Well, technically the condition was to expel the israeli and US ambassadors. This is the other way around, and AFAIK withdrawing your own ambassador is considered a less aggressive move than expelling the ambassador of the other country. And either way I strongly doubt they will do anything about their US relationship. So this seems to be just a based thing to do rather than trying to comply with iranian demands

edit: it seems israel already withdrawn their ambassador from Spain last May, so this move now feels completely unrelated to the demands.

This is a really naive take - this amendment (which requires message scanning to be targeted) passed with a slim majority and could well have failed. In that case the existing mass surveillance (“voluntary scanning”) would probably keep happening at least until 2028.

The council meanwhile is overwhelmingly pro-message-scanning, and they (together with the commission) are the ones who are pushing to break e2e encryption. There will now be talks between the three institutions to decide on how to proceed. Sadly I expect that some “compromise” will be reached eventually.

I get your point, but if you actually go out and speak with women who trust you, chances are they will all have multiple stories of harassment and/or SA that will make your skin crawl. It’s not just fearmongering, there are a lot of awful men out there (in absolute terms)

I’m surprised how many (well-meaning) men are clueless about this horrible aspect of life which is so universal for women.