Iran and Britain summon envoys over alleged spying in UK
Britain and Iran have summoned each others envoys after three Iranians were charged with spying in the UK.
The IRNA news agency said the British charge d'affaire was asked on Sunday to give an explanation for what it said was "unjustified" and "politically motivated" arrests.
On Monday, the Foreign Office responded by summoning Tehran's ambassador to the UK following the charges.
Three Iranian men were arrested on 3 May and appeared in court in London on Saturday charged with spying for the Islamic republic.
Alleged Iranian spies charged with targeting UK-based journalists
It said the government "is clear that protecting national security remains our top priority and Iran must be held accountable for its actions".
"The summons follows this weekend's announcement which stated that three Iranian nationals had been charged with engaging in conduct likely to assist a foreign intelligence service," it added.
The alleged spying took place from August 2024 to February 2025, according to the Metropolitan Police.
Police identified them as Mostafa Sepahvand, 39, Farhad Javadi Manesh, 44, and Shapoor Qalehali Khani Noori, 55, all living in London.
A fourth man was arrested on 9 May as part of the investigation, but has been released without charge, the Met said.
The three men, who arrived in the UK between 2016 and 2022, were granted temporary leave to remain after claiming asylum.
It is alleged they carried out surveillance with a view to locating journalists associated with Iran International.
Iran International produces coverage that is critical of the current regime in Iran and has been proscribed in Iran as a terrorist organisation.
"Iran must be held to account for its actions," Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said in a statement following Saturday's charges.
"We must also strengthen our powers to protect our national security as we will not tolerate growing state threats on our soil," she added.
It comes as five other Iranian men were arrested on the same day in London, Swindon, Stockport, Rochdale and Manchester as part of a separate counter-terrorism investigation.
Four of the men - who had been held on suspicion of preparation of a terrorist act - had been released from custody, although the investigation "remains active and is ongoing", police said.
The fifth man was earlier bailed to an unspecified date in May.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Two suspected Uganda rebels killed in Kampala blast, officials say
STORY: An explosion in the Ugandan capital has killed two suspected rebels including a female suicide bomber. The blast happened near a Roman Catholic shrine in the south of Kampala and authorities say no other people were hurt. According to local media, it took place as people were gathering for Martyrs' Day celebrations. The day commemorates Christians who were killed for their faith in the 19th century. Ugandan Police Commissioner Anatoli Muleterwa said heightened intelligence and surveillance had prevented the attack. "Our deployment was too high, the surveillance was too high. They thought they were going to get any advantage of fulfilling their mission, only to be put out of action by our security." He added that teams were now working to determine the type of explosives used and possible motives Ugandan army spokesperson Chris Magezi [ma-gay-zee] told Reuters that the attackers were thought to be linked to the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), a Congo-based rebel group affiliated with Islamic State. There has been no immediate claim of responsibility.
Bloomberg
22 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Rachel Reeves' Lengthening Shopping List: Ailbhe Rea
The list of things that Rachel Reeves will have to scramble to fund in this autumn's budget has been getting longer in recent weeks: Now Reeves may have to make a rather expensive tweak to the above, as well as adding another possible line item to the list. NATO is pushing its members to agree this week to boost defense spending even higher — to 3.5% of GDP by 2032 — and failing to back the new target would damage Britain's efforts to present itself as the alliance's leading European power. Even without the higher NATO target, the IFS's Paul Johnson has said that only 'chunky tax increases' will cover government plans for more defense spending.
USA Today
25 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump tariff lawsuit tossed, California says it will appeal
Trump tariff lawsuit tossed, California says it will appeal District Judge Jacqueline Corley ruled California should have sued in the Court of International Trade, which has jurisdiction over tariff disputes. Show Caption Hide Caption Donald Trump doubling tariffs on foreign steel President Trump, during a visit to a U.S. Steel facility in Pennsylvania, announced he will double tariffs on foreign steel to 50%. Judge Corley did not delve into the merits of California's lawsuit against Trump's tariffs. Legal experts expect the Supreme Court to ultimately decide the legality of the tariffs. NEW YORK − A U.S. judge dismissed California's challenge to President Donald Trump's tariffs, allowing the state to file an appeal over the court's ruling that the dispute should have been filed in a specialized U.S. trade court in New York. The ruling, handed down late June 2 by U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Corley in San Francisco, did not delve into the merits of California's lawsuit. Now, three separate U.S. appeals courts may simultaneously consider the legality of Trump's sweeping tariffs on U.S. trading partners and a separate set of tariffs targeting imports from China, Mexico and Canada. Since February, Trump has issued new tariffs, paused tariffs from taking effect, and raised and lowered rates as he attempts to negotiate new trade deals with other nations. The on-again and off-again tariffs have whipsawed businesses who work with international suppliers. More: How Trump tariffs make American manufacturers grate, not greater Although legal experts expect that the Supreme Court will ultimately decide the legality of the tariffs, rulings from different intermediate courts in the meantime could further sow confusion. A panel of three judges in the Manhattan-based U.S. Court of International Trade and a federal judge in Washington D.C. have already declared that Trump did not have unilateral authority to impose tariffs without input from Congress. The Trump administration has appealed both rulings, in cases brought by 12 U.S. states and several small businesses. Corley's ruling is more limited than either of those decisions and does not address the legality of Trump's tariffs. Instead, Corley ruled California should have sued in the Court of International Trade, which has exclusive jurisdiction over tariff disputes in the U.S. California, which opposed the transfer, had asked the judge to dismiss its case rather than transfer it, which will allow it to appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. More: Trump pushes countries for best offers as tariff deadline looms The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. has temporarily paused the trade court's ruling, which allows the tariffs to remain in place for now, while it considers whether to impose a longer term stay while an appeal of that ruling plays out. California argues that any federal court can hear the case because it raises constitutional objection to Trump's use of tariff powers that are reserved for Congress unless delegated to a president. More: What is 'TACO trade?' The Trump acronym about tariffs, explained The law that Trump has cited to justify the tariffs, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, does not authorize tariffs at all, so it can not force California to litigate in the trade court, California's Attorney General Rob Bonta said. "Our argument is straightforward. Trump doesn't have the authority to impose these destructive tariffs,' Bonta said in a statement. The lawsuits challenge Trump's so-called "Liberation Day" tariffs on imports from most U.S trading partners, as well as a separate set of tariffs levied on China, Mexico and Canada. The latter are related to his accusation that the three countries were facilitating the flow of fentanyl into the U.S., allegations the countries deny.
