BICOM

Key points:

• On 11 September, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office published its response to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee report into UK policy towards Iran.
• BICOM submitted written evidence to the Select Committee and was subsequently invited to give oral evidence, with Professor Alan Johnson representing the organisation.
• BICOM’s submissions are referred to on multiple occasions in the Select Committee report, and many of BICOM’s concerns are reflected in the report’s conclusions and government response.

How did BICOM’s evidence impact the Committee’s report?

• BICOM’s written submission is referenced in the report’s discussion of the threat posed by Iran to countries in the region. Referencing BICOM, the report notes that, Iran “is ideologically committed to the destruction of the state of Israel and has described it as the ‘cancer of the Middle East’”, and that, “Iran is also alleged to have been involved in attacks against Israeli and Jewish targets internationally.” This links to the report’s conclusions, which point to the need to provide assurances to the UK’s regional allies and demonstrate the dividend of a deal with Iran.
• BICOM Senior Research Fellow Alan Johnson is cited in the report with reference to the widespread suspicion of the military dimension to Iran’s nuclear programme. The report states: “Professor Alan Johnson, Senior Research Fellow at BICOM, made a neat distinction, suggesting that a strategic decision to develop a nuclear weapon had probably been taken years ago, but not an operational decision to ‘push ahead’.” This contributes to a major part of the report’s conclusions, which accept that the main purpose of Iran’s enrichment programme is to give Iran the ability to produce nuclear weapons, even if an operational decision has not yet been taken to go ahead with weaponisation. The FCO response in turn agrees that, “Iran’s uranium enrichment programme is at odds with its civilian needs.”
• BICOM is mentioned with respect to concerns that the sanctions relief in the November 2013 Joint Plan of Action agreement had “given Iran breathing space and a psychological boost.”
• BICOM’s evidence is cited with respect to the credibility of Israel’s threat to use military force against Iran’s nuclear facilities, if diplomatic measures fail. The report states: “Professor Johnson reminded us that Israel had proved itself capable of eliminating the Osirak reactor in Iraq in 1981. He argued that a military operation to neutralise Iranian facilities was “doable” and that Israel was not bluffing: it had the capacity and the will to carry out such a strike if negotiations were to fail and it believed that it was under imminent threat.”
• BICOM’s description of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani as a ‘regime insider’ is cited in the report. The same paragraph points out the lack of change in Iranian Foreign policy (e.g. support for Assad and Hezbollah), as well as the continued infringements of civil liberties, restrictions on the media and more frequent use of extreme punishments. The conclusions of the report reflect this issue, noting that whilst Rouhani is “genuinely committed to a sustainable deal” that will improve Iran’s economy, he should “be judged by his actions, not his words.” Again this is a position accepted in the FCO response.

What did BICOM say?

• BICOM’s written evidence submitted to the committee is available here.
• To watch a recording of BICOM’s Senior Research Fellow Professor Alan Johnson giving oral evidence to the committee click here, a full transcript of the session can be found here.