PNN – The former Iranian ambassador to the UK said: The developments after the Ukraine war put Europe in a position of confrontation with Iran, and now they are fueling the proposition that Iran is standing against its own people and have seized the opportunity to take revenge on Iran. Of course, in these circumstances, Tehran’s diplomacy should also be evaluated as to why it failed to take action to prevent these conditions from forming.
Relations between Iran and Europe have entered an ambiguous and tense phase in recent months; a phase in which the diplomatic tone has given way to explicit and sometimes hostile statements by some European leaders, and their official positions on Iran’s internal developments are interpreted beyond the conventional frameworks of international relations. At the same time, signs of Europe’s increasing alignment with America’s pressure-based approaches have raised serious questions about Europe’s true place in diplomatic equations with Tehran.
In such an environment, speculation has intensified about the role of European capitals in encouraging Washington to intensify pressure on Iran, even at the level of costly options. We spoke to Seyyed Jalal Sadatian, former Iranian ambassador to the UK, about the goals and consequences of recent European policies towards Iran:
Following the recent positions of European officials regarding the internal unrest in Iran, including statements by the German Chancellor and European Union officials, can it be said that Europe has effectively abandoned the path of diplomacy and entered a phase of direct political confrontation with Iran?
These days, we are witnessing the formation of a propaganda line at the international level that claims that Iran is weakening, and at the same time, a trend with the same content has been created in the United States Congress, especially by the Israeli lobby. All of these propaganda lines emphasize the proposition that Iran is in its weakest position, attributing this condition to recent internal discontent and protests, and of course, previous developments in the Middle East, including what occurred in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria after October 7, 2023.
However, there was also the analysis that the continuation of Iranian attacks could provide an excuse for further US entry into the war, and ultimately various considerations focused on the decision to accept the ceasefire. So, what I meant by developments after October 2023 was this brief explanation.
As a result of all these circumstances, the field was opened for foreign propaganda and the activities of anti-Iranian institutions to present and highlight the narrative of Iran’s weakness. As a result, the West moved to justify its interventions with the cover and tools of human rights. In this environment, we witnessed Europe’s complicity with the United States. This is at a time when Europe is in the worst possible situation with Trump’s America in its bilateral issues, which is due to the White House’s claims regarding Greenland, the Ukraine issue, and trade tariffs, which have created serious differences between Europe and the United States.
There have been reports of efforts by some European governments to persuade Donald Trump to take tougher options against Iran, even at the level of military action; what specific strategic interests does Europe pursue by pursuing such a path?
I believe that the United States is being urged to go to war with Iran by the Zionist lobby, which wants to divide Iran in order to break a country that is seriously resisting Israel’s unjust expansionism. At the same time, they think that the regional resistance will rebuild and repair itself over time with the support of Iran. It can be said that the goal of these pressures is the US military entry into the Middle East. My view and assessment is that Europeans are not very keen on unilateral America taking over the Middle East, and countries like France and England still consider themselves entitled to our region and have a sense of belonging to it.