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.

I have now seen Sharon's comment and replied. I hadn't seen it before. Are you going to respond to my other comments, about the IRGC and Iran? Because what you and Sharon are saying doesn't make much sense given Iran's stated role and position and how the IRGC fits with that. I asked for a link to the draft bill, that might make better sense.

The student - you will need to google the name as I don't have it to hand - I am surprised you haven't heard of it - I read it as a news piece online.

I don't know who you are talking about - there has been more than one Oxford student caught up in this - and I'm not about to go googling things you can't be bothered to.

I haven't seen any information on the draft bill beyond the little reported in mainstream media. We will have to wait until it is law to see the exact wording.

From the Guardian: The new anti-terror powers are designed to allow the UK government to label state-backed groups as terrorist organisations, enabling them to ban groups such as Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC).

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.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jun/29/uk-state-threats-bill-could-pull-british-journalists-into-terror-prosecutions-experts

You have very strong views about something you don't have any real information about, is that what you are saying? About a situation you don't yourself fully understand? You think it is "right" but you are not sure what exactly the position is as you haven't seen the draft bill, you are relying on a media report?

Do you fully support "new criminal offences for people who “support, assist and obtain material benefits” from groups formally listed as state-supported threats" as per your highlighted wording? The Oxford student I was referring to is Arwa Elrayess - she also says she has faced harassment because of incorrect reporting about what she actually said, as well as the reports says she is now facing criminal action. I didn't say I couldn't be bothered - I said that I didn't have her name to hand.

I think a bit of caution is needed, and that the baby is not thrown out with the bath water. Remember the UK legitimised the NI terrorists for example - yet now we'd be looking at criminal charges for anyone who said that British soldiers should leave NI? It isn't as black and white as you think, I don't think.

I don't need to see the exact wording of the bill to know that I'm in favour of the IRGC becoming a proscribed terrorist organisation.

What more information do you have than me for your seemingly strong views?

There has been plenty of caution over proscribing the IRGC but it's going to be done very soon in the UK now, whether you agree with it or not.

You seem to be angling for a fight. Obviously I am expressing my opinion. If I was expressing someone else's I would say so. Where do I suggest that only my opinion matters? Its not a question of falling in line (whose line?) but a lot of very sensible people are in favour of it. And as my Iranian friends are very much in favour, I am comfortable with that opinion.

Errr....where have I expressed strong views? I have passed comment on the issues surrounding it all, based on what has already happened and what a legal expert has said, and said I think that the legal expert is probably right.

It hasn't been me expressing strong views.

You have expressed strong views and not been able to discuss any of the surrounding issues and not responded to the points I raised.

Again, none of my posts are angling for a fight. Your posts do come across as though you have entrenched/partisan views and that you don't want to discuss anything and that you think that there is only one way of seeing the situation and it isn't argumentative or an insult for me to pass comment on that. I would like to discuss but if you don't that is fine.

I don't have partisan views because I see many different points of view coming out of Iran, not just one, and there are many different points of view in the UK from a geopolitical and legal perspective, and all the other various things I have pointed out in previous posts such as the dangers of attitudes such as yours leading to less security for everyone, not more security. I think that the issues are more complex and more entangled with geopolitics and various events going back to the start of the 20th century than you realise.

Keir Starmer will ban the IRGC as a national security threat under new powers fast tracked through Parliament. The new powers will allow the Government to label state-backed groups as terrorist organisations.

Announcing the bans to Parliament, Shabana Mahmood, the Home Secretary, said the UK had “identified activity linked to the IRGC involving threats to life and intimidation on UK soil.”

The powers create new criminal offences for people who support or promote groups formally listed as state-supported threats.

Breaching the new law could lead to a maximum 14 years in prison. Or life imprisonment if an individual engages in spying, sabotage or foreign interference on behalf of banned groups.

The government has also proscribed a group called the Islamic Movement of Companions of the Right(IMCR), which is linked to Iran.

Source:The Telegraph.

and yet the IRGC have not been proscribed as a terrorist organisation

Despite previous posts stating it was imminent

They've basically Been put on the naughty list
and tbh I’m amazed they and many others weren’t already
This allows for swifter prosecutions

BBC
‘ Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has announced Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) will be designated a threat to national security.

Two other groups are also being proscribed, the Islamic Movement of Companions of the Right (IMCR), and the volunteer corps of Russia's GRU (foreign military intelligence agency).

New powers will be given to police and intelligence agencies to tackle espionage, foreign interference, sabotage and physical attacks from these groups.

If approved by Parliament later this week, those conducting acts of sabotage including arson on behalf of these groups could face life imprisonment.

The change means prosecutors will no longer need to establish a foreign power connection in every case, making it easier and more straightforward to build cases’

Designating the IRGC as a terrorist group is highly unlikely. They are intertwined with the Iranian Govn and any designation would make it almost impossible to deal with the country
It would risk the complete severing of ties and the expulsion of the UK ambassador in Tehran

It would risk closing off diplomatic channels entirely, undermining attempts to revive or replace the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA).

It would severely complicate all trade and legal financial transactions involving Iran, increasing compliance risks for British businesses

Essentially the U.K. are keeping Diplomatic channels open with Iran

It is imminent @Stirabout it's likely to be approved by Parliament later this week and then those conducting acts of sabotage including arson on behalf of these groups could face life imprisonment.

From your source: Two other groups are also being proscribed

From Reuters

The new powers, similar to proscription, seek to close a gap in existing laws around state-linked actors and make it illegal to show support for those groups.

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-proscribes-irans-irgc-terrorist-organisation-sky-news-reports-2026-07-13/

And from the Guardian:

The Home Office said on Monday it would ban support for the IRGC, a central branch of the Iranian military, after years of political division over the issue. The move is equivalent to proscription, though not legally identical.

If they regularly fund and support terrorist action in other countries (which they do) they are terrorists. The fact that they are also holding Iran hostage is neither jere not there imo, the key point is terrorist activities in the UK.

Proscribing them as a terrorist organisation isn’t whats going to Parliament later this week

No but as the Guardian says, the move is equivalent to proscription, though not legally identical.

And I do think you are rather underplaying it by comparing it to being put on the "naughty list".

Naughty is one thing.

A maximum 14 years prison term for supporting or promoting the IRGC is another.

It’s not the same at all

The headliner from the Guardian when googling states they are to be proscribed as terrorists
Thats Guardian speak to grab attention
when you actually read whats going on the
UK are doing no such thing
GB news has the same misleading propaganda headliner too

The U.K. are not making the proscription

I agree that it is not identical to proscription. However I do believe that it's very similar or possibly equivalent to proscription. We will be able to study the bill in more depth when it is approved by Parliament later this week.

The end result will be new criminal offences for people who support or promote the IRGC or the Islamic Movement of Companions of the Right (IMCR), or the volunteer corps of Russia's GRU.

A good thing for UK society.

You would Twiglets
That's what you want

Doesnt make it so

If You're prepared to hang around and wait for official notification re genocide against Israel it
works both ways

You, I , everyone interested has waited for the U.K. on the IRGC and they have decided
to not declare it as a terrorist organisation

Job done

We definitely interpret the same information differently because I would say they have decided the IRGC is a terrorist organisation.

The Guardian says The UK will list Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation.

Middle East Eye says that the UK has effectively banned Iran's IRGC as a national security threat.

International law means that, as a state entity, the IRGC cannot officially be banned by another country. But it's semantics in my opinion to quibble over the wording when the end result is that offenders will get up to 14 years in prison for supporting or promoting the IRGC. The length of the sentence show how dangerous the IRGC are considered to be now in the UK due to IRGC activity that is prejudicial to the UK.

But frankly @Stirabout I don't really care what exact wording is used as long as the end result is the same.

I don’t agree words don’t matter
I do understand why you say that though and that’s your right of course

Had they been proscribed I am guessing you’d be saying the same as me now.

Lets face it Twigs
words matter when people talk about Israel committing a genocide

so
Cant have it both ways

You've got me there. Words do matter.

Hopefully we agree that whatever exact wording is used, the most important thing is that the UK bans the IRGC as a national security threat and creates new criminal offences for people who support or promote it.

But no one from the Iranian government is saying the IRGC is holding them hostage The IRGC is considered critical in defending Iran, now especially but also in the past. Iran is open about its support of certain military groups which have been designated terrorists - they say that they are not terrorists. There is a lot of confusion partly because an awful lot of people do not understand Iranian law or history.

The IRGC is part of the military in Iran and Iran has believed that it would be next to be attacked after Iraq, since Iraq was attacked.

The other issue is that some countries close to the UK want to justify military action and the UK is caught between a rock and a diplomatic hard place, like @Stirabout says it is a diplomatic nightmare.

The Guardian keeps being quoted about this - it is worth looking at key funders of the Guardian.