By Potkin Azarmehr
Successive British governments and the Charity Commission for England and Wales have taken no action to counter the Islamic Republic’s expanding soft-power network in the UK, according to an investigative report just released by a member of the House of Lords.
The report by John Woodcock, Lord Walney lays out in detail how the Iranian regime has taken advantage of Britain’s charity sector to extend its influence, and how the UK’s regulatory system has failed to respond.
The 100-page study, titled Undue Influence, examines a number of UK-registered charities that maintain structural, ideological, or institutional links with state bodies in Tehran.
The report was launched at an event in Westminster, London, chaired by the British journalist Nicole Lampert, with contributions from Kasra Aarabi, the director of IRGC research at United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), who helped compile the study.
According to Lord Walney’s report, the issue goes far beyond the technical governance of charities operating in Britain. It is a matter of national security for the United Kingdom.
For decades, the Islamic Republic has exercised influence abroad through religious and cultural institutions. In the Middle East, that influence has manifested itself through militias and proxy groups.
In Europe, the strategy has been more subtle: networks of mosques, cultural centers, student organizations, and charities promoting the regime’s ideological worldview have projected the regime’s soft power.
According to the report, Britain’s charity sector has proved particularly vulnerable to this form of influence and powerless to confront it.
Registering as a charity in the UK confers considerable legitimacy. It opens doors to local councils, universities, religious communities, and even Members of Parliament. Charitable status also brings tax advantages, public trust, and the presumption of civic good.
This aura of legitimacy can come to be enjoyed by organizations that are ultimately loyal to hostile foreign governments — even ones as hostile as the Islamic Republic of Iran, which encourages its supporters to chant “Death to England” and to burn the flag of the United Kingdom.
For example, until recently, the constitution of the Islamic Centre of England stipulated that one of its trustees must be appointed by Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic, who was killed in a U.S.-Israeli strike in Tehran on Feb. 28.
The report also points to charities linked to organizations such as Al-Mustafa International University, which has been sanctioned by the United States for allegedly acting as a recruitment platform for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
As Lord Walney noted during the presentation of the report: “That is not a vague ideological affinity. It is a formal and official institutional link with the Islamic Republic state.”
He noted that some organizations associated with these networks promoted rhetoric aligned with the regime’s broader revolutionary ideology, including expressions of support or sympathy for groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, as well as for the organization of the Al-Quds Day rallies in Britain — events which, for the first time this year, were cancelled.
“These activities are often accompanied by rhetoric widely criticized as antisemitic and deeply hostile to the state of Israel,” said Lord Walney at the Westminster event, while the doctrine established by Ruhollah Khomeini, the Islamic Republic’s first supreme leader, “is presented not as a radical political ideology but as if it were simply a normative religious belief within Shi’a Islam.”
The report also documents troubling examples involving children. These include children’s participation in the commemorations of the death of Qasem Soleimani (commander of the IRGC’s Quds Force, who was assassinated in 2020 in a U.S. drone strike); in messages glorifying Ruhollah Khomeini; and in a film at the Islamic Centre of England of an English-language version of the song “Salute Commander,” in which children are seen saluting and pledging loyalty to Iran’s Supreme Leader.
Lord Walney warned that such activities should concern anyone who is serious about social cohesion and the prevention of radicalization in the United Kingdom.
In spite of the evidence, the UK regulatory response has been slow and ineffective.
Investigations by the Charity Commission for England and Wales can stretch on for years, often resulting only in minor governance adjustments while leaving the underlying networks intact, according to the report.
Lord Walney described this as a “compliance trap” — a regulatory system that focuses on paperwork rather than the strategic problem.
There are other issues with the Charity Commission’s approach. Charity law was primarily designed to prevent financial misuse, not to counter foreign state influence. As a result, regulators tend to focus on governance structures, accounting, and compliance procedures rather than the geopolitical context in which some organizations operate.
The result, Lord Walney argues in the report, is a regulatory framework that is ill equipped to fight the threat it faces.
Another factor behind regulatory hesitation, according to Lord Walney: the fear of being accused of Islamophobia when scrutinizing organisations linked to Islamic institutions or the Iranian regime.
Western intelligence agencies widely regard Iran as one of the world’s most active state sponsors of terrorism, responsible for assassination plots and intimidation campaigns across Europe and beyond.
Britain itself has been targeted. Security officials say multiple Iranian-linked plots have been intercepted on British soil in recent years.
Lord Walney’s report calls for urgent reforms: faster investigations, stronger regulatory powers, greater transparency regarding trustees and foreign affiliations, and closer coordination between the Charity Commission and national security agencies.
Ultimately, the report argues, the deeper problem is not legal authority, but political will. For decades, successive British governments have approached the Islamic Republic with a mixture of caution and wishful thinking: They have appeared reluctant to escalate tensions and to confront the regime’s activities directly. Meanwhile, Tehran has built its network of influence.
As Lord Walney argues, Britain’s current regulatory system lacks both the tools and the resolve needed to confront hostile state influence operating under the cover of civil society.
