Lammy not accepting Iran's claims over enriched uranium
Tehran maintains it is open to diplomacy, though it recently suspended cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
A central concern for western powers was highlighted when the IAEA reported in May that Iran's stockpile of uranium enriched to 60% – just below weapons-grade level – had grown to more than 400kg.
In a wide-ranging interview with The Guardian, Mr Lammy said: 'Its leaders cannot explain to me – and I've had many conversations with them – why they need 60% enriched uranium.
'If I went to Sellafield or Urenco in Cheshire, they haven't got anything more than 6%. The Iranians claim it's for academic use, but I don't accept that.'
Mr Lammy warned that Iran developing nuclear weapons could lead to an escalation of tensions in the Middle East.
Israel and the United States carried our strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in June.
'Many of your readers will have watched Oppenheimer and seen the fallout of (the US building an atomic bomb),' he said.
'So it's what (a nuclear Iran) might mean in terms of other countries in the neighbourhood who would desire one, too. And we would be very suddenly handing over to our children and grandchildren a world that had many more nuclear weapons in it than it has today.'
The Foreign Secretary said he had heard Israeli arguments in favour of regime change in Tehran, but did not believe that was behind the US decision to strike.
The Tottenham MP added any decision to topple the government was one for the Iranian people, with his focus 'on what the UK can do to stop Iran becoming a nuclear power'.
Last month, Mr Lammy suggested that Britain, France and Germany could 'snap back' on sanctions against Iran unless the country gets 'serious' about stepping back from its nuclear ambitions.
He told the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee: 'Iran face even more pressure in the coming weeks because the E3 can snap back on our sanctions, and it's not just our sanctions, it's actually a UN mechanism that would impose dramatic sanctions on Iran across nearly every single front in its economy.
'So they have a choice to make. It's a choice for them to make.
'I'm very clear about the choice they should make, but I'm also clear that the UK has a decision to make that could lead to far greater pain for the Iranian regime unless they get serious about the international desire to see them step back from their nuclear ambitions at this time.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Portrait of the week: Migrant treaty kicks in, car finance claim kicked out and a nuclear reactor on the moon
Home A treaty with France came into operation by which perhaps 50 small-boat migrants a week could be sent back to France in exchange for asylum seekers in France with family connections to Britain. Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, could not say when the returns would begin. The number of migrants arriving in England in small boats in the seven days to 4 August was 1,047; the total for the year reached more than 25,000 at a faster rate than ever. The population of England and Wales rose by 706,881 in a year, the Office for National Statistics estimated, to 61.8 million by June 2024, of which only 29,982 was by natural increase, the rest being net migration. The Guardian reported that 2.99 million of the 6.23 million patients in England awaiting care have not had either their first appointment with a specialist or a diagnostic test since being referred by a GP. The government would miss its borrowing target by £41.2 billion, according to the National Institute of Economic and Social Research; the answer was to raise taxes. The Supreme Court ruled that millions could not claim compensation for car dealers having received hidden commission from lenders when customers signed up for car finance before 2021. But the court upheld one type of claim, so the Financial Conduct Authority will consult on running a compensation scheme, to cost between £9 billion and £18 billion. The Charity Commission rebuked all parties to a dispute between the Duke of Sussex and the chairwoman of Sentebale, the charity he founded, but found no evidence of systematic 'misogynoir'. Civil service internships will be offered in future only to students from 'lower socio-economic backgrounds', based on the occupations of their parents when the applicant was 14; butchers and dustmen would do, and even train-drivers. LNER warned passengers not to travel north of Newcastle on the day of Storm Floris. A failure at the Swanwick air traffic control centre cancelled hundreds of flights. Heathrow airport said it would spend £49 billion on improvements, including £21 billion on a third runway. Two men appeared in court charged in connection with the rape of a 12-year-old girl in Nuneaton; Warwickshire Police said: 'Once someone is charged with an offence, we follow national guidance. This guidance does not include sharing ethnicity or immigration status.' Mohammed Fahir Amaaz, aged 20, was convicted of assault and actual bodily harm against two policewomen at Manchester airport last year. Tommy Robinson was arrested at Luton airport in connection with an alleged assault at St Pancras station last week. Dame Stella Rimington, the first woman director-general of MI5, died aged 90. Lord Desai, the economist, died aged 85. India won the fifth Test by six runs. Abroad President Donald Trump of the United States enjoyed another bout of throwing tariffs around: 39 per cent for Switzerland, 35 per cent for Canada, 50 per cent for Brazil. He then said he was sacking the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Erika McEntarfer, after estimates of job growth in May and June were revised. Mr Trump said two nuclear submarines would 'be positioned in the appropriate regions' in response to 'highly provocative' comments by the former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev. Mr Trump had said: 'Russia, I think it's disgusting what they're doing,' after more drones and missiles were launched against Ukraine than ever. After street protests, MPs in Ukraine overturned legislation passed a week earlier that had removed the independence of two anti-corruption agencies. A big oil depot fire near Russia's Black Sea resort of Sochi was blamed by Moscow on a Ukrainian drone attack. Eight countries of Opec+ (including Russia) agreed to produce more oil. BP announced its biggest discovery in 25 years: an oil and gas field off Brazil. Nasa hatched plans for a nuclear reactor on the moon. Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, resolved to reoccupy the Gaza Strip fully. Hamas declared that it would not agree to disarm unless a sovereign Palestinian state was established. Canada said it would recognise Palestine as a state in September. The International Committee of the Red Cross was 'appalled' by videos of two emaciated hostages in Gaza. A boat with 157 migrants from the Horn of Africa sank off the coast of Yemen and only 12 were rescued. The Pope said mass for a million young people at Tor Vergata on the outskirts of Rome. Aalborg Zoo in Denmark appealed for guinea pigs and horses, to feed its lions and tigers. CSH
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Mossad's secret allies in Operation Wrath of God
More than half a century ago Palestinian terrorists stormed the 1972 Munich Olympics, murdering two of the Israeli team and taking another nine hostage. The West German authorities, ill-equipped to deal with such incidents, agreed to fly the terrorists and their hostages to Egypt. Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, offered to mount a rescue operation. The Germans launched their own, resulting in the deaths of a police officer, four of the seven terrorists and all the hostages. One consequence was the Israeli government's Operation Wrath of God, a programme to assassinate any leaders or planners associated with the massacre. Ten missions were organised in Europe, each signed off by the Israeli prime minister Golda Meir on condition that no innocent bystanders were killed. There have been several books about the operation and a 2005 film by Steven Spielberg. Aviva Guttmann's account does not merely rehearse the stories, though each operation is outlined. Rather, she shows how the security services of European nations cooperated in identifying, monitoring and investigating international terrorists in general and how this aided Mossad in its pursuit of vengeance. Cooperation was via the Club de Berne, an intelligence exchange between eight countries founded in 1969 in response to the growth of international terrorism. Soon expanded to include other countries, among them Israel, it handled communications via encrypted telegrams (which Guttmann calls cables) using the code word Kilowatt. Guttmann found these communications in publicly available Swiss archives. She analyses each assassination, showing how the exchange of Kilowatt information helped Mossad identify and locate their targets, how the various security services learned about terrorist tactics, such as the recruitment or duping of young European women, and how hitherto unknown plots to murder or hijack were prevented. The first assassination was only a month after Munich. Wael Zwaiter, a young Palestinian translator in Rome, returned to his flat to find two men on the stairway leading to his apartment. They shot him 11 times, a bullet for each Munich victim. Journalistic opinion at the time and since concluded that Mossad got the wrong man – a bit-part player at best. But the Kilowatt telegrams show that he had an important logistical role. One operation that Mossad very definitely got wrong was in the small Norwegian town of Lillehammer in 1973 when they shot an innocent Moroccan waiter alongside his seven-months pregnant wife. Not only that, but the assassins were caught. Contributing factors to this debacle were an inexperienced, hurriedly assembled team and insufficient research – the poor man was confused with a real terrorist solely on photographic resemblance. Mossad teams generally comprised about 15 people – two to do the killing, two to guard them, two to organise cover and facilities, six to eight to research the target's routines and movements and two to communicate both within the team and back to Israel. Guttmann's principal concern – oft-repeated – is that European security services 'played a vital role in the organisation and execution of Operation Wrath of God'. The extent to which they did so knowingly is not always clear, although they could not have failed to know after Lillehammer. There is no doubt, though, that the information they exchanged with Israel (including their own investigations into Mossad killings) facilitated assassinations within their own borders. 'One would simply not expect Europeans to help kill Palestinians… Governments… failed in their duty to keep safe all citizens,' Guttmann notes. Her disapproval is evident throughout, though not explicitly stated or argued. This is a pity because the opposite case – whether it can be justifiable to murder those seeking to murder you – is nowadays too prevalent to be dismissed without argument. We witness its effects daily on our screens. She concedes, however, that all participants benefitted from the exchange and that Israel was itself a significant contributor. But in claiming that the various agencies 'did not need to respect the same normative considerations as official foreign policy lines' she implies that they acted independently or against their own governments' policies. On this side of the Channel at least, actions by the intelligence agencies, including exchanges with liaison services, require government approval. MI5 does not simply do what it likes. It is not the case that relying on 'foreign intelligence shows… weakness and dependency', as Guttmann says of Mossad. Nor are attributing information to 'friendly services within the region', or claiming a source has 'direct access', forms of boasting; they and other formulae are necessary and conventional guides to assessing reports. She is on firmer ground in questioning the effectiveness of targeted killings, as assassinations are now often called. In the short term they can be highly disruptive and satisfy an understandable thirst for revenge; but in the longer term leaders may be succeeded by those with renewed determination and security. Half a century on, the causes that prompted Wrath of God are with us still.
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
My victory over Mohammed Hijab
One of the occupational hazards of being a journalist is being hounded by litigants. Indeed, one of the reasons why much of the media finds it easier to report fluff than to write about difficult issues is that the latter can be costly in terms of money, as well as time. Three years ago I wrote a column in this magazine about some of the downsides of diversity. At the time there had just been serious disturbances in Leicester between local Hindus and Muslims. One of the people who decided to throw himself into the middle of that trouble and to try to make things worse was an online pugilist known as Mohammed Hijab. Hijab had already been filmed intimidating Jews in Golders Green and whipping up a crowd of masked men outside the Israeli embassy in London. In Leicester he chose to make a derogatory speech about Hindus to a crowd of men and then picture himself leading a 'Muslim patrol' in the city. After I pointed this out, Hijab tried to sue me and The Spectator. I retained the excellent Mark Lewis as my lawyer and for years, along with the magazine's brilliant legal team RPC, we watched Hijab perform every known legal and rhetorical contortion. Hijab's lawyers repeatedly dragged out their case, avoided every opportunity to drop it and insisted not only that what I had written was untrue, but that Hijab had suffered serious emotional and mental distress, as well as financial loss, as a result. Hijab seemed to think that he could use the courts not just to pursue me but to debate me. Last month the case was heard in London before Mr Justice Johnson. Many of Hijab's witnesses failed to show up, claiming ill health or having appeared to have skipped the country. Hijab himself spent several days in the witness box. This week the judge delivered his verdict. Mr Justice Johnson found that what I had said in my article was accurate, that Hijab had hurt his own reputation more through his actions and social media posts than I could ever have done with my article, and that the number of lies Hijab told in court were so numerous that his 'evidence overall is worthless'. The judgment also noted that as well as being 'combative and constantly argumentative' when cross-examined by my barrister and The Spectator's barrister, Hijab also demonstrated a 'palpable personal animosity' towards your columnist. The judgment found that Hijab lied about events in Golders Green – which he refused to accept was a Jewish area. It found that he had lied about his demagogic and dangerous actions outside the Israeli embassy in London, that he had lied about events in Leicester, and that he had lied about – and indeed appeared to have concocted – his claim of lost earnings. These lost earnings were alleged to have come from three Muslim organisations, including a supplements company called Nature's Blends. All claimed to have been big readers of my Spectator column, as indeed, Hijab alleged – causing him yet more hurt – was a receptionist at his local gym. Witnesses to his alleged financial loss failed to attend court. Another – Mr Wasway from Nature's Blends – had to try to explain his recent conviction and time spent in prison for making false court claims after staging car accidents. Not many law case reports make good reading in their own right, but this one does. No doubt Hijab will bluster that the findings are unfair and anti-Islamic – just as he tried to claim in court that Tommy Robinson, Benjamin Netanyahu and myself are three examples of non-Hindu Hindu extremists. But the judge in the case said far more against Hijab than I ever did. In court Hijab boasted of having sued other publications. He seemed proud of trying to bully the press, as well as the courts. But time and again he could not stop himself from lying. He claimed that his demagogic street speeches were attempts to publicly debate 'theology' and 'eschatology'. The judge found they were no such thing. Hijab had gone to Jewish areas on the Sabbath and a Hindu area during a volatile moment to engage in a type of vigilantism. As the judge said, Hijab 'was deliberately acting irresponsibly, raising the temperature of a volatile and potentially dangerous situation with provocative and inflammatory language'. The judge found his denials of vigilantism to be 'self-defeating' and 'untenable'. In summary, the judge found that 'the claimant is a street agitator who has whipped up a mob on London's streets, addressed an anti-Israel protest in inflammatory terms, and exacerbated frayed tensions (which had already spilled over into public disorder) between Muslim and Hindu communities in Leicester by whipping up his Muslim followers including by ridiculing Hindus for their belief in reincarnation and describing Hindus as pathetic, weak and cowardly in comparison to whom he would rather be an animal'. The judge ruled that what I wrote three years ago was true and Hijab was a liar. What to conclude about all this? Only that the press in this country often has to put up with Hijab-like figures. Few readers will be aware of the fact that one of the perils of an otherwise wonderful profession is litigious individuals attempting to silence the press from saying things about them that are true. Indeed I know journalists who in recent years have had to spend more time dealing with their lawyers than dealing with their editors. It is inevitable that over time many editors, publications and journalists will decide to take an easier route. Hijab imagined he could use the court system to intimidate me and this magazine. He resolutely and comprehensively failed. It turned out that a London courtroom and a British judge are not X, YouTube or some other online echo-chamber. The court is a place where facts are able to come out and where lies can come out too. I am very proud that The Spectator stood up against this thug and bully, and that a judge has exposed him for everyone to see.
