The decision by Ireland in conjunction with our European partners to withdraw our ambassador from Tehran, is a mark of how seriously the European Union views the finding yesterday by a Berlin court that the Iranian leadership was involved in the murder of five opposition politicians in 1992. The foreign ministry in Bonn has announced an end to the policy of critical dialogue which has been a cornerstone of German-Iranian relations and, under German influence, of EU-Iranian relations. Were it to lead to a comprehensive re-evaluation of policy this verdict could significantly alter the overall balance of European influence in the Middle East.
The court's findings are serious and grave. It has concluded that the Iranian Committee for Special Operations, which contains members from the state's highest leaderships, was responsible for ordering the murders. This flatly contradicts repeated Iranian denials of such involvement. It sits uncomfortably with the argument underlying the critical dialogue policy, that it helps to bolster the influence of moderate factions against radical ones within the Iranian regime. And it raises awkward questions about whether it is right to continue such extensive trade and investment relations between the two countries. Iran sends the bulk of its non-oil export goods to Germany and German exports there are underwritten by an elaborate system of credit guarantees.
Germany's response to the verdict yesterday does not indicate that it is going to go as far as to break off diplomatic relations or introduce a trade embargo. There is too much at stake economically for such a radical departure from a long-established policy that goes back so deeply into the history of German involvement in the Middle East. It has perplexed and angered the United States, which advocates a strict embargo and containment approach towards Iran. It remains to be seen whether this verdict will alter the balance of policy within the European Union, which has favoured a much more open approach, despite the failure to alter Iran's refusal to withdraw the fatwah against the author Salman Rushdie.
Inevitably the issue will be seen in the wider context of the Middle East peace process as a whole. Iran is seen by the US and Israel as a fundamentalist state using terrorism to pursue its objectives throughout the region. Its influence can be seen particularly in Lebanon and Palestine, further afield in Egypt, Sudan and Algeria, they argue. The alternative view is that neither Iran itself nor radical Islamic movements in the region are monolithic, but subject to conflict between contending social, political and cultural forces within them. Given the crisis in the peace process, which hinges in large part around the priority that should be given to eliminating terrorism against Israeli targets, it can readily be seen that this is a controversial matter. Given the effort of European states to assert a more influential role, which is being resisted by the US and Israel, this verdict is unlikely radically to change European policy.
The recall of EU ambassadors will be used to address the question of state terrorism in a comprehensive fashion. Critical dialogue and political engagement can only work if there is concrete evidence of reciprocity from Iran. If it wants to preserve open relations with Europe it must be seen to respond promptly and constructively to European concerns.