Opinion by Mathew Carr

The fast-tracked National Security (State Threat) Bill could place reporters and media in an impossible situation, where publishing a story could mean a journalist faces 14 years of jail.

The bill makes it unlawful to receive information from a body that has been designated a threat to the UK (among other things).

Let’s paint a scenario.

If I as a journalist knew a whistleblower inside the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps who could tell me where explosive mines or bombs are laid and the IRGC is designated under this proposed law …then I would be faced with an impossible choice.

Do I speak to the whistleblower and publish a story warning Uk soldiers/sailors about the risk …and risk 14 years in jail for myself? Or do I not investigate because of the risks to myself, letting British soldiers/sailors get blown up?

What decision do I make? Can anyone answer?

Parliamentarians should not be rushing this questionable law through parliament by July 16. It’s unclear to me whether the amendments create enough safety for journalists against prosecution.

CarrZee says: Labour UK: Slow down this bill until after the summer recess and do a proper job instead of a rush job. It’s unclear why this bill needs to be fast tracked given it erodes humans rights and press freedom.

Laura Davison, NUJ general secretary, said in response to my questions Friday: “There needs to be cast-iron certainty that journalistic freedoms are protected in this bill. Anything less leaves a position of uncertainty, which is at odds with a robust approach to promoting press freedom. There should be a moratorium on enacting the bill while this crucial issue is addressed.”

Govt view: Under current UK terror laws, proscription is designed for non-state terrorist organizations (like Hamas or Hezbollah). Because the IRGC is an official branch of the Iranian state, successive UK governments and legal experts have warned that attempting to proscribe it under the Terrorism Act 2000 faces immense legal complications and could trigger severe diplomatic fallout, such as the total closure of the British Embassy in Tehran. (Gemini)

See amendments in the July 1 version of the bill on this page:

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/4140

My request to the NUJ (National Union of Journalists):

ends

(Earlier corrected IRGC’s name)

Note

Most authoritarian?

https://x.com/doubledownnews/status/2073464816430141652?s=46

CIA was a big threat to Iran in early 2026 and beyond? Who is the real bad guy?

Gemini: You’re pointing to a massive piece of the puzzle, and you’re entirely right about the timeline—early 2026 was an absolute powder keg, and the U.S. and the CIA were putting immense, active pressure on Iran.

In February 2026, the CIA openly launched social media campaigns in Persian to recruit regular Iranian citizens as spies, trying to capitalize on the massive domestic protests that had broken out that January. Tehran blamed the U.S. and Western intelligence for manufacturing that unrest to destabilize the country from within, right before the joint U.S.-Israeli strikes under “Operation Epic Fury” hit on February 28.

When you ask *”who is the terrorist here?”* you’re tapping into a fierce debate about foreign intervention versus national defense. To understand why international bodies draw a line between the two, it helps to look at how these actions are viewed through different lenses.

### The Case Against the U.S. and the CIA

From the perspective of Tehran and many international critics, U.S. operations are viewed as state-sanctioned aggression. The arguments center on:

* **Sovereignty Violations:** The CIA has a documented history of covert regime change (most famously in Iran back in 1953) and continues to use psychological warfare and espionage to exploit a country’s internal economic pain.

* **Aggressive Warfare:** The U.S. military buildup and the pre-emptive strikes in early 2026 were condemned by several countries and legal experts as a violation of international norms that inflicted civilian casualties and damaged infrastructure.

Under this view, the IRGC frames its actions as a necessary defense against an aggressive superpower intent on regime change.

### Why the IRGC is Legally Labeled a Terrorist Group

The reason the EU, U.S., and others legally classify the IRGC as a *terrorist organization*—rather than just a hostile foreign military—comes down to specific criteria regarding how they operate:

* **Asymmetric Proxy Warfare:** While intelligence agencies engage in espionage, the IRGC’s Quds Force directly funds, trains, and commands a network of militant groups whose explicit strategies include deliberate attacks on civilians, hijackings, and launching unguided rockets into population centers.

* **Turning Weapons on Their Own Citizens:** Conventional militaries are built to project power outward to defend a nation. The IRGC operates heavily inward, using its Basij paramilitary branch to violently crush, imprison, and execute ordinary Iranian citizens protesting for basic economic and civil rights.

* **Hostage Diplomacy:** The IRGC systematically detains foreign tourists and dual-nationals on fabricated charges, using human beings as literal bargaining chips to force Western concessions.

> **The Takeaway:**

Ultimately, it depends on the definition being applied. If the metric is **foreign subversion and devastating military intervention**, critics argue Western actions fit the description.

However, if the metric is **the deliberate targeting of non-combatants, global proxy terror, and turning military-grade violence against one’s own civilian population**, that is the legal and ethical basis for why the IRGC is designated as a terrorist organization.

>