The Iranian crisis further cause for friction between Washington and Brussels

The difficult dialectic between the US and the European Union seems to get worse every day. After the problem of the European armed force and the threat of sanctions by Washington, due to the question of European armaments, the dispute moves to respect the Iranian nuclear treaty. While it is known that the two sides are on opposite positions, the developments of the events in the Persian Gulf, where two Saudi oil tankers would have been sabotaged, aggravate the comparison. The episode of the sabotaged oil tankers, without consequences for the crew and the ships themselves, seems to have been created specifically to raise the tension between Saudi Arabia and then USA, with Iran. Tehran has denied having played an active role in sabotage and the extent of the serious damage appears to favor an act used as a pretext, just when Brussels and Washington are discussing the application of the Iranian nuclear treaty. The starting point of the signature on this agreement was not a sign of friendship of the West towards Iran, which remains a country where democratic freedoms and civil rights are increasingly denied, but an opportunity reasoning to contain in a legal manner a potential military nuclear development of the Islamic Republic. Trump has overturned this assumption also because of the pressure of the Sunni monarchies and of Israel, triggering a situation of tension due to the renewal of the sanctions towards Iran, imposed also to the European companies that intend to collaborate with Tehran. Perhaps the intention of the American president is to provoke a revolt in the population, which constitutes the real victim of the economic blockade, which causes the country's financial crisis. Once again it is a wrong calculation, because the opposition has no chance within a regime that exercises rigid control. The American pressure on European diplomacy has the aim of achieving the alignment of Brussels on the White House positions, but this appears very difficult: the achievement of the signature on the nuclear treaty is one of the greatest diplomatic successes of the Union and a unilateral withdrawal like the American one would represent a loss of image and credibility that would be difficult to recover, for an international subject that, at the moment, has one of its greatest strengths in diplomacy. For the awareness of the importance of this aspect, in fact, Iran is pursuing its strategy of seeking compliance with the agreements by the signatories who have not withdrawn. The relevance of the issue increases with the development of the events of the Persian Gulf, where the danger of an accident that could also trigger a conflict is increasingly present, together with the visit of the US Secretary of State to the meeting of foreign ministers of the Union, visit which led to the postponement of one day of the scheduled meeting with the Russian foreign minister. The unscheduled presence in Europe of the American Secretary of State in such a particular context could be read as the desire to try to exert more direct pressure on the attitude of the Union, also in view of possible military developments. Trump has repeatedly threatened Iran and the occurrence of sabotage or disturbing actions against ships from allied countries could authorize the US to produce non-diplomatic responses, partly because Washington sent its own naval fleet to the Persian Gulf. The European position is of great concern but remains unmovable on the question of the treaty: Brussels could take advantage of this opportunity to finally exercise a leading role to resolve the potential crisis in a diplomatic manner and reaffirm the absolute political autonomy with respect to an increasingly reckless American president .