Stop putting off decision on action against Iran, Tory MP tells Shapps
Labour former shadow chancellor John McDonnell countered that a direct attack on Iran would be ‘insanity’.
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Britain and its allies might be “hitting the wrong target” by bombing Iranian proxies and instead should consider action against Iran, a Conservative MP has suggested.
Mark Pritchard told Defence Secretary Grant Shapps that “putting off that decision” on Iran “may well cost more lives in the future”, adding of Tehran: “Whether we like it or not they’re coming.”
But Labour former shadow chancellor John McDonnell said a direct attack on Iran would be “insanity” and would “provoke” the region.
Mr Shapps blamed Iran for being “behind all this” – citing Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis – before saying the UK Government is working hard to “pressurise” Iran to change its current approach.
Speaking as MPs considered the latest air strikes on Houthi sites in Yemen, Mr Pritchard (The Wrekin) told the Commons: “I agreed with the Secretary of State, and indeed with the Government, that we don’t want to see an escalation in the region and (need to) be proportionate in our response and calibrate our response to not provoke and antagonise.
“But is it not the case that we might actually be hitting the wrong target, that we’re hitting proxies of Iran and whilst I believe in peace and diplomacy, the malevolent factor in the region in all of this is Iran.
“And it might be the case that while we have the best of diplomatic intentions, we don’t want to provoke Iran to a major conflict with Nato or the US or the UK, that actually putting off that decision now may well cost more lives in the future.
“Because Iran and the regime, not the Iranian people but the regime in Iran, are behind all of this. They are the ones destabilising Israel, the Abraham Accords and so on.
“So I hope the Secretary of State will take a strategic view and make hard choices on Iran because whether we like it or not they’re coming.”
Let me just say a direct attack on Iran would be insanity and the region would be provoked and others would be dragged into it
Mr Shapps replied: “(Mr Pritchard) makes an excellent point which is that Iran are behind all of this – Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, the IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) aligned militia that we’ve seen attack not just American – I quite often hear it’s American personnel who are being attacked – 160 separate times in Syria, in Iraq; in fact, about a third of those occasions involve British troops being attacked as well.
“And on every occasion Iran is behind all of this.
“So yes, I absolutely agree with him, we’re working very hard to pressurise Iran into realising that their current approach can do no good at all and it will destabilise the region, which they themselves claim they don’t want to do.”
Mr McDonnell added: “Let me just say a direct attack on Iran would be insanity and the region would be provoked and others would be dragged into it.”