Specialists know that the position of the European trio (Britain, France and Germany) on the nuclear agreement with Iran is based primarily on self-interests and not on global security and stability.
Europe has big deals with Iran. European countries seek to find mechanisms to maintain their interests following the US withdrawal from the nuclear agreement. Europe is running against time. Next November, the US will sanction companies that do business with Iran.
Many multi-billion dollar deals were signed between several European companies and Iran. Tens of thousands of jobs in European countries are at risk because of the possible cancellation of these agreements.
Interests are a key driver of international relations. But the current European position on the nuclear agreement with Iran favored interests over principles. The EU stance places the calculations of numbers above global security and stability standards.
Tehran has not changed and did not promise to change its behavior. The EU should not be supporting Iran in the debate over the nuclear agreement. The Iranian regime insists on refusing to make any concessions. Tehran always threatens to raise uranium enrichment rates if Europe fails to keep the nuclear deal.
Europe promotes indivisible values. The talk of freedom and human rights seems surprising because the EU countries insist to support a regime hostile to stability. The mullahs’ regime has been spreading chaos and unrest in the Middle East. Obviously, the European countries are even more affected by the practices of the Iranian regime than the US. Europe has had traditional historical ties with Lebanon and Syria. The two countries are the most affected by the deployment of Iranian militias in the Middle East.
The European talk about the importance of the nuclear agreement in maintaining peace and stability seems to be absurd. How can Europe talk about peace, security and stability while Tens of thousands of IRGC are deployed in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen? Iran has been boasting the occupation of four Arab capitals and is trying to occupy the fifth capital.
Iran’s talk about the importance of the nuclear deal seems to be an object of ridicule. The mullahs’ regime rejects to comply with international law and legislation and violates the sovereignty of neighboring countries.
European officials have rushed to save their economic deals and agreements in Tehran after the US withdrawal from the nuclear agreement. The EU was not interested in coordinating with the Arab countries as they are an economic partner of great importance to Europe. The EU is sure that it relations with Arab countries are strong. But this does not mean that European interests with the Arab world will not be negatively affected by its position towards Iran.
Does Europe think that its interests with Iran are greater than those with Arab countries? The EU is trying to profit without taking the burden of maintaining global security and stability.
If the EU was in agreement with Trump’s position on withdrawal from the nuclear agreement, there would have been a tremendous strategic pressure on the mullahs’ regime. The Iranian regime would have faced the danger of collapse not because of possible strikes or military threats. The Iranian regime has failed to manage the resources of its people and instead spent its money in expanding and supporting terrorist militias.
The Iranian people are now aware of the truth and waiting for the appropriate moment to get rid of the nightmare of the mullahs. The EU should have contributed to giving this conquered people the opportunity to pressure the mullahs’ regime. This would have led to overthrow the Iranian regime or modify its behavior. But the European countries favored their interests and adopted a short-term strategic outlook that might cost the entire world its security and stability.
