Iran's unjust imprisonment of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe should be a wake-up call for MPs

Westminster is waking up to the reality that elements in Iran have meant us harm for some time and that the nuclear deal we supported is silent upon much of it. 

Parliament never debated the agreement struck with Iran in 2015, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), in contrast to the U.S Congress who haven't stopped discussing its merits or failings, whichever way one looks at it.

In the preceding years the House of Commons had scarcely discussed Iran's support for armed insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan who killed British troops with the deadly IED's and the training Iran supplied.

There had been little discussion of the concerns expressed by our allies in the Gulf or in Israel at the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps' growing influence in Syria, Lebanon and elsewhere in the region.

Sentiment that we, like the U.S,. had stepped back or even that Iran had won, left allies feeling uneasy, prompting heightened responses of their own and extraordinary rapprochements such as that between Israel and Saudi Arabia. Only a handful of parliamentarians raised concerns, such as the new Chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, Tom Tugendhat.

FAQ | Britons held in Iran

Members of Parliament took in their stride unconfirmed reports that elements in Iran were the most likely culprits for the attack on 9,000 of their own emails, a cyber assault that was described as "brute force". 

However the case of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, the British lady held in Iran for no good reason, has finally captured Parliament and the nation's attention and forced us to examine how we hold Iran to account for its actions.

Why has there been this blind spot when we spend so much of our political lives talking about other countries?

This week Parliament has been debating the Zimbabwean crisis and the Government has spoken out against Russian cyber-attacks.

Parliament was slow to appreciate the changing threat and intent of Putin's Russia, but it does now. The actions of Israel and Saudi Arabia are played out by supporters and detractors with great frequency. 

It is difficult to establish a substantive reason  why this might be the case. Iran seems to tick all of the boxes: an oppressive criminal code; religious zeal professing moral authority; nuclear ambitions; racial division. The list goes on.

Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe timeline

Some see in the young millennials of Iran a clear generational shift in need of our support, even if it requires a blind eye to be turned here and there to the human rights abuses and criminal justice failings of the present regime.

We all hope that this country, so rich in culture and possibility, could be on the turn.

No one wants another generation of Iranians to be estranged from the West, and to miss the opportunity to travel, learn, do business, and live peaceably and productively alongside each other.

Some of those intimately involved in the tortuous negotiation of the JCPOA, a process that at times seemed utterly unlikely to reach agreement and required limitless patience and persistence, seek its success so strongly that they downplay the wider picture.

It is understandably hard for those who placed such hope in the JCPOA to acknowledge that far less has changed since the deal was signed than was envisaged. To Iranians, investment by western companies has been lower than expected, partly because our banks have been cautious about the risk of sanctions or changes in U.S. policy; and Iran continues to sow instability in the region.

Ironically, the deal's survival may now require a willingness to be open about Iran's broader role, the actions of elements such as the Revolutionary Guard and how they hurt us and our allies.

The future of the JCPOA hangs in the balance as it is debated by President Trump and in Congress.

Some consider it has become politically unsustainable in the U.S following the end of the Obama administration that negotiated it.

European leaders, including our own Government, argue that one mustn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

In other words, one can acknowledge its flaws - that it fails to address Iran's ballistic missile programme; that it delays rather than ends Iran's nuclear ambitions; and that it does not tackle the acts of terror and subversion which undermine us and the interests of our allies - without seeking to lose what has been achieved. 

Michael Gove: 'I don't know why jailed British mother was in Iran' 00:32

President Trump may decide to walk away from the deal altogether, or to try to radically amend it. Congress might undermine it unilaterally by re-instating sanctions.

All of these paths are problematic and might not achieve much for the U.S in practice. Plus the U.S and the U.K have already handed over billions of dollars worth of previously frozen assets.

Comments by the U.S Defence Secretary, General Mattis, and the Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, might point us in another direction, one in which the JCPOA might endure, but be married with a rigorous review of national security issues related to Iran that fall outside of the agreement. 

If European leaders want to keep the deal, they may need to get on board with calling out and tackling Iran's other de-stabilising activities, its support for terrorism and its missile programme.

The French President Emmanuel Macron, after meeting President Trump on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, implied that he was willing to be more wide-eyed about Iran's support for Hezbollah  and its pressure on Syria, especially if it reassured the U.S and allies in the region enough to save the JCPOA. Other European leaders would be wise to follow suit.

Iran does not appear to have breached the deal struck. By law President Trump has to sign off to that effect every 90 days or so, and whether he likes it or not, that appears to be the advice he's been given.

Yet Iran has not entered the international community in the way that was hoped.

Whether it be the treatment of a British citizen abroad or the backing of Shia groups from the Gulf to the Red Sea, Iran continues to challenge and to destabilise. Saudi Arabia and others build their response and a storm gathers in the region.

We've had a blind spot for the failings of Iran for too long. If, as most of our leaders argue, we want to keep the nuclear deal and we want to protect our interests and those of our allies, we may need to change that fast.