
Iran poses ‘significant threat to Britain' with Tehran's spies targeting UK as a priority, report finds
Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
IRAN poses a significant threat to Britain with Tehran's spies targeting the UK as a priority, a new report has found.
The Islamic Republic is capable of 'wide-ranging, persistent and unpredictable' attacks on our country, according to the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee.
Sign up for Scottish Sun
newsletter
Sign up
3
A new report has found Iran poses a significant threat to Britain, with its spies targeting the UK as a priority
Credit: EPA
3
Director General of MI5 Sir Ken McCallum has said Iran will go after anyone they see to be 'problematic for the regime'
Credit: PA
3
Iran is also reportedly attempting to recruit junior people who don't currently have access to privileged information in Government but might one day
Credit: EPA
Assassination attempts are mainly directed at dissidents living on UK soil with the Director General of MI5 Sir Ken McCallum revealing that their operations are built around 'regime survival, dissidents and media organisations'.
They will go after anyone they perceive as 'being problematic for the regime'.
Potential targets listed in the report include Iranian dissidents, journalists, individuals convicted of terror offences in Iran, activists, former government employees, environmentalists, refugees, university students, and employees at international non-governmental organisations.
British civil servants have had their personal email addresses targeted by Iranian cyber security attacks in an attempt to find out information about the UK government.
Any calls made to and from Iran are believed to be intercepted by their security services to 'support espionage operations'.
Sir Ken revealed that Iranians are attempting to recruit junior people who don't currently have access to privileged information in Government but might one day.
He said: 'They are patient and up for trying to do … seeding type of operations where they cultivate people who might be a bit more naive, or early in their careers with a view to then becoming longer-term assets.'
MI5 has also seen that Israeli or Jewish entities in the UK have been the target of potential attacks.
Iranian intelligence services are 'willing and able' to try to assassinate targets in the UK, with at least 15 murder or kidnap attempts from the beginning of 2022 to August 2023.
In May three alleged Iranian spies - two of which came to the UK on a small boat - were charged with targeting UK-based journalists so that "serious violence" could be inflicted on them.
Iran claims it could assassinate Trump 'while he sunbathes at Mar-a-Lago' amid alert over terrorist sleeper cells in US
Mostafa Sepahvand, 39, Farhad Javadi Manesh, 44, and Shapoor Qalehali Khani Noori, 55, are thought to have targeted people working at Iran International, an independent media organisation based in London.
The 246-page report by the Intelligence and Security Committee stopped taking evidence back in August 2023 - so does not consider the October 7 attacks by Hamas or any more recent threats to the UK by Iranian state actors.
It has also found that Iran's nuclear weapons programme would 'pose a threat to UK nationals in the region and to the UK mainland' if it was allowed to grow.
As of August 2023, the committee said that Iran had not yet developed a nuclear weapons programme or taken a decision to produce one.
In June of this year Donald Trump launched a blitz on Iran's nuclear sites when he sent a dozen bunker buster bombs to target the mountain-fortress Fordow.
UN's top nuclear watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has since warned that Iran could start enriching uranium again within months.
Tehran admitted that the US and joint Israeli operations caused 'excessive and serious damage'.
Iran is said to want to build a 'deep alliance' with Vladimir Putin's Russia despite a 'legacy of distrust and suspicion'.
'IRAN POSES AN UNPREDICTABLE THREAT TO THE UK'
The Chairman of the ISC, The Rt Hon. the Lord Beamish PC, said: "Iran poses a wide-ranging, persistent and unpredictable threat to the UK, UK nationals, and UK interests.
'Iran has a high appetite for risk when conducting offensive activity and its intelligence services are ferociously well-resourced with significant areas of asymmetric strength.
'It supplements this with its use of proxy groups - including criminal networks, militant and terrorist organisations, and private cyber actors - to provide it with a deniable means of attacking its adversaries with minimal risk of retaliation.
'As the Committee was told, Iran is there across the full spectrum of all the kinds of threats we have to be concerned with.'
The report highlights that there has been a 'sharp increase' in the threat of physical attacks posed to dissidents and other opponents of the regime on UK soil.
Iran has a 'willingness to use assassination as an instrument of state policy'.
He added: 'We remain concerned that the Government's policy on Iran has suffered from a focus on crisis management and has been primarily driven by concerns over Iran's nuclear programme - to the exclusion of other issues.
''Fire-fighting' has prevented the Government from developing a real understanding of Iran, with a lack of Iran-specific expertise across Government.
'As with our previous Inquiries into China and Russia, governance structures are over-complicated - with the attendant risk of too much talking at the expense of action.
The Government must move on: the national security threat from Iran requires a longer-term view, and resourcing must be consistent with that threat."

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


South Wales Guardian
an hour ago
- South Wales Guardian
US special envoy Witkoff visits food distribution centre in Gaza
International experts warned this week that a 'worst-case scenario of famine' is playing out in Gaza. Israel's near 22-month military offensive against Hamas has shattered security in the territory of some 2.0 million Palestinians and made it nearly impossible to safely deliver food to starving people. Envoy Steve Witkoff and the US Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, toured a Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) distribution site in Rafah, Gaza's southernmost city, which has been almost completely destroyed and is now a largely depopulated Israeli military zone. Hundreds of people have been killed by Israeli fire while heading to such aid sites since May, according to witnesses, health officials and the UN human rights office. Israel and GHF say they have only fired warning shots and that the toll has been exaggerated. In a report issued on Friday, the New York-based Human Rights Watch said GHF was at the heart of a 'flawed, militarised aid distribution system that has turned aid distributions into regular bloodbaths.' Mr Witkoff posted on X that he had spent more than five hours inside Gaza in order to gain 'a clear understanding of the humanitarian situation and help craft a plan to deliver food and medical aid to the people of Gaza'. He did not request any meetings with UN officials in Gaza during his visit, UN deputy spokesman Farhan Haq told reporters. UN agencies have provided aid throughout Gaza since the start of the war, when conditions allow. Chapin Fay, a spokesperson for GHF, said the visit reflected Mr Trump's understanding of the stakes and that 'feeding civilians, not Hamas, must be the priority'. The group said it has delivered over 100 million meals since it began operations in May. All four of the group's sites established in May are in zones controlled by the Israeli military and have become flashpoints of desperation, with starving people scrambling for scarce aid. More 1,000 people have been killed by Israeli fire since May while seeking aid in the territory, most near the GHF sites but also near United Nations aid convoys, the UN human rights office said last month. The Israeli military says it has only fired warning shots at people who approach its forces, and GHF says its armed contractors have only used pepper spray or fired warning shots to prevent deadly crowding. Officials at Nasser Hospital in southern Gaza said on Friday they received the bodies of 13 people who were killed while trying to get aid, including near the site that US officials visited. GHF denied anyone was killed at their sites on Friday and said most recent shootings had occurred near UN aid convoys. Mr Witkoff's visit comes a week after US officials walked away from ceasefire talks in Qatar, blaming Hamas and pledging to seek other ways to rescue Israeli hostages and make Gaza safe. Mr Trump wrote on social media that the fastest way to end the crisis would be for Hamas to surrender and release hostages. The war was triggered when Hamas-led militants killed about 1,200 people, mostly civilians, on October 7 2023 and abducted 251 others. They still hold 50 hostages, including about 20 believed to be alive. Most of the others have been released in ceasefires or other deals. Israel's retaliatory offensive has killed more than 60,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza's health ministry. Its count does not distinguish between militants and civilians. The ministry operates under the Hamas government. The UN and other international organisations see it as the most reliable source of data on casualties.


Times
2 hours ago
- Times
Families criticise Starmer and say hostages ‘will rot in Hamas dungeons'
Hostages held captive in Gaza will continue to 'rot in Hamas dungeons' under Sir Keir Starmer's plan to bring peace to the Middle East. Lawyers representing the relatives of British people who were held by Hamas and those who had been murdered said the prime minister's peace plan would harm the remaining hostages in Gaza. Adam Wagner KC and Adam Rose, acting for the seven British families of hostages in Gaza, said four of the families met with senior Foreign Office officials on Thursday evening. In a statement, they said that British recognition of a Palestinian state if Israel and Hamas failed to reach a ceasefire by September would 'disincentivise Hamas from agreeing a deal'. They asked: 'Why would Hamas agree to a ceasefire if it knew that to do so would make British recognition of Palestine less likely?'. They said the families had 'held out some hope that the policy could not be as they feared and that since the UK had chosen to impose conditions on recognition, those conditions would also be on Hamas, as otherwise they would essentially be rewarded for continuing to commit war crimes, including hostage taking and encouraged to continue that path'. But that 'it was clear from the meeting last night that the British government's policy will not help the hostages, and could even hurt them'. Wagner and Rose claimed the release or otherwise of hostages would 'play no part' in the decision ministers will make in September and added: 'In other words, the 'vision for peace', which the UK is pursuing and which the families heard much about last night, may well involve our clients' family members continuing to rot in Hamas dungeons, just as British and British-linked hostages Emily Damari and Eli Sharabi did before them.' Starmer said the UK would only refrain from recognising Palestine if Israel allowed more aid into Gaza, stops annexing land in the West Bank, agrees to a ceasefire and signs up to a long-term peace process over the next two months. While he also called for Hamas to immediately release all remaining Israeli hostages, sign up to a ceasefire, disarm and 'accept that they will play no part in the government of Gaza', he did not explicitly say these conditions would factor into a decision on whether recognition would go ahead. The US accused Starmer, Mark Carney, the Canadian prime minister, and President Macron of France of being 'clumsy' by saying they would recognise a Palestinian state before all hostages were released. Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said recognition of Palestine as a state was 'irrelevant' and told Fox News Radio: 'The UK is like, well, 'if Israel doesn't agree to a ceasefire by September, we're going to recognize a Palestinian state. So if I'm Hamas, I say, 'you know what, let's not allow there to be a ceasefire.' If Hamas refuses to agree to a ceasefire, it guarantees a Palestinian state will be recognized by all these countries in September.' The British families want the government to 'confirm that without the hostages being released, there can be no peace, and that this will be an important part of its decision as to whether to proceed with recognition and its current plan'. Starmer said this week that 'I've been absolutely clear and steadfast that we must have the remaining hostages released, that's been our position throughout'. However, Damari, a British-Israeli woman who was held captive by Hamas, accused him of 'not standing on the right side of history' and said she was 'deeply saddened' by his decision. The families of Damari and Sharabi were among those who met with the Foreign Office. Also present were relatives of Nadav Popplewell, who died while held captive, as well as those of Oded Lifshitz, who also died, and Yocheved Lifschitz, who was released. The government said: 'We have announced our intention to recognise Palestine in September to protect the viability of the two-state solution. The first step in that process must be a ceasefire and there is no question about that. 'Our demands on Hamas have not changed. For there to be any chance of peace, the hostages must be released. Hamas must lay down its weapons and commit to having no future role in the governance of Gaza. 'We must also see significant progress on the ground including the supply of humanitarian support and for Israel to rule out annexations in the West Bank, and a commitment to a long-term sustainable peace. We will make an assessment ahead of UNGA (the United Nations general assembly) on how far both Israel and Hamas have met the steps we set out. No one side will have a veto on recognition through their actions or inactions.' President Trump had also expressed his 'displeasure and disagreement' with Starmer over the promise to recognise a Palestinian state. The US president, who had previously suggested he was relaxed about the prospect, even though he disagreed, hardened his stance after more countries said they would recognise Palestine. Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said Trump had expressed his 'displeasure and his disagreement with the leaders of France, the United Kingdom and Canada'. She told reporters: 'He feels as though that's rewarding Hamas at a time where Hamas is the true impediment to a ceasefire and to the release of all of the hostages.' Dame Diana Johnson, the crime and policing minister, said there would be an assessment in September on whether the British government will recognise a Palestinian state. Asked if hostages being released would be a condition of that, she told Times Radio: 'Neither side has a veto on what the British government choose to do in September. And that will be an assessment that will be taking place in September. 'The prime minister has set out what he expects from Israel. Obviously, that's a democratically elected government, very different to Hamas, which is a terrorist organisation.' She said: 'We need to actually have the ceasefire, and then move on to trying to re-establish that peace process and the establishment of what my party and I think generally is accepted, a two-state solution.'


The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
Scientists slam Trump administration climate report as a ‘farce' full of misinformation
A new Trump administration report which attempts to justify a mass rollback of environmental regulations is chock-full of climate misinformation, experts say. On Tuesday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a proposal to undo the 2009 'endangerment finding', which allows the agency to limit planet-heating pollution from cars and trucks, power plants and other industrial sources. Hours later, the Department of Energy (DOE) published a 150-page report defending the proposal, claiming scientific concern about the climate crisis is overblown. 'Climate change is a challenge – not a catastrophe,' wrote the energy secretary, Chris Wright, in the report's introduction. The esteemed climate scientist Michael Mann said the report was akin to the result he would expect 'if you took a chatbot and you trained it on the top 10 fossil fuel industry-funded climate denier websites'. The energy department published the report hours after the EPA announced a plan to roll back 2009's 'endangerment finding', a seminal ruling that provided the legal basis for the agency to regulate climate-heating pollution under the Clean Air Act. If finalized, the move would topple virtually all US climate regulation. In a Fox News interview, Wright claimed the report pushed back on the 'cancel culture Orwellian squelching of science'. But Naomi Oreskes, a history of science professor at Harvard University and expert in climate misinformation, said its true purpose was to 'justify what is a scientifically unjustifiable failure to regulate fossil fuels'. 'Science is the basis for climate regulation, so now they are trying to replace legitimate science with pseudoscience,' she said. The attack on the research underpinning the endangerment finding – which says greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare – comes as part of Trump's 'drill, baby, drill' agenda to boost fossil fuels, which are the primary cause of global warming. 'This is an agenda to promote fossil fuels, not to protect public health and welfare or the environment,' said Rachel Cleetus, a director at climate and science non-profit Union of Concerned Scientists who was an author on the sixth US national climate assessment. Asked about scientists' assertions that the new report is rife with misinformation, an energy department spokesperson, Ben Dietderich, said: 'This report critically assesses many areas of ongoing scientific inquiry that are frequently assigned high levels of confidence – not by the scientists themselves but by the political bodies involved, such as the United Nations or previous presidential administrations.' But the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) produces what is widely considered the gold standard compendium of climate science, compiled by a huge multinational team of scientists, peer-reviewed and agreed to by every national government. The latest IPCC synthesis report, released two years ago, was a vast undertaking involving 721 volunteer scientists around the world. It states that it is 'unequivocal' that human activity has heated the planet, which has 'led to widespread adverse impacts and related losses and damages to nature and people'. By contrast, the Trump administration report was crafted by five handpicked scientists who are seen as having fringe or contrarian views by mainstream climate scientists, with no peer review. The experts behind the report have previously denied being climate deniers. The energy department did not respond to a question about the authors. 'This report had five authors and was rushed over four months, and would not pass muster in any traditional scientific peer review process,' said Zeke Hausfather, a research scientist at the climate non-profit Berkeley Earth, who called the paper a 'farce'. Wright, the energy secretary, insisted he had not steered the report's conclusions, while Judith Curry, one of the report authors, said in a blogpost she hoped the document would push climate science 'away from alarmism and advocacy'. Mainstream climate scientists, however, condemned the findings as distorted and inaccurate. 'This is a report written by a couple of scientists who are outliers in their arguments for climate change,' said Natalie Mahowald, a climate scientist at Cornell University. 'This document does in no way depreciate the value of previous assessments, but rather just cherrypicks the literature to pretend to create a new review.' Mahowald said the lack of peer review meant it was 'obviously not as robust' as the IPCC report or the US government's periodic national climate assessment, which the Trump administration recently took offline. The latest national climate assessment, compiled by a dozen government agencies and outside scientists in 2023, concluded that the 'effects of human-caused climate change are already far-reaching and worsening across every region of the United States' 'If almost any other group of scientists had been chosen, the report would have been dramatically different,' Andrew Dessler, a climate researcher at Texas A&M University, said of the new report. 'The only way to get this report was to pick these authors.' Hausfather agreed that the authors' work 'might represent their views but is not consistent with the broader scientific literature on climate change'. He was among the scientists whose work the authors cited. The new paper includes a chart from a 2019 report which he led, claiming it demonstrates how climate models 'consistently overestimated observations' of atmospheric carbon. But Hausfather's research actually showed that climate models have performed well. 'They appear to have discarded the whole paper as not fitting their narrative, and instead picked a single figure that was in the supplementary materials to cast doubt on models when the whole paper actually confirmed how well they have performed in the years after they were published,' he said. The energy department did not respond to a request for comment about Hausfather's concerns. That approach to research seems to underpin the entire paper, said Hausfather, who is also the climate research lead at tech company Stripe. 'This is a general theme in the report; they cherrypick data points that suit their narrative and exclude the vast majority of the scientific literature that does not,' he said. Dessler said scientists are obliged to engage with the full range of evidence, even if it contradicts their initial assumptions. Ignoring this principle 'can rise to the level of scientific misconduct', he said. 'The report they produced should be thought of as a law brief from attorneys defending their client, carbon dioxide,' Dessler said. 'Their goal is not to weigh the evidence fairly but to build the strongest possible case for CO2's innocence.' The lack of peer review in the administration's report led to conclusions that deviated, sometimes wildly, from the scientific literature. Many of its claims are based on long-debunked research long promoted by climate deniers, said Mann. 'It is shop worn, decades-old, discredited climate denier talking points, dressed up in the clothing of some sensible new set of revelations,' he said. 'What's different is that it has the imprimatur of the EPA and the federal government now.' The report, for instance claims that warming trends have been overstated, despite evidence to the contrary. It was published as extreme heat is affecting millions of Americans. 'They're literally trying to tell us not to believe what we see with our own two eyes … and instead buy into their denialist framing that rejects not just the science, but what is plainly evident if you look out your window,' said Mann. The authors also write that ocean acidification is occurring 'within the range of natural variability' and is beneficial for marine life despite the ocean's acidic levels currently being the highest since 14m years ago, a time when a major extinction event was occurring. And the report references the apparent health of Australia's Great Barrier Reef, which it says 'has shown considerable growth in recent years'. The reef was recently hit by its sixth mass bleaching event since 2016, a devastating phenomenon for corals in which they whiten and sometimes die due to high sea temperatures. No widespread bleaching events were recorded on the reef before 1998. The report is 'tedious' and at times 'truly wearisome', according to Bob Kopp, a climate scientist at Rutgers University. Kopp recently worked on a paper showing how rising temperatures and drought will worsen crop yields, counter to the report's claims that crops will flourish with extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. 'Carbon dioxide fertilization is largely irrelevant to how increasingly extreme heat and intense drought will impact crop yields,' Kopp said. 'As a former department of energy fellow, I'm embarrassed by this report.'