The United Kingdom, increasingly, is an Achilles’ heel in any serious Western counter-terrorism strategy.
By Potkin Azarmehr, Middle East Forum
Every British opposition party has included the proscription of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in their party manifestos.
However, once in government, none has moved forward with banning the organization.
In the previous Conservative-led administration, the Foreign Office justification for inaction was the following:
“Seventy percent of Iran’s economy is owned by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and all the diplomats are either IRGC or have been IRGC, so proscribing the IRGC would mean the United Kingdom could not do any trade or have diplomatic talks with Iran, and if the United Kingdom proscribes the IRGC, Europe won’t, and therefore the United Kingdom will be left alone in the cold and suffer in economic trade while the European Union takes it all.”
At the time, there was some justification for this argument.
Josep Borrell, a Spanish socialist who was then-high representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, stated that such a designation would require prior legal determination.
Borrell’s remarks came after the European parliament’s urged a ban on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
He argued that Europe could not make the decision on political grounds alone but instead first needed a court ruling from a European Union member state.
“You cannot say, ‘I consider you a terrorist because I don’t like you,’” he said.
Within the United Kingdom, there were suggestions that the British government, at a minimum, could proscribe the Qods Force. Advocates argued that the British government might target individuals or entities without endangering trade and diplomatic relations. This proposal also stalled.
At the time, some Iran-watchers found it frustrating when activists repeatedly cited examples of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-linked terror as part of their campaign to force the British government to proscribe the Revolutionary Guard without engaging with the Foreign Office’s reasoning, given that British diplomats were already aware of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ track record.
Cynicism was rife. While in opposition, the Labour Party insisted it would proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps if it came to power and criticized the Conservative government for not doing so.
Yet almost two years after Keir Starmer won a landslide victory, his government has not acted on its pre-election promises.
The earlier justification that the European Union would not follow suit is now less relevant, because the European Union finalized a decision to proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on February 19, 2026.
This designation brought the Guard under the European Union’s counter-terrorism sanctions framework.
More recently, Europol-led enforcement action across 19 countries disrupted a coordinated Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps propaganda and recruitment network.
The operation reportedly led to the removal of more than 14,200 Revolutionary Guard-related accounts, posts, and links across social media platforms, streaming services, and blogs.
The European Union designation provided the legal basis for coordinated action.
Investigators also reported the use of artificial intelligence-generated content, religious and martyrdom narratives, multilingual messaging, and financial techniques such as cryptocurrency and international hosting services to sustain its online presence.
It is unclear why the United Kingdom has now fallen so far behind confronting Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps activities in the West, despite several Revolutionary Guard-linked plots in the United Kingdom itself.
One explanation is that the British legal framework differs from that of the European Union, though it is unclear what differences impact the lack of British action.
Former French military intelligence director and current member of the European Parliament Christophe Gomart has said that he views Qatar, Turkey, and London itself as major centers of Islamist extremist activity.
Despite the gravity of his statement, it has received no coverage in mainstream British media.
The United Kingdom, increasingly, is an Achilles’ heel in any serious Western counter-terrorism strategy.
The Islamic Republic understands that the United Kingdom is a weak link and leverages that to Tehran’s advantage.
While British promises come easy in opposition, both U.S. and European officials must demand the British government state why it continues to refuse to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
Allowing British silence is increasingly detrimental to Western security.
The post Why has the United Kingdom not designated the IRGC as terrorists? appeared first on World Israel News.