Iran Conflict: Ceasefire

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary to ask the urgent question.

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office if she will make a statement on Iran’s violation of the ceasefire.

We strongly condemn the outrageous Iranian attacks on the territory or vessels of our Gulf partners Bahrain, Qatar, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. This is a serious escalation. Strikes into countries in the region and their waters are a clear violation of international law and must stop. I have been in touch with my counterparts from all the mentioned countries to express our solidarity and condemn these attacks.

Iran’s attacks on civilian vessels were in Omani waters. The UK stands with Oman, with its sovereignty over its own territorial waters, and for the principle and the law of freedom of navigation both in the strait and across the world. We stand with our partners in calling for de-escalation and a return to diplomacy. We want a durable, negotiated peace and the strait of Hormuz to fully reopen.

The dangerous re-escalation over the past few days and continued attacks hurt everybody. The greatest impact is, of course, felt by the poorest and the most vulnerable. Our priority now is ensuring unimpeded transit passage through the strait without the threat of violence, tolls, fees or conditions. The ceasefire must deliver predictable access rather than ad hoc, case-by-case transits. We will continue to stand up for international law as reflected in the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, freedom of navigation, global navigational rights, seafarer safety and the consistent application of existing rules.

The terrorist regime in Tehran has once again violated the ceasefire, illegally attacking commercial shipping in the strait of Hormuz and striking our allies in the region, including Bahrain and Kuwait. These new assaults in the strait on at least three tankers were the most in a single day since April, according to the UN International Maritime Organisation. Earlier this week, the Iranians said they targeted Salman port in Bahrain, where Britain and the US operate naval bases.

What were the Government doing when British assets were in danger and our friends and security allies were being attacked by Iran? What exactly are the Government doing to help protect the thousands of British nationals in the region who once again find themselves under rocket fire from Iran? Our security allies once looked to the UK to be a reliable and dependable partner, but their confidence is increasingly shaken. How will the Government put that right? This is a time for action, not words.

I have asked again and again what are the British Government doing, or what have they done to date, through the comprehensive security integration and prosperity agreement to support Bahrain? The NATO Secretary-General said that the strikes by the US were “absolutely necessary”—do the Government agree?

We have had little of substance from the Government in recent days, other than the Foreign Secretary’s telly remarks when she said yesterday that she was “very concerned” by the Iranian strikes. The US Administration have announced that they are reimposing oil sanctions on Iran—of course, oil funds its terrorism. When will the Government stop the UK’s financial system being used to launder Iranian terrorist funds? What is the Government’s assessment about whether the ceasefire framework and the 60-day period in the agreement remain?

I do not quite know what to say to that. I am sure that the shadow Foreign Secretary will know—she can look me in the eye—that it is unlikely to be the debates around the defence investment plan that led to strikes in Iran and the Gulf over the past few days. I am here to talk about serious questions of war and peace, and I hope we can avoid party politics in doing so.

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

May I associate myself with the Minister’s condemnation of Iran’s attacks on its neighbours? Does he agree that at least part of the problem in the fragility of the deal is its very ambiguity? It is a deal that was negotiated in haste, at a distance and through third parties, and it inevitably does not reflect agreement, but rather fudges some of the deep differences between the parties. Does he agree that we need a sustainable deal that is thoroughly negotiated, has more detail and includes recognition that, inevitably, concessions are needed on both sides?

As a former negotiator, I am reluctant to criticise fudges and creative language as negotiators must often reach for them. However, there are many areas that cannot be fudged and where there is no ambiguity, for example the location of Oman’s territorial waters and the rights that flow from that. The strikes conducted by Iran this week were not only against land targets, but against commercial shipping. There was no ambiguity whatsoever about the location of those vessels: Oman’s waters and its rights under UNCLOS. These are not questions that were at the negotiating table in relation to the memorandum of understanding. We will continue to stand for them, here and in every place.

It would be helpful if the Minister turned to me now and again during his answers. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Iran is continuing to hold the global economy to ransom through its reckless strikes in the strait of Hormuz—we all agree on that. Meanwhile, Donald Trump’s continuing tit-for-tat retaliations risk dragging the whole region back into a full-blown conflict. This would threaten the lives of citizens across the middle east, while heaping even more economic harm on millions of British people already struggling with the spiralling cost of living. Donald Trump has claimed that the war has been a huge success, but in reality it has been a costly humiliation for the President. Will the Minister confirm what steps the Department is taking to get both sides back to the negotiating table? Are we working with our reliable allies to secure a diplomatic resolution?

Will the Minister also update the House on the status and health of Craig and Lindsay Foreman, who are still imprisoned in Iran? Will the Minister recognise their detention as arbitrary and will he refer the case to the International Court of Justice? Will the Minister confirm that after the National Security (State Threats) Bill was passed yesterday, the Government will move immediately to proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the exporter of Iranian terror?

I will not get ahead of the process laid out in the legislation that was passed last night, but it is clearly an important step forward in providing the British Government and Britain as a whole with another weapon in our armoury to tackle hostile state threats.

I have not had the opportunity to update the House since I summoned the Iranian chargé d’affaires on Monday, so I am pleased to do so. We will have all seen the judgment handed down in the case on Friday related to Iranian threats in this country against journalists. I reiterated in the strongest possible terms to the Iranian representatives the strength of feeling among Members of the House and people across the country, and the fact that we are taking concrete steps, including the ones the hon. Gentleman mentioned, in order to ensure that no agent of the Iranian regime can commit violence in this country.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am very much focused on the case of the Foremans in Iran, but for reasons of sensitivity I do not wish to be drawn further into the case at this moment.

We are still waiting to learn the full extent of British military involvement in this conflict. The Minister must confirm whether the UK’s authorisation for the US to use British airbases continued as the ceasefire has collapsed. With 170 US airstrikes on Iran over the past two days, is the UK undertaking case-by-case authorisation for each individual strike?

Secondly, I have asked numerous times about the 2020 UK-Israel military co-operation agreement, and I have not received a straight answer. With credible evidence of crimes against humanity in Gaza, the Minister has not yet replied to my letter from over a month ago asking whether an international law review of that agreement has been conducted. Can the Minister outline when I can expect a response?

I am sorry I have not replied to the correspondence yet; I will do so as quickly as I can. In relation to the question about military support, I want to be clear: the UK stands with our Gulf allies in a defensive capacity. As the shadow Foreign Secretary alluded to, we do provide capability to our friends and partners in the Gulf to protect themselves against these attacks. We do also continue to provide permissions to the United States to use our airbases, where they are taking defensive action on behalf of our partners and allies. Those arrangements have been discussed by the relevant Ministers from the Ministry of Defence on a number of occasions, and they remain in place.

I ask this question in all sincerity. Throughout this conflict, the Government have pleaded for de-escalation, but if Iran is gratuitously escalating, should we not give unambiguous support to the Americans for retaliating? Who else is going to retaliate against gratuitous escalation by Iran if it is not the Americans? Rather than hedging our bets, can we not give more unambiguous support—if not military support, then political support—for the United States’ efforts to resolve this conflict? It has already given so much ground in the negotiations. We cannot complain that it has not tried to be as reasonable as it possibly can.

I have sought in all my remarks to remain grounded in the relevant principles of international law. It is absolutely clear that the strikes Iran has conducted this week in Omani waters or on the territory of our friends and partners are a breach of international law. That then provides, under the relevant framework, options for response. We are not party to that response, but we are party to seeking to shoot down these attacks when they threaten our friends and partners. I do not want to enter into an emotional discussion of these questions. We are absolutely clear that what is happening in the strait of Hormuz and the wider region is a threat to international law, which this Chamber and this country hold dear, and it must be upheld.

Does my hon. Friend agree that among the geopolitical military strategy and the diplomatic negotiations surrounding the conflict, we must not lose sight of the millions of innocent civilians across the region who are trapped in the middle of violence, displaced from their homes, hungry and without access to healthcare, while grieving loved ones and living without safety and security? Will he set out what steps the Government are taking to press all parties to uphold international humanitarian law, to protect civilians from acute hunger and allow them access to basic healthcare?