the joint statement recently
that we would like to preserve the JCPOA, but that we are also
ambitious for a broader rapprochement with Iran, which of course
would have to take into account all the other areas of
international concern. It is not just the nuclear issue that is a
concern to us; it is also the destabilising activity, the downing
of the Ukrainian airline flight and the treatment of our dual
nationals. Even if we got Iran back to the JCPOA in full
compliance, those issues would remain, and of course we
should—with our American partners, as we are doing with our
European partners—look to deal with all those issues for the long
term.
(South Dorset) (Con)
I wonder whether I am the only one who believes that the current
regime is ever going to adhere to the JCPOA. What is the biggest
threat now? Could it be that Israel, which has been threatened by
Iran, is likely to strike if this goes on unless some sort of
agreement is reached, which could of course inflame an already
very difficult situation?
It is not clear to me that there is any credible alternative to a
diplomatic route to solving this issue long term, even with
airstrikes. I will not get into all the operational matters. The
only way of dealing with the concerns that we have is a mixture—a
combination—of holding Iran to account when it behaves badly, as
it has done systematically in relation to its nuclear ambitions,
and leaving open the door to diplomatic opportunity and
diplomacy. That is the position of the UK—and, I believe, it is
also the position of not just our European partners but our
American partners too.
(Rhondda) (Lab)
I certainly do not want to defend the actions of the Iranian
regime on any count. The Foreign Secretary was instrumental, when
he was on the Back Benches, in making sure that the Government
introduced legislation known as the Magnitsky amendments, which
were to enable the Government to have another tool in the box in
relation to sanctions. They were primarily considered as relating
to Russia, but would it not be a good idea to have them on the
statute book in the UK now, as fast as possible, and would we not
be considering using those sanctions in relation to Iranians as
well?
The hon. Gentleman is quite right, first, about the importance of
having that sanctions capacity. As we leave the EU we will have
more autonomy to do that. We are looking forward to bringing that
forward. It was mentioned in the Queen’s Speech. He also made the
point—I think we have always agreed about this since the campaign
for a Magnitsky regime in this country—that such capacity
certainly should not just apply to Russia, or to one country, but
should be universal in geographic scope, and the approach that we
are taking will be.
(Bury South) (Con)
Last year an archive of documents relating to Iran’s nuclear
programme was unearthed in a Tehran warehouse by Israel’s
intelligence agencies. The documents revealed the extent of
Iran’s deception to the IAEA and the world powers about its
historical work to develop nuclear weapons and its ongoing
efforts to circumvent the JCPOA. Is my right hon. Friend able to
confirm whether the UK has seen these documents and whether he
shares Israel’s concerns about their contents?
My hon. Friend makes some interesting points. I am not going to
comment on intelligence matters or operational matters, but I can
say that of course we share Israel’s concern not just about
Iran’s nuclear ambitions but about the wider activities in the
region. The point that I think we and all our partners agree on
is that ultimately Tehran should give up those ambitions and
negotiate a way out of economic and political isolation, which
will only deepen, and live up to the responsibilities that it has
to its own people. There is a better path for the people of Iran,
but it has to be a choice that is taken by the regime in Iran.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
This is a very troubling time not only for Mr Ashuri and his
family but for other relations of British nationals being held in
Iranian prisons. Will the Foreign Secretary clearly outline what
steps he intends to take to support these individuals and their
families and prevent them from being exploited even further in
this dreadful situation?
I entirely agree with the hon. Lady. The plight of the nationals
and dual nationals in detention from our country and other
countries around the world is at the forefront of our minds. Of
course, we have seen the systematic and callous behaviour by Iran
in relation to them increase over time, not decrease, so it is
all part of a wider pattern of behaviour. We will do everything
we can to secure their release and, while they are in detention,
the best conceivable treatment that we can imagine. Again, as
with the other issues, Iran has to realise that it cannot pursue
its appalling behaviour, whether on the nuclear front, by
destabilising countries in the region or in the treatment of dual
nationals without being held to account, and that is the policy
of the UK.
Mr (Forest of Dean) (Con)
I welcome the decision to trigger the dispute resolution
mechanism. However, given that over the past few weeks we have
seen Iran use ballistic missiles to attack coalition forces and
that, in the wake of the killing of General Soleimani, we have
had another reminder of all the activities he used to carry out,
it is sensible for the Prime Minister to have an ambition to
bring the US back on board as part of this deal but to widen it
to encompass all the other activities of Iran. Will the Foreign
Secretary set out what Britain might do to try to kick-start that
process as well as bringing the JCPOA back into full action?
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We want to preserve the
JCPOA—it is the only current deal in town—but of course we are
ambitious to see a broader rapprochement. That is not just the
Prime Minister’s view. He has been actively supporting President
Trump and President Macron, and there is a huge amount of
diplomatic work being undertaken by me, by the Prime Minister and
others and by our international partners to achieve that. But we
come back to the basic equation and the basic choice: this is
ultimately a decision that must be made in Tehran, because
leaving the diplomatic door ajar is one thing but Iran has to be
willing to walk through it. We will make sure that that
diplomatic route—that diplomatic path—to a better alternative
Iran is there, but it must be something that the regime in
Tehran, bearing in mind all the recent events, the growing
economic isolation and the disaffection of many, many people in
Iran with the state of affairs, chooses and pursues of its own
volition.
(Leeds Central) (Lab)
It is precisely because we support this deal that the E3 was left
with no option but to take the action that it has, and I support
the Government in doing so. But can I bring the Foreign Secretary
back to the Prime Minister’s remarks this morning? Either the
Prime Minister wants to maintain this deal or he is now
advocating for its replacement: he cannot credibly hold both
positions. Which one is the policy of the Government?
The right hon. Gentleman is just wrong. Of course one can want to
preserve this deal but be ambitious and, if it is possible, bring
the United States and Tehran into a broader rapprochement,
dealing not just with the nuclear issue but with the wider
destabilising activities. That is the policy that we are pursuing
and we are doing so with the US and also, crucially, with our EU
partners. There seems to be a bit of amnesia on the Opposition
Benches. It was President Macron who last year proposed a very
similar approach. Just as we are willing to support that in
relation to proposals initiated in Washington, we supported it in
relation to Macron. We want to keep the transatlantic alliance
together and we want to bring a broader rapprochement between the
US and Iran that can lead to a better path for the Iranian
people.
(Isle of Wight) (Con)
It seems that the JCPOA in its current form is dying, although it
is not dead yet, and I compliment the Foreign Secretary and his
Ministers for the work that they are doing. Is there any common
ground between the United States and Iran on a potential JCPOA 2?
It is not clear that there is, as of now. However, there is
scope, if Iran is willing—the E3 statement backed this up, but we
come back to that basic dynamic and that basic choice—to see some
sort of broader deal that would address not just the nuclear
front but the wider destabilising activities. If we want a
longer-term resolution to the challenge that Iran faces which
brings in the United States and all the relevant partners in the
region, it is absolutely right that we hold to that ambition and
pursue it where we can.
(Edinburgh West) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for prior sight of his statement.
Given his earlier remarks about dual nationals in Iran and the
increasingly desperate situation of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe,
will he clarify when the Prime Minister is going to meet Richard
Ratcliffe? At the moment, all we have is “soon”. Will this be
taken up as a matter of urgency and a meeting arranged this week
if possible?
The meetings that the Prime Minister has will be publicised in
the usual way through the usual channels, but I have met Richard
Ratcliffe. We of course understand the concern of Nazanin’s
family and also all the other dual nationals who are detained. We
have seen Iran’s behaviour deteriorate not just on the nuclear
front and not just in the revolutionary guards’ activities in the
region, but in relation to dual nationals. It is at the forefront
of our mind to get a deal, long term, with the Iranians that can
bring in all those aspects, which is why the nuclear deal is
critically important. We also want to address the wider issues;
that is why the Prime Minister has taken the approach that he
has.
(Witney) (Con)
Will the Foreign Secretary outline the steps that are being taken
to safeguard British citizens, personnel and interests in the
region?
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We obviously keep the
security of our armed forces under constant review. We do the
same in terms of shipping in the Gulf, and particularly the
strait of Hormuz. We have amended our travel advice recently, and
we ensure that we have the appropriate level of security
arrangements around our embassy and our diplomatic personnel.
(Cardiff South and Penarth)
(Lab/Co-op)
The Foreign Secretary is right to highlight the importance of
diplomacy in resolving this crisis. Can he update us on the
situation of the British ambassador to Iran, particularly given
the fact that in the last couple of hours it has been reported,
including in the Financial Times, that Gholam-Hossein Esmaeili,
who is a representative of the Iranian judiciary, has called for
him to be persona non grata and expelled from the country? Does
the Foreign Secretary agree that that is completely unacceptable?
We have had no formal indication of that description. It would be
deeply regrettable if that were the case. We need to keep the
diplomatic channels open, and futile gestures like that are not
going to resolve the problems that the regime in Tehran face.
Mr (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s focus on not only the tactical
issues but the wider strategic context that we face. I repeat the
point that I made yesterday during the urgent question: there is
little incentive for Iran to support the JCPOA when economic
reform cannot take place. It could not take place before because
legacy sanctions connected with ballistic missiles prevented any
bank with international ties to the United States from supporting
any new trade. Will he ensure that a future deal deals with those
legacy sanctions and prevents the country from spending any new
funds, such as oil revenues or released frozen assets, on its
proxy wars across the region?
My right hon. Friend makes a good point, but he also highlights a
conundrum. On the one hand, we do not want to relieve the
pressure on Iran in relation to its nefarious activities. On the
other hand, we have to incentivise, to the extent that we can,
the right path and the right kind of conduct to build up the
confidence of its international partners. At the moment, it is
very clear, in relation to the JCPOA and more broadly, that that
door is left open for Iran. What is missing is the political will
and the good faith on behalf of the regime in Tehran.
(Strangford) (DUP)
Welcome to your place, Mr Deputy Speaker. The JCPOA, successful
or not, will impact upon countries across the world. Iran is not
a safe place for its own people, never mind any other
citizens—the shooting down of the jet is an example of that. Can
the Secretary of State outline his intention to prepare and
secure expats and workers in Iran? What advice will be given to
people working there who have British citizenship or are from
other countries across the world to get ready to leave Iran?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He is right; we are
always concerned to ensure that we do the right thing and give
honest, accurate and clear advice to British citizens wherever
they are in the world. In relation to Iran, we have amended our
travel advice again. That is the normal way, and we would point
individuals and businesses to that for the appropriate guidance.
(Tonbridge and Malling)
(Con)
It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can the
Foreign Secretary tell me what conversations he has had with not
only our European partners in the E3 but our partners in the
region—perhaps even our new partner, the new Sultan of Oman—on
how we will deal with Iran?
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He is right. The Prime
Minister was there for the funeral of the Sultan, which was a
valuable opportunity to engage in conversation with the new
Sultan. We have had conversations with our partners right around
the region. There is a clear commonality of view that we need to
de-escalate the tensions but also hold Iran to account for its
behaviour. Bearing in mind that we have to engage very carefully
with Russia and China on this, the approach that we are taking in
the context of the JCPOA is that, on the terms of the deal,
clearly, plainly and squarely Iran has, in its own words,
effectively left the agreement as a shell. The right thing to do,
as envisaged by the agreement, is to take matters to the dispute
resolution mechanism and use that to leverage, to bring some
sense and clarity to the regime in Tehran and to encourage them
to come back to full compliance.
(Carmarthen East and
Dinefwr) (PC)
It is great to see you back in your rightful place, Mr Deputy
Speaker. The British Government are right to work with our
European partners and within the formal mechanisms of the nuclear
deal. Can the Secretary of State inform the House what responses
he has received from China and Russia following the actions he
has taken?
We are engaging with them, and we will engage with them more
during the process of the DRM, but we need to be clear that this
is not a transatlantic issue, and it is not just an Iranian
issue—it is a regional and global issue, because the prospect of
a nuclear-armed Iran would be damaging, devastating and
destabilising for the region and the world. All permanent members
of the Security Council need to be engaged in this and live up to
their responsibilities to ensure, through the diplomatic track
and the pressure that we exert on all sides, that Iran cannot
pursue those ambitions.
Mr (Kettering) (Con)
Triggering the dispute resolution mechanism is a good thing, but
to be frank, only doing so after six months of—to use the Foreign
Secretary’s own words—“serious” and “systematic non-compliance”
is weak. The JCPOA is time-limited. It would never prevent Iran
from having a nuclear weapon; it would only delay the chances of
that happening, but it cannot do that if, to use the Foreign
Secretary’s own words, it is just a “shell” of an agreement. What
are the dangers of Iran reducing its breakout time while the
dispute resolution mechanism is under way? Is it not time for a
truly comprehensive agreement covering nuclear weapon technology,
missile technology and Iran’s export of terror?
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I share his concerns
that there are weaknesses to the JCPOA. It is time-limited. There
are other weaknesses to it. We have never been doe-eyed about it
being the perfect deal, but it is also the only deal in town
which is restraining the behaviour of Iran. As we have now got to
a situation where Iran is not complying with those restraints, we
have to trigger the DRM as a matter of the credibility of the
deal and the credibility of the E3. I take his point—it is the
point that the Prime Minister made—that we should also be
ambitious for a broader deal that deals with not only the nuclear
issue in a more sustainable and long-term way but all the other
wider concerns that those in the region, the Europeans and the
Americans have about Iran’s conduct in the region.
(West Aberdeenshire and
Kincardine) (Con)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and welcome the
action taken today. Are any discussions being had with the
multiple oil and gas companies that operate in the region, which
employ a large number of British citizens, many of whom are my
constituents or family members of my constituents? There is
obviously a concern in West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine for the
safety of those who are out there working for oil and gas
companies in what remains a very unpredictable situation.
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The Defence Secretary
has set out the contingency planning in relation to military
support for shipping in the strait of Hormuz, which will affect
the sector that my hon. Friend is talking about. We have adjusted
and will keep under constant review our travel advice in relation
to not only Iran but countries in the region, so that businesses
and individuals travelling have the clearest guidance about risk.
