Iran-linked Islamic centre rebuked over calls for Israel's destruction

An Islamic centre branded the 'nerve centre' for Iran in the UK has been reprimanded by the Charity Commission after posting videos calling for Israel's destruction.
The Islamic Centre of England (ICE) has been issued with a formal order by the commission compelling its trustees to curb its online activity and future speakers.
The commission launched a statutory investigation into ICE in 2023 after allegations that it was the London office of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
In 2020, the centre hosted a vigil for Qassim Soleimani, the head of the Guard, who had been killed in a drone strike.
Seyed Hashem Moosavi, ICE's director, issued a statement on its website praising Soleimani as a 'great martyr'.
A commission statement said it had issued the centre with a 'formal order under section 84 of the Charities Act, compelling the trustees to provide rigorous oversight of future speakers and online activity by the charity, among other actions'.
The section 84 direction gives the commission additional powers to intervene during an inquiry where there is suspected misconduct or mismanagement.
The move comes as Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, last week announced plans for new powers to proscribe the IRGC.
Under the proposal, anyone helping or benefiting from a banned state intelligence agency will now face up to 14 years in jail.
On Monday, David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, summoned the Iranian ambassador to be 'held accountable' after three Iranian asylum seekers were charged last Saturday with spying in the UK.
Earlier this month, five Iranian men were arrested in connection with a suspected plot to mount a terror attack on the Israeli embassy in London.
The Charity Commission says its action has been taken because of ICE's 'recent failure' to fully comply with directions set by Emma Moody, the interim manager appointed as part of its investigation.
'The commission considers these, and a range of other past breaches, mismanagement and misconduct in the administration of the charity. The trustees currently dispute some of these legal findings,' the regulator said.
The commission said it would continue to monitor the centre's invited speakers, religious services and public-facing content.
Former speakers have included Syeda Umme Farwa, a charity boss who was described by an Iranian media outlet as a 'jihadi lioness' and was awarded a prize by Ebrahim Raisi, the former Iranian president known as the 'Butcher of Tehran'.
The commission said in a statement that the ICE trustees 'are instructed to ensure that all religious services, speakers and events further the objects of the charity and are in its best interests'.
Despite repeated warnings, the Islamic Centre has continued to platform controversial figures.
Earlier this year, the Jewish Chronicle revealed that the charity's YouTube channel still hosted videos from 2020 in which Ayatollah Khamenei, the leader of Iran, advocated 'multiple intifadas' to remove the 'cancerous tumour' of Israel.
Other clips accused the US and its allies of manufacturing Islamic State and enslaving the world. Some of these have since been removed.
David Holdsworth, the chief executive of the Charity Commission, said: 'The law requires, and the public expect, charities to operate exclusively for the public benefit... when a charity fails to operate in line with its legal duties we will step in to take action.
'We now expect the trustees to take the required action directed by the commission and will not hesitate to use further legal powers should that be necessary.
'The commission's statutory inquiry is ongoing. It is the commission's practice to publish a report setting out its findings, regulatory actions and conclusions once an inquiry has concluded.'
The charity was, however, urged to go further. Col Richard Kemp, a former head of counter-terrorism in Afghanistan, said: 'This is merely a slap on the wrist. The commission needs to take decisive action now and shut it down.
'Iran and its allies pose a direct threat to Britain. The response so far has been to try and sweep it under the carpet.
'The threat we face from Iran is deadly serious. It is of the utmost importance that firm action is taken wherever we can. This is the opposite. It needs closing down now.'
Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, said the charity commission was 'dragging its heels' on holding the ICE to account as its inquiry into the centre still had not concluded after more than two years.
'This isn't the first time the Charity Commission has buried its head in the sand on these issues,' he said.
A spokesman for the ICE previously said the centre was a 'purely religious and cultural organisation, which provides various services to the local communities'.
The spokesman added: 'It is an independent charity regulated by British law, which is totally funded by the local beneficiaries.
'The majority of the trustees, donors, and attendees are British citizens. Indeed, this charity is nothing to do with politics, while we strongly believe that the politically motivated lobbies are trying to drag the charity into their political disputes.'
An Islamic Centre of England spokesman pointed to a statement on the discharge of an interim manager which said this was an 'important milestone' in its 'governance journey'.
The statement said: 'The centre must ensure that it continues to deliver its religious preachings and observes its spiritual doctrines, and meets the requirements of our beneficiaries, while also ensuring legal and regulatory compliance.
'The centre cannot be insulated from world events, however, it is committed to maintaining its independence from political interference, and delivering its religious and educational charitable purposes.
'The centre plays a pivotal role in ensuring we operate in a way which respects all faiths, and where we allow our own faith to continue to be used for good, peacefully and without harm.'
By Chris Philp
Britain faces a growing and dangerous threat from the Iranian regime. It funds terror across the Middle East and beyond – arming Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis, enabling Shi'a militias in Iraq and Syria, and is providing deadly drones to Putin's forces in Ukraine.
The tentacles of the Iranian state stretch out to our very own soil here in the United Kingdom.
Earlier this month, three Iranian asylum seekers were charged with spying for Tehran and plotting to inflict 'serious violence' on UK-based journalists working for Iran International, a dissident media outlet.
It came just days after another Iranian asylum seeker was one of five arrested over a plot to attack the Israeli embassy.
This is a stark illustration of how malign foreign actors are exploiting our asylum system to further their own agenda.
But it is only part of a broader pattern of Iranian aggression. Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is behind a sustained campaign of cyber attacks, disinformation, and intimidation of Iranian dissidents on our streets.
The Labour Government said they would proscribe this group. Labour have now been in office for nearly a year, so why have they not yet done what they said?
And there is growing evidence of potentially dangerous Iran-linked influence within UK charities and so-called community organisations.
Yet the Charity Commission is dragging its heels on taking meaningful action when it comes to taking on organisations that try to undermine British values and sow division.
Take their investigation into the Islamic Centre for England, which opened after a director claimed that those protesting against the Iranian regime were 'soldiers of Satan' – it still hasn't been concluded after more than two years.
This isn't the first time the Charity Commission has buried its head in the sand on these issues.
The Islamic Human Rights Commission Trust has been under an ongoing investigation for several years, despite being run by self-declared Islamist revolutionaries closely aligned to Iran who say that the West is 'the enemy' and Britain a 'Stasi state'.
And last year, the Dar Alhekma Trust and its sister charity, the Abrar Islamic Foundation, based near Regent's Park, were placed under police investigation after one of their trustees allegedly praised the former IRGC commander Qasem Soleimani as a 'hero'.
The commission has bizarrely paused its review while the charities deny any wrongdoing.
This is not good enough. The commission must be more proactive. The public deserves to know why groups with apparent links to terrorist sympathisers continue to operate freely under the banner of charity.
Its job is not simply to wait for criminal prosecutions – it is to protect the integrity of the charitable sector from exploitation by extremists and foreign regimes. It's time they started acting like it.
And it's time for the Labour Government to get serious too.
The Foreign Influence Registration Scheme, announced by the previous Conservative government, has been implemented which is a welcome first step.
However, we need real enforcement, real transparency, and real consequences for those who break our laws or abuse our hospitality.
Small boat crossings have increased by almost 30 per cent under Labour – 2025 is the worst year ever for such crossings.
Labour voted against our amendment to deport all illegal migrants. It is shameful that the Government is not taking the action needed on this issue.
This is not just about illegal immigration, it is about our national security.
Action against Iran also means shutting down any UK-based charities found to be linked to hostile states or extremist causes.
It means denying visas to Iranian regime officials and suspected collaborators. It means expelling diplomats involved in threats, intimidation or espionage.
And it means providing meaningful protection to journalists and dissidents targeted by Tehran.
We cannot afford to be complacent. Britain must not be a safe haven for the proxies of a state that funds terror, murders dissidentsand seeks to undermine the very freedoms we cherish.
The Conservative Party has always stood for the security of this nation. We will not be silent while this government drags its feet.
Chris Philp is the shadow home secretary
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Los Angeles Times

35 minutes ago

• Los Angeles Times

What to know about U.S. ‘bunker-buster' bombs unleashed on Iran's Fordo nuclear facility

BANGKOK — In inserting itself into Israel's war against Iran, the United States unleashed its massive 'bunker-buster' bombs on Iran's Fordo nuclear fuel enrichment plant. Those bombs were widely seen as the best chance of damaging or destroying Fordo, built deep into a mountain and untouched during Israel's weeklong offensive. U.S. Air Force Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said 14 of the bombs were used in Sunday's attack on Fordo and a second target. The U.S. is the only military capable of dropping the weapons, and the movement of B-2 stealth bombers toward Asia on Saturday had signaled possible activity by the U.S. Israeli leaders had made no secret of their hopes that President Trump would join their week-old war against Iran, though they had also suggested they had backup plans for destroying the site. The U.S. hit three nuclear sites in all, and Caine told reporters Sunday that 'initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage.' The mission could have wide-ranging ramifications, including jeopardizing any chance of Iran engaging in Trump's desired talks on its nuclear program and dragging the U.S. into another Mideast war. Here's a closer look. 'Bunker buster' is a broad term used to describe bombs that are designed to penetrate deep below the surface before exploding. In this case, it refers to the latest GBU-57 A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator bomb in the U.S. arsenal. The roughly 30,000-pound, precision-guided bomb is designed to attack deeply buried and hardened bunkers and tunnels, according to the U.S. Air Force. It's believed to be able to penetrate about 200 feet below the surface before exploding, and the bombs can be dropped one after another, drilling deeper and deeper with each successive blast. It was not immediately known how many were used in total in the Sunday morning strikes. The bomb carries a conventional warhead, but the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations nuclear watchdog, has confirmed that Iran is producing highly enriched uranium at Fordo, which had raised the possibility that nuclear material could be released into the area if the GBU-57 A/B were used to hit the facility. Initial assessments by the IAEA, however, were that this had not happened. Fordo is Iran's second nuclear enrichment facility after Natanz, its main facility, which already has been targeted by Israeli airstrikes and was also hit by the U.S. on Sunday, along with Isfahan. The IAEA says it believes those earlier strikes have had 'direct impacts' on the facility's underground centrifuge halls. Fordo is smaller than Natanz and is built into the side of a mountain near the city of Qom, about 60 miles southwest of Tehran. Construction is believed to have started around 2006, and it became operational in 2009, the same year Tehran publicly acknowledged its existence. In addition to being an estimated 260 feet under rock and soil, the site is reportedly protected by Iranian and Russian surface-to-air missile systems. Those air defenses, however, probably have already been struck by Israel, which claims to have knocked out most of Iran's air defenses, and the U.S. bombers were not fired upon during their mission. Still, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said the goal of attacking Iran was to eliminate its missile and nuclear program, which he described as an existential threat to Israel, and officials have said Fordo was part of that plan. 'This entire operation ... really has to be completed with the elimination of Fordo,' Yechiel Leiter, Israel's ambassador to the U.S., told Fox News. In theory, the GBU-57 A/B could be dropped by any bomber capable of carrying the weight, but at the moment the U.S. has configured and programmed only its B-2 Spirit stealth bomber to deliver the bomb, according to the Air Force. The B-2 is only flown by the Air Force, and is produced by Northrop Grumman. According to the manufacturer, the B-2 can carry a payload of 40,000 pounds, but the Air Force has said it has successfully tested the B-2 loaded with two GBU-57 A/B bunker busters — a total weight of some 60,000 pounds. In the attack on Fordo, Caine said the first B-2 dropped two of the bunker busters on the facility. The strategic long-range heavy bomber has a range of about 7,000 miles without refueling and 11,500 miles with one refueling, and can reach any point in the world within hours, according to Northrop Grumman. The mission against Iran was flown from its home base in Missouri. Whether the U.S. would get involved had been unclear in recent days. At the Group of 7 meeting in Canada, Trump was asked what it would take for Washington to become involved militarily, and he said: 'I don't want to talk about that.' Then on Thursday, the president said he would decide within two weeks whether to get involved, to give another chance to the possibility of negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. In the end, it took just two days to decide. Sunday's attack was restricted to the three nuclear sites, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said. 'The scope of this was intentionally limited, that's the message that we're sending, with the capabilities of the American military nearly unlimited,' he told reporters. 'So Iran, in that sense, has a choice.' Rising writes for the Associated Press.

Newsweek

35 minutes ago

• Newsweek

Full List of Congress Members Backing War Powers Resolution Against Trump

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Representatives Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, and Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, introduced a bipartisan House resolution last week in a bid to curb President Donald Trump's ability to escalate tensions with Iran. After the U.S. military carried out strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites on Saturday, Massie told CNN that he believed the resolution would have enough co-sponsors to "be able to force a vote unless [House Speaker Mike] Johnson pulls some shenanigans." Why It Matters Trump on Saturday evening announced what he described as a "very successful attack" against three Iranian nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan The president's decision came after Israel and Iran have exchanged consistent strikes since June 13. Israel had urged the U.S. to target Iran's nuclear facilities, saying that Tehran was moving close to creating a nuclear weapon. Iran maintains that its nuclear program is for civilian purposes—not for weapons. The strikes have sparked concerns from some Democrats and some Republicans about a wider war breaking out—with some lawmakers accusing the president of violating the U.S. Constitution with the strikes. What to Know Massie and Khanna introduced their War Powers Resolution in an effort to prohibit U.S. military involvement in Iran last Tuesday, amid the backdrop of escalating tensions with Iran. "The Constitution does not permit the executive branch to unilaterally commit an act of war against a sovereign nation that hasn't attacked the United States," Massie said in a press release announcing the resolution. "Congress has the sole power to declare war against Iran. The ongoing war between Israel and Iran is not our war. Even if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution." Khanna shared similar concerns in a statement emailed to Newsweek on Sunday after the strikes on Iran moved forward. "Stopping Iran from having a nuclear bomb is a top priority, but dragging the U.S. into another Middle East war is not the solution. Trump's strikes are unconstitutional and put Americans, especially our troops, at risk," the congressman said. "Congress needs to come back to DC immediately to vote on Rep. Thomas Massie and my bipartisan War Powers Resolution to ensure there is no further conflict and escalation." Senator Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, introduced companion legislation to the House resolution the day before his House colleagues. "It is not in our national security interest to get into a war with Iran unless that war is absolutely necessary to defend the United States. I am deeply concerned that the recent escalation of hostilities between Israel and Iran could quickly pull the United States into another endless conflict," the senator said in a press release. President Donald Trump addresses the nation, alongside Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth from the White House in Washington, D.C., on June 21, following the announcement... President Donald Trump addresses the nation, alongside Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth from the White House in Washington, D.C., on June 21, following the announcement that the U.S. bombed nuclear sites in Iran. Left inset: Representative Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, is seen on June 4 in Washington, D.C. Right inset: Representative Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, is seen on June 11, 2024, in Washington, D.C. More Carlos Barria/AFP/Kevin Dietsch/Full List of Members of Congress Backing the War Powers Resolution Representative Ro Khanna, a California Democrat Representative Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a New York Democrat Representative Val Hoyle, an Oregon Democrat Representative Rashida Tlaib, a Michigan Democrat Representative Pramila Jayapal, a Washington Democrat Representative Donald Beyer, a Virginia Democrat Representative Lloyd Doggett, a Texas Democrat Representative Greg Casar, a Texas Democrat Representative Ayanna Pressley, a Massachusetts Democrat Representative Delia Ramirez, an Illinois Democrat Representative Summer Lee, a Pennsylvania Democrat Representative Ilhan Omar, a Minnesota Democrat Representative Jesus "Chuy" Garcia, an Illinois Democrat Representative Nydia Velazquez, a New York Democrat Representative James McGovern, a Massachusetts Democrat Representative Chellie Pingree, a Maine Democrat Representative Mark Pocan, a Wisconsin Democrat Representative Veronica Escobar, a Texas Democrat Representative Paul Tonko, a New York Democrat Representative Becca Balint, a Vermont Democrat Representative Bonnie Watson Coleman, a New Jersey Democrat Representative Henry "Hank" Johnson, a Georgia Democrat Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Washington, D.C., Democrat Representative Sara Jacobs, a California Democrat Representative Janice Schakowsky, an Illinois Democrat Representative Lateefah Simon, a California Democrat Representative Christopher Deluzio, a Pennsylvania Democrat Representative Gwen Moore, a Wisconsin Democrat Representative Mike Thompson, a California Democrat Representative Yassamin Ansari, an Arizona Democrat Representative Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat Representative Luis Correa, a California Democrat Representative Betty McCollum, a Minnesota Democrat Representative Marcy Kaptur, an Ohio Democrat Representative Mark DeSaulnier, a California Democrat Representative Stephen Lynch, a Massachusetts Democrat Representative Andre Carson, an Indiana Democrat Representative Mary Gay Scanlon, a Pennsylvania Democrat Representative Joaquin Castro, a Texas Democrat Representative Maxwell Frost, a Florida Democrat Representative Al Green, a Texas Democrat Representative Debbie Dingell, a Michigan Democrat Representative Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat Representative Melanie Stansbury, a New Mexico Democrat Representative Sylvia Garcia, a Texas Democrat Representative Teresa Leger Fernandez, a New Mexico Democrat Representative Diana DeGette, a Colorado Democrat Senator Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat What People Are Saying Jennifer Kavanagh, senior fellow and director of military analysis at Defense Priorities told Newsweek: "Iran has several options when it comes to retaliation, but will need to weigh them carefully. A stronger response may be useful for signaling Tehran's continuing resolve to internal and external audiences but it could also bring further U.S. military action and deeper U.S. involvement. Iran could target U.S. military bases and personnel in the Middle East." President Donald Trump on Truth Social on Saturday evening: "ANY RETALIATION BY IRAN AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL BE MET WITH FORCE FAR GREATER THAN WHAT WAS WITNESSED TONIGHT. THANK YOU!" Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi wrote on X, formerly Twitter, on Sunday: "The United States, a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, has committed a grave violation of the UN Charter, international law and the NPT by attacking Iran's peaceful nuclear installations. The events this morning are outrageous and will have everlasting consequences. Each and every member of the UN must be alarmed over this extremely dangerous, lawless and criminal behavior. In accordance with the UN Charter and its provisions allowing a legitimate response in self-defense, Iran reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interest, and people." What Happens Next? Iran's foreign minister said after the attack that his country reserves "all options to defend its sovereignty." The U.S. military is preemptively preparing for any attack from Tehran in response. It's unclear whether the War Powers Resolution sponsored by Khanna and Massie, which aims to curb Trump's ability to take military action against Iran, will move forward in the House. However, with Republican control of both chambers of Congress, it is not widely expected to succeed.

Politico

38 minutes ago

• Politico

Rep. Jim Himes warns Iran strike could lead to ‘dead soldiers and sailors'

Connecticut Rep. Jim Himes, the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, warned on Sunday that President Donald Trump's decision to strike Iran could lead to a 'worst-case scenario' that draws the U.S. into another prolonged conflict in the Middle East. Himes, a Democrat, told host Jonathan Karl on ABC's 'This Week' the Iran strike is a 'massive, massive gamble' that could embroil the nation in an overseas conflict similar to previous U.S. military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. 'We've seen this movie before,' Himes said, referencing the ascension of the Taliban in Afghanistan following the U.S. withdrawal in 2021 after maintaining a military presence in the country for 20 years. Himes outlined the 'worst-case scenario' as the possibility that Iran suffered minimal damage to its nuclear facilities and strikes back at U.S. military personnel leading to 'dead soldiers and sailors in the region.' On Sunday, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine said the U.S. inflicted 'severe damage' on the three Iranian nuclear sites it targeted, but added it was too soon to determine whether Iran still possessed nuclear capabilities. When asked if it's possible that Trump's strike on Iran would result in a best-case scenario, Himes conceded there is 'some chance' of a positive outcome. 'But if you look at the history — and again, all we have is history to go on, if you look at the history of our military involvements in the region, they almost never end with the best-case scenario,' Himes said. 'In fact, they usually end in something approximating the worst-case scenario.' Himes also expressed concern that the strike on Iran could destabilize other nations in the region, inciting further danger to U.S. allies. He highlighted Jordan as an example, citing popular unrest in the country. 'It's not inconceivable that his people may decide, 'Hey, we've had it with you being allied with the Israelis and the United States,'' he said. 'And now we have chaos in Jordan.' Himes reiterated that it may take 'months or years' to determine whether Trump made the right decision in striking Iran, but said it would be 'crazy' to expect the best-case scenario to play out. 'Looking at history, you would be sort of crazy to put all your chips on the best outcome anytime we enter into military conflict in the Middle East,' he said.