On Saturday, December 12, Iran’s regime executed Ruhollah Zam, a European resident. When European countries condemned his execution, the regime’s foreign ministry summoned their ambassadors, claiming they promoted “terrorism.”
How could the greatest state-sponsor of terrorism allow itself to label any opposition to human rights violations in Iran as ‘promotion of terrorism’?
Domestic human rights violation, and export of terrorism abroad are the regime’s pillars of existence. In fact, despite international condemnation of the gross human rights violations in Iran, the regime’s foreign ministry, mainly its chief Mohammad Javad Zarif, try to whitewash the crimes against humanity in Iran. Zarif has even praised the mullahs’ regime as “the greatest democracy” in the Middle East, while Iran has the highest execution rate per capita.
In other words, Zarif and his ministry will continue defending human rights violations and other crimes of the regime.
But what has encouraged the regime to blatantly churn out accusations at European countries, such as France, Germany, and Austria, is the European Union’s longtime appeasement policy.
The EU’s appeasement policy even encouraged the regime to attempt to bomb the opposition rally in 2018 in Paris. While EU leaders praised Zarif and were eager to meet him, his diplomat-terrorist, Assadollah Assadi, transferred explosives to Europe and attempted to cause perhaps the largest terrorist attack on European soil.
Although he and his three accomplices were caught red-handed in 2018, Assadi by direct order of Zarif refused to appear in the court during his recent trial in Antwerp, Belgium and claimed he had diplomatic immunity.
By immunity, Assadi means he can carry out a terrorist attack on European soil and yet enjoy his diplomatic privileges, return to Iran, and continue his career in the regime.
Although Assadi’s trial was the first of its kind, the regime’s use of its embassies and diplomats for terrorist attacks abroad is not new. In the 1990s, the regime’s terrorists used diplomatic passports to travel to Switzerland, assassinated Dr. Kazem Rajavi, the Iranian Resistance’s representative in Switzerland, and flew back to Iran.
The EU’s failure to hold the regime to account for its countless crimes abroad and inside Iran has encouraged the mullahs’ diplomat-terrorist to command a terrorist attack in Europe and claim diplomatic immunity.
Assadi’s claim of having diplomatic immunity could be considered righteous when his boss, Zarif, who ordered Assadi to carry out the attack, is being warmly greeted by European leaders.
When Josep Borrell intends to deliver a joint keynote address with Zarif during a business forum on Dec. 14, 2020, and all European leaders encourage economic relations with the terrorist regime, why would Assadi not claim diplomatic immunity?
When Neville Chamberlain was questioned about the disgraceful Munich Agreement, he claimed he had achieved “peace for our time.” Later, when World War II broke out and millions died, it became clear that appeasing Hitler triggered the war.
What message does the EU send to the regime and the world when it tries to hold dialogue with a regime whose diplomat-terrorist is on trial in Europe?
Negotiations with this regime, particularly with its chief apologist Zarif, undermines the EU’s claims of its intention to eradicate terrorism in its member states and elsewhere.
The EU should impose sanctions on Zarif and his ministry for their role in the 2018 bomb plot. European countries should shut down Iran’s embassies, which are nests of spies, and expel the regime’s agents.
Indeed, taking firm action against this terrorist regime would guarantee “peace for our time.”
