Hanna Neumann: The IRGC and the Iranian regime are a security threat to Europe

Iran's relations with the European Union, especially with Tehran's support for Moscow in the war against Ukraine, have entered a new phase. The EU, which had approved sanctions packages against Tehran in support of protesters following the 2022 protests in Iran known as "Women, Life, Freedom," has intensified its pressure on the Islamic Republic with the sale of Iranian drones to Russia. With the expansion of Iran's nuclear program and Tehran's increasing distance from the so-called "JCPOA," the three European powers, France, Germany, and the UK – which is outside the EU – pursued sanctions against Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency and passed two resolutions against Tehran at the agency's Board of Governors. These days, whispers are heard that perhaps these countries are looking to pursue Iran's nuclear case in the United Nations Security Council and even implement the snapback mechanism. Alongside these developments, the three mentioned European countries have conducted talks in Geneva with officials of the Islamic Republic, and both sides are trying to find a way to make it more serious. In Washington, Donald Trump has been in the White House for a month, and he has spoken about the possibility of negotiating with Iran while applying maximum pressure. All of this has put Tehran and Brussels in a complicated situation. What path should or can the EU take regarding Tehran? Hanna Neumann, head of the Iran Relations Committee in the European Parliament, told Radio Farda: The IRGC and the Iranian regime currently pose a security threat to the European Union. I have heard this from you, from some other politicians, and also from opponents of the Islamic Republic of Iran who oppose negotiations. When you say no to negotiations, what do you mean? And what do you think this approach will achieve? If we have a reliable negotiating partner that I know when we get close to an agreement, we can sign a deal and the agreement is real, I am in favor of negotiations. When this deal includes improving the situation, mainly for the people inside Iran, regarding human rights, political freedoms, freedom of expression, and the freedom of political prisoners. The problem is that unfortunately, the regime does not play such a role. We have tried several times in recent years to negotiate with this regime regarding the JCPOA, and they have backed away from negotiations. Of course, it was the US that left the JCPOA. No, I mean the last two or three years. The Europeans tried to negotiate about the nuclear agreement in the last two or three years, before the "Women, Life, Freedom" movement, and the Iranians rejected the negotiations. And I think that currently, with the situation in Iran, especially the gross violations of human rights, the increasing number of executions, I don't know how we can work on a deal that does not include human rights. You mentioned several points. Let's talk in more detail about some of them. First, regarding Europe and efforts concerning the JCPOA. One of these efforts that I closely followed was a financial mechanism called INSTEX. Yes, it did not work. Does Trump's return mean the fall of the Islamic Republic? It did not work, and the question is, how do you think Iran would stay in that agreement without any benefit? We have many problems surrounding this agreement, and one was clearly that Trump left the JCPOA. Yes. It was not a complete agreement, but at least it stopped extensive enrichment in Iran and allowed us to control it if it did so. When Trump left the agreement, we, as the European side, could not take steps in the sanctions section. We tried INSTEX, which clearly did not work, and this is a situation that we have not resolved until today. Today, we have the same situation regarding the International Court of Justice in The Hague. Trump sanctioned the court, individuals working for the International Criminal Court are sanctioned. And now we have a series of European companies that, because they do not want to lose their business in the United States, are overly compliant with these sanctions. They enforce these sanctions as if we are the US. While we have our own legal processes, we have something we call a blocking statute. We can somehow force companies to do this due to compliance with the laws. But then it only exists on paper, as we do not have a mechanism to compensate our companies' damages. Therefore, we now have to fulfill our obligations and, unfortunately, make ourselves independent of the arbitrary decisions of the United States. The EU, the dispute over the three islands, and Iran's feeling of "loneliness". Now it seems that Donald Trump, the President of the United States, is inclined to reach an agreement with Iran. Do you think Europe should take a different path given the existing disagreements on both sides of the Atlantic; for example, just as security in Europe is discussed, should it also think about the Islamic Republic? Your questions contain many aspects, and I will address at least two of them. First, no one knows what the Trump administration is doing. We hear that they are supposed to make a deal. Apply maximum pressure. Apply maximum pressure to reach an agreement. I am not sure what their plan is, and I don't even know if they know what their plan is. It is unclear whether they have a specific policy towards Iran or if Iran is part of a larger agreement to create changes in the world that that person just in the White House and Putin are doing, and the rest of the world are pawns on the chessboard. For this reason, in such an uncertain situation, it cannot be said that the EU should follow along or not. The second point is that I think we, as the European Union, should have our own decisions regarding Iran, especially if the Trump administration goes in a direction that we fundamentally disagree with. Our duty is to always speak on behalf of the Iranian people who suffer from this regime and on behalf of anyone else in the region who are victims of these proxy wars and the IRGC's proxy tactics. This should be our main role and objective. And if this reflects in a miracle that Trump is going to perform and solves the entire Middle East, including the problem of the Iranian regime, then yes, maybe we can be part of it. But for me, it is not clear how he intends to get there. However, it seems that Middle Eastern countries, for example, the Saudis, are not necessarily opposed to this kind of engagement. They are looking for some kind of stability in the region. They have improved their relations with Iran. There are also talks that perhaps the Syrians may one day have relations with Tehran. If the region supports this, how? A region that generally does not have a good track record in terms of human rights. The problem is the same. Regarding the Syrians, we need to wait. The Saudi rulers, and the rest, whenever the situation becomes a little more cohesive, just want a lack of turmoil, no war, just some kind of stability and focus on economic development. Any development in Iran, like a regime change, will first and foremost be a challenge for them. Therefore, I understand that they have found a way to somehow engage with the regime as it is. But it seems that the Iranian people largely do not want this regime to remain in place. You mentioned Syria. What do they think in Iran now? Syria was also a government that was being normalized in the region. Assad returned to the Arab League. We even had countries in the European Union that were talking about normalizing relations with Assad. And everyone was 100 percent sure that he was the strongest man who had control over his entire country, and there was nothing we could do. And [this regime] just disappeared within weeks. This is thought-provoking, what is going through the minds of the Iranian people now; [they] see a regime that is being normalized. Many say it is very powerful, but we know that it is also somewhat hollow. You mentioned Syria. Certainly, many in Iran oppose the Islamic Republic and do not want to live under its rule for another day. In recent years, a discourse among some in Iran has also been that they do not want their country to be destroyed like Syria and have expressed this approach. And perhaps there is a third way. Regarding Syria, I really have mixed feelings about Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham; on the one hand, anything is better than Assad. I went to the Saydnaya prison and saw this system that even killed children up close. We knew these things, but seeing it up close was something else. Now an opening has occurred. And sometimes it reminds me of the discussions I have with Iranians. No one really expected Syria to go this way, but it happened. At the same time, now everyone is very ready for it because they have been prepared for years and have planned and had ideas. Observing this energy gives me a lot of hope. At the same time, people are not naive and ask themselves how long this opening will last and where it will go. As a result, I think we can change the narrative of whether you want to become like Syria. Can you elaborate more? After all, it cannot be denied that nearly 15 years of civil war, destruction, and millions of migrations have also occurred; which of course Iran has also witnessed. But that's the point. Therefore, in recent years, every time there was, for example, an internal unrest or a call for democracy, the rulers who wanted to stay in power just said, do you want to end up like Syria? But now imagine that we can rewrite that narrative; perhaps Syria will now find another way. And I think we should do everything we can to support Syria in this path. Of course, not naively. Who knows where Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham wants to take them. But at this point, there are many groups that can speak freely. I have been in Syria. I was in a park with women from different political groups. And we watched al-Shara's speech and had a heated political discussion together in Damascus. As a result, perhaps we can lead the situation in Syria to a good place, and this gives the people of the region hope that oppressive regimes are not eternal. You are a European politician who focuses a lot on civil society and human rights, especially in the Middle East. But ultimately, you are a European politician, and for Europe, security is certainly its top priority. If Europeans are now talking to Iran to find a way to start negotiations on the nuclear issue, if they find a way forward, do you support it? Let me be very clear: the IRGC is currently a threat to European security. The situation that their proxies have created in the Middle East, supporting Hamas against Israel, supporting Hezbollah, supporting the Houthis who shoot at our ships, and now trying to strengthen their dominance over Iraq; these are threats. All of this is happening in the neighborhood, and not only because the people of these countries are coming to Europe due to instability, but it also affects our security. We also see their support for Russia on the Ukraine issue. Therefore, it is clear that the regime is currently a security threat. In addition, I deeply care about human rights, civil society, and the people of Iran. So it is not that there are some who only want to focus on the issue from a security and stability perspective; there are many who deeply care about Iranians. And you are right that we are simultaneously grappling with this puzzle that there is no escape. If we have the Iranian regime with a nuclear bomb, it becomes more dangerous for us, the region, and also for the people inside Iran. Because now they have the bomb, and it does not matter how foolish they behave towards their citizens, it becomes much more difficult to get rid of them. Look at North Korea. The entire population may starve, but that man has a nuclear bomb. And that is why we are completely stuck. For this reason, I still think that the effort to find a way to prevent these people from acquiring a nuclear bomb requires a lot of effort. The way that both prevents them from acquiring the bomb must have sufficient guarantees, and at the same time does not strengthen the regime; at best, it improves conditions for the people inside the country, even perhaps in a way that one day they find a way and means to overcome this regime.