EU reluctant to take a stand on Iranian issue

EU reluctant to take a stand on Iranian issue

EU reluctant to take a stand on Iranian issueThe new eventual American change in strategy does not help Europeans' sufferings in any aspect of their interactions with the Persian Gulf region.
Iranian upheavals in late June 2009, followed by the courageous views expressed by the EU's leading countries against people's crashing by the Iranian revolutionary guards made, France and Germany seems not to be decisive enough now in condemning the crashes and recognizing Ahmadinejad's government. There are several reasons for EU's reluctance. One might be the slow down of the protest actions in Iran giving them the signals of retaining efficient control by the regime.
Other more important,, they fear any non-recognition of Ahmadinejad's government might endanger the future of the atomic negotiations with Iran and not the least their trade interactions.
The US's Foreign secretary Hillary Clinton's recent statements about eventual change on Iranian atomic ambitions might even give EU more incitement to cool down their reactions. Hillary Clinton suggested in a summit of Asian security in Thiland interpreted as if: "even an Iranian atomic bomb can't help this country of safeguarding itself" because The US would raise up the military and security preparedness among the neighbors of Iran in a fashion that no eventual atomic bomb will help Iran to be safe for the regime". Many observers interpreted this comment as if the US might be considering an eventual acceptance of Iranian Atomic projects,, the interpretation which was denied by the US and Mrs Clinton. In any case if the world is preparing itself to live in deterred harmony with Ahmadinejad ,,, the aftermath of these clear or implicit recognitions will be devastating for the democratic movements of Iranian people. Any recognition of this kind will help the regime to use it as the sign of its not challenging hegemony over its people simply because its hopes to become a regional power will fade. If such a hegemony would have been conceivable after all. Atomic bomb will be used as a device for more terror internally.
However this does not mean that EU and US would necessarily have controversial policies towards Iran in the future either. Both have shown by far and large that they would tolerate any regime in Iran as long as it is efficiently having control over the country. The problem is now certainly is not human right issues or the rising numbers of the murdered protesters or arrested journalist in the first place, but its combination with an volatile region that Iran is a key member of it. Any expansion of the crisis in Iran would endanger Western newly taken up policies in Afghanistan and Pakistan in which the Western armies are involved in a full fledged anti terrorist war. Any new wave of intervention of Iranian regime in these arenas would complicate the situation even more. On the other hand a new strengthening of the US forces in Persian Gulf would mean Iranian regime feels even more isolated by its traditional economic lungs in the Southern Coast and among its Arab nations, many of which are even more afraid of a democratic trend in Iran than Iranian atomic bomb.They are even more afraid that trade with Iran would be disrupted.
Most of them are run by autocratic regimes inspired by Islam. These facts will make a new tough task for Americans only managable by the Europeans good will and helping hands. But in any event, the time is also ripe for the social changes in Iran and may be the whole region. Neither atomic nor the economic issue changes the fact that West should find a solution combining a calming down of political crises together with solving its atomic issue with Iran. This is hardly achievable by making a new tradition of living side by side with the militarization of Iran led by figures such as Ahmadinejad. cyrusvadani@msn.com