Britain is preparing to introduce landmark legislation that would allow the government to ban Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, marking a significant escalation in its response to Tehran’s violent suppression of anti-government protests. According to reporting by The Times UK, the move follows the European Union’s decision this week to designate the IRGC as a terrorist organisation, placing it alongside groups such as al-Qaeda, Hamas and Islamic State.
The Home Office confirmed it was drafting new laws to enable the proscription of hostile state agencies, including the IRGC, though officials cautioned that the legislation would not be fast-tracked because of its legal and diplomatic complexity. The EU’s designation prompted an angry reaction from Iran’s foreign minister, who dismissed the move as a political stunt and warned it would be a “major strategic mistake”.
The IRGC functions as a powerful parallel military force in Iran, pledging loyalty directly to the supreme leader and operating independently of the regular army. Over recent years it has expanded its influence across large parts of the Iranian economy and has been at the forefront of the crackdown on nationwide protests, carried out with the support of its Basij paramilitary units.
Government sources told The Times UK that the proposed legislation has been in development since May, when Yvette Cooper, then home secretary, accepted recommendations from Jonathan Hall, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, to create a new legal framework for banning state-backed organisations. Existing terror laws were deemed unsuitable because they risked criminalising association with the Iranian state more broadly and did not adequately address the unique status of state agencies.
Under the planned law, police would gain new powers to disrupt suspected IRGC activity in Britain, including the ability to seize passports, impose stop-and-search measures without suspicion in high-threat situations and target individuals believed to be operating on behalf of hostile states. Ministers argue the changes would allow for more precise action against the IRGC while avoiding unintended diplomatic fallout.
Senior political figures have urged the government to move quickly. Lord Blunkett, the former Labour home secretary, told The Times UK that a ban was “long overdue” and would simply formalise what many already accept about the IRGC’s role. He also called for a tougher stance against other groups accused of extremism. Priti Patel, the shadow foreign secretary, criticised what she described as government inaction, saying Britain must confront Tehran’s brutality with “strength and resolve”.
However, the issue has exposed divisions within Whitehall. Intelligence officials and diplomats are understood to be wary of proscribing the IRGC outright, fearing it could sever remaining diplomatic channels with Tehran and lead to the expulsion of British diplomats. The Foreign Office has so far favoured sanctions, with more than 500 Iranian individuals and entities already subject to asset freezes and travel bans.
The United States has long supported keeping the British embassy in Tehran open as a key conduit for back-channel communication, a role Britain continues to play despite strained relations. Washington has already designated the IRGC as a terrorist organisation, while allies including Canada and Sweden have also imposed bans. France’s decision to back the EU listing this week proved pivotal in securing the bloc’s consensus.
EU foreign affairs chief Kaja Kallas defended the move, saying that any organisation acting like a terrorist group should be treated as one. In a statement on social media, she said repression could not go unanswered and warned that regimes killing their own citizens were hastening their own downfall.
Tensions with Iran were further underscored on Thursday by the arrival in Britain of a US Air Force WC-135R Constant Phoenix aircraft, known as the “nuke sniffer”, at RAF Mildenhall. While defence sources said its presence did not necessarily signal imminent military action, its deployment highlighted the fragile and increasingly volatile backdrop against which Britain is weighing one of its most consequential foreign policy decisions in years.
