IRGC - has the UK determined they are a terrorist organisation?

[timefordinner]

And if so could you link the source? I have just been going through lists and I can't find them.

You can proscribe the IRGC and think the war poorly thought through with wide spread negative ramifications. The two can co-exist.

Please could you link what you read, about "it was reported today they will soon"? Thanks

Argentina this week joined the long list of countries who have classified the IRGC as a terrorist organisation. The measure will enable the Argentine government to issue sanctions against those conducting business with that branch of Iran’s armed forces
& seize any assets they own in Argentina.

In addition, Argentina’s Foreign Affairs Ministry says it has expelled Iran’s top diplomat, who was given just 48 hours to leave the country.

Starmer: I’ll move to ban IRGC within weeks

Sir Keir Starmer has announced that he will move to proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organisation within weeks.

The Prime Minister said he would bring forward laws to ban the group “in a few weeks”, when the next session of Parliament begins following the local elections.

He made the announcement during a visit to Kenton United Synagogue, which was firebombed last week.

Speaking to the Jewish Chronicle, Sir Keir said he was “very worried” about the increasing use of proxies by the Iranian regime.

He added: “In relation to malign state actors more generally, proscription, we do need legislation in order to take necessary measures and that is legislation that we are bringing forward as soon as we can. We go into a new session in a few weeks time, and we will bring that legislation forward”.

The legislation will be included in the King’s Speech in May, The Telegraph understands.

www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/04/24/starmer-to-introduce-irgc-ban-within-weeks/

About bloody time!

I'm afraid you were wrong @timefordinner

Bloody quicker than the Tories managed it.

Indeed.

Better late than never though should have been done years ago.

A key measure outlined in the King's speech today is the Tackling State Threats Bill which contains new powers to ban state-linked groups such as Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clypj215wgpo

I've not seen the speech but tackling terrorism and the promotion of hatred must be one of the most important things to tackle.

Sir Keir Starmer has announced that he will move to proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organisation within weeks.

About time. Iran and their proxy terrorists have caused so much death and destruction throughout the region. I watched a short clip of a news item that talked about women in Yeman, where the Houthis had raped and killed them. Barely rates a mention on most news channels though.

Agreed. It's a big step that this Tackling State Threats Bill can get passed in the next Parliament - about time we in the UK caught up with the EU.

Indeed the EU moved much quicker with tackling this.

A UK state threats bill is going through Parliament this week designed to allow the government to proscribe the IRGC (and other state-backed terrorism groups) as a terrorist organisation.

According to the Guardian, “the legal change, which is expected to complete its final parliamentary stages this week, would also create new criminal offences for people who “support, assist and obtain material benefits” from groups formally listed as state - supported threats.

Great news that the IRGC will shortly be a proscribed terrorist organisation in the UK as well as the EU, Albania, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Canada, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Israel, Paraguay, Saudi Arabia, Trinidad and Tobago, Ukraine, the United States, Honduras and the Dominican Republic.

Great news, finally in line with a large number of other countries.

Yes exactly. It made the UK look bad in my opinion that we didn't do this when the EU did (or before). Understand the UK had some legal issues to sort out first but it seems like the IRGC will be proscribed next month.

Do you not think the expert in the linked video might have a point?

In my day, terrorist were civilians who blew up vehicles and buildings to use terror to get politics to change. The problem with countries proscribing other countries is that the proscribing gets caught up in making partisan alliances, which, we know from history, often leads to world wars.

Also, if you set completely objective criteria you might well find yourself having to proscribe a lot more countries than origiinally intended. And to be completely independent about all this, you should really have a neutral third party doing the proscribing - along the lines of a UN sort of entity.

If your know your history, alliances/proscribing type behaviour led to wwi and wwII, along similar lines. George Orwell wrote about this sort of thing in Homage to Catalonia, and Ponsonby in relation to wwI, they both also said that not everything in the media is necessarily true.

If you think the end justifies the means without limit and you think it is worth having armed conflict across the globe, then I can see why you might support it all without question. If not, as I said, i think the expert had a point.

Not related to this thread, but do you think that the EU has got it right in relation to everything?

Why would anyone think the EU is right on everything? That would be a bit weird. They are right on this though. The bill won't proscribe countries, but state-backed bodies. What is weird though is thinking the UN is neutral. The UN is (almost) all the countries in the world, and it reflects their prejudices and politics.

No of course not. But they got it right on that.

@SharonEllis has answered part of this - the bill won't proscribe countries, but rather state-backed bodies.

Iran will not become a proscribed country but the IRGC will become a proscribed organisation.

I'm confident this is a good thing, the IRGC fund Hamas and Hezbollah which are already proscribed groups in the UK.

Sharon didn't say any of that, I dont think, unless I missed it? I think that Iran has said openly that it has backed Hezbollah, and the IRGC is basically the military arm in Iran, acting in accordance with Iran's laws and to defend Iran - and that Iran only acts in defence by law. And the same thing applies - will the UK seek to proscribe all state backed groups of other states, applying objective criteria?

Apparently there is an Oxford student who is Palestinian who has said that Hamas was defending Palestine against Israel, and this student is now apparently going to be taken to court under anti terrorist legislation. When I was at university most history/politics students I knew were socialist/communist/supported revolutionaries/etc - they were able to debate their opinions - they ironically mostly went on to work in well paid jobs and left behind the idealism or changed their minds. It was a rite of passage. Why the fear now about students debating these issues? Do you think it is a positive thing that students are taken to court instead of the university asking them to rein it in when it gets out of hand?

@SharonEllis did say that the bill won't proscribe countries, but rather state-backed bodies.

This is exactly what she said at 5:02 this morning: The bill won't proscribe countries, but state-backed bodies.

What is the name of the Oxford student you are talking about? I can't judge whether it's right that they are going to be taken to court under anti terrorist legislation without knowing who they are and what exactly they have done.

You mean they got it right on this in your opinion? Do you think your opinion is the only opinion which counts and everyone should fall in line?! As you know, there are many opinions out there and you seem to be backing shutting down discussion.

Anyway - your comment about the bill - can you link the draft bill/your sources?

And yes the UN is supposed to be neutral!! Not so very weird. In fact, I don't think it is either, sadly, but it is supposed to be.