Three-minute read
A fierce cross-party confrontation erupted in the House of Commons on February 3, 2026, as MPs pressed the government to move from condemnation and sanctions to emergency action against the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), amid mounting reports of mass killings, mass arrests, and an internet blackout inside Iran.
Two of the most serious interventions came from Bob Blackman and Jim Shannon, who framed the regime’s violence as systemic and the IRGC as the central engine of repression.
Blackman said the “IRGC and the so-called morality police have murdered 30,000 people on the streets of Iran,” adding that forces “pursued the wounded to their home, or to hospital, and murdered them.” He cited the long-running debate about a full ban on the Guard and urged the government to fast-track legislation, noting that MPs had written cross-party to offer support to rush it through.
Shannon called the situation “incredibly grave,” citing estimates that “some 6,500 people have been killed by headshots… and thousands have been injured,” with “some 60,000 people… imprisoned.” He demanded pressure for the release of political prisoners and insisted on basic rights such as “the right to a fair trial, access to a lawyer and access for families.”
The session repeatedly returned to a central problem: Iran’s blackout is not incidental—it is part of the mechanics of mass repression, severing families from information, obstructing documentation, and blurring the evidentiary trail that future prosecutions would depend on. Responding for the government, Foreign Office minister Hamish Falconer said Britain has condemned the shutdown and will “not cease” demands that Iran protect “fundamental freedoms, including access to information and communications.”
Britain must stand up for the Iranian people and confront this vile, despotic regime with strength and resolve.
This is not a time to be silent or timid. pic.twitter.com/V6uCRKEDtG
— Priti Patel MP (@pritipatel) February 3, 2026
Falconer condemned what he described as “horrific attacks on protesters” and said the violence and brutality had become clearer, while stressing that the internet blackout makes it “impossible… to reach a reliable figure” for deaths and arrests.
Falconer said the government has “introduced 550 sanctions,” and pointed to new steps to make it harder for anyone in the UK to act on Tehran’s behalf, including placing Iran at “the very top tier” of the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme, creating additional reporting requirements and enforcement options for police and security services.
On the central demand—full proscription of the IRGC—Falconer tried to hold two lines at once: urgency, but delay. He told MPs he wants the legislation “enacted as soon as possible,” calling it an “urgent” priority, while repeatedly warning he would not “get ahead” of parliamentary scheduling and emphasizing that the needed process must be “state-analogous,” reflecting the Hall review’s framework.
#Iran News: #UK Parliament Condemns Clerical Regime’s Role in Regional Destabilization Amid Houthi Strikeshttps://t.co/J3HIOX99WS
— NCRI-FAC (@iran_policy) May 2, 2025
Other MPs pushed the government to treat the crackdown not as a matter of a few officials, but as a machinery of state. Danny Beales argued that abuses “are systemic; they are state-wide actions,” pressing again for full action against the IRGC and for speed comparable to other emergency legislation passed by Parliament.
The opposition also demanded a wider strike on the regime’s capability to repress. Priti Patel called the casualty claims “warlike” and asked what the government is doing to “neutralize the regime’s tools of repression,” including sanctions-evasion channels such as oil sales and cryptocurrency use. She also demanded rapid measures against the IRGC, saying, “We cannot wait.”
#Iran News: UK Parliament Report Highlights Regime's Diminishing Influence in the #MiddleEasthttps://t.co/FAXf5AXz16
— NCRI-FAC (@iran_policy) January 30, 2025
The debate repeatedly returned to the regime’s reach beyond Iran’s borders. Emily Thornberry cited a warning that the regime’s appetite for attempted assassinations in the UK has increased and asked what is being done to protect dissidents and journalists. Falconer replied that he had told the Iranian ambassador that any Iran-linked violence “on the streets of the UK… will be treated in the most serious terms,” and that Britain’s message had been unmistakable.
Sir Julian Lewis supplied the moral indictment—explicitly comparing the IRGC to organizations later treated as criminal at Nuremberg, and challenging ministers on why the UK still hesitates. His message was not subtle: “For goodness’ sake, get on with it and implement the findings and recommendations of Jonathan Hall.”
The most chilling detail came from James Frith, who relayed testimony from a British-Iranian constituent: a woman arrested repeatedly for campaigning for women’s and children’s rights, “raped and tortured in detention,” and then cut off from family amid the blackout. He reported relatives describing people shot in the streets and “bodies being withheld unless families pay large sums—sums based on the amount of bullets” used to kill. It is exactly the kind of allegation that turns “crackdown” into a system of terror and extraction—and why MPs pressed ministers on evidence preservation and accountability mechanisms.
Liberal Democrat spokesperson James MacCleary put the accountability argument in the sharpest legal terms, saying the regime’s leaders have committed “crimes against humanity on a catastrophic scale.” He urged concrete steps that go beyond statements—more senior designations, evidence gathering, UN pathways, and an International Criminal Court track—alongside proscribing the IRGC.