TEHRAN – The Europeans’ confrontational strategy toward Iran represents a perilous gamble that is increasingly unlikely to succeed. This approach not only fails to fulfill its intended objectives but also pushes Iran toward severe actions, including a possible withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a move that faces significant opposition within Iran’s leadership.
Initially, Europe condemned Donald Trump’s decision in 2018 to withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and vocally expressed support for Iran. However, in recent years, Europe has dramatically altered its stance, embracing a progressively hostile posture toward Tehran. This significant shift reached a climax on November 21, 2024, when the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors unanimously approved a censure resolution against Iran, a document meticulously drafted by the European Troika (the UK, France, and Germany), which are the remaining JCPOA signatories along with Iran, Russia, and China.
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was a landmark agreement established in 2015 between Iran and the P5+1 group of nations, which limited Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions. Since Trump’s unilateral exit from the deal in 2018, the agreement has disintegrated, resulting in re-imposed sanctions against Iran, pursued under a “maximum pressure” strategy. While European nations remained part of the deal, they struggled to mitigate the adverse impacts of renewed U.S. sanctions. Although Tehran initially complied with all its JCPOA obligations following the U.S. withdrawal, by 2020, the pressure from Europe began to escalate, compelling Iran to scale back on some commitments.
The resolution passed by the IAEA Board of Governors marked the fifth time Iran has faced censure for purported “non-compliance” with the JCPOA. These ongoing censures consistently demand greater access and cooperation from Iran for UN inspectors, yet they conspicuously overlook the West’s ongoing failure to uphold its commitments under the agreement. As a result, Iran is now juggling significantly higher sanctions than those imposed prior to the JCPOA, leading to a severely compromised economy that stands in stark contrast to the economic growth the agreement was designed to offer.
The latest IAEA resolution against Iran was adopted even as the country had taken steps to cap its stockpile of 60%-enriched uranium and permitted new inspectors to enter as a precautionary measure. Despite lacking immediate punitive effects, the resolution is perceived as a critical step toward activating the “snap-back” mechanism, a nuclear option poised to expire ten years after the JCPOA’s signing. This mechanism is embedded within UN Security Council Resolution 2231, allowing the P5+1 to reimpose debilitating UN sanctions on Iran if they perceive it as non-compliant. In contrast, Tehran currently has no analogous mechanism to ensure Western adherence to the JCPOA.
In light of these developments, an increasing number of Iranians are beginning to question the advantages of continued cooperation with the IAEA. In response to the hostile actions taken by Europe, Iranian authorities have announced new measures, such as deploying advanced centrifuges and expanding uranium enrichment capabilities. An originally unpopular sentiment is swiftly gaining traction among the populace: a potential withdrawal from the NPT.
“We’re pressured into signing agreements, then pressured when we comply, and further pressured when the other side violates the deal,” noted an Iranian office worker in his early 30s. “If we’re going to face pressure regardless of our actions, what’s the point of cooperating? The economic hardships are only escalating; the Western sanctions feel inescapable. But maybe leaving the NPT and exploring alternative options could safeguard our security against Western aggression and its proxy, Israel.”
A growing skepticism toward total cooperation with the IAEA, fueled by the West’s intransigence, is now permeating even the highest echelons of Iran’s leadership. The stringent warning delivered by Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi in a special interview on November 21 underscores this shift. “If the snapback mechanism is triggered, Iran will withdraw from the NPT,” Gharibabadi asserted, emphasizing that this decision was already communicated to European counterparts during the tenure of the late President Ebrahim Raisi.
While Europe may currently perceive success in its dual strategy of neglecting its JCPOA obligations while exerting pressure on Iran, it risks reaching an irreversible point where negotiations regarding Iran’s nuclear program may forever be derailed.
### Interview on Europe’s Confrontational Strategy Towards Iran
### Interview on Europe’s Confrontational Strategy Towards Iran
**Host:** Welcome to our programme. Today, we’re diving deep into the evolving relationship between Europe and Iran, particularly in light of recent tensions surrounding the nuclear deal. We have with us Dr. Sara Elam, an expert in international relations and Middle Eastern politics. Thank you for joining us, Dr. Elam.
**Dr. Elam:** Thank you for having me. It’s a pleasure to be here.
**Host:** Let’s start by discussing Europe’s recent censure of Iran by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). On November 21, 2024, the IAEA Board of Governors approved a resolution against Iran, largely influenced by the European Troika—France, Germany, and the UK. What does this mean for the future of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)?
**Dr. Elam:** The resolution marks a significant turning point. It represents the fifth time Iran has faced censure for purported non-compliance with the JCPOA. This ongoing hostility not only undermines the original intent of the agreement, which was to promote cooperation and secure Iran’s nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief, but it also escalates tensions significantly. Interestingly, Iran’s leadership is now facing internal pressure, as many question the benefits of continued cooperation amidst escalating sanctions and European confrontational policies.
**Host:** It seems that this transition in Europe’s stance—from initially supporting Iran after the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA to a more hostile approach—has complicated matters further. What do you think triggered this shift?
**Dr. Elam:** Several factors are at play here. When Donald Trump withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018, European nations strongly condemned the move and sought to maintain the deal. However, as Iran began to reduce its compliance in response to renewed sanctions and escalating pressure from the U.S. and Europe, the dynamics shifted. Europe’s current strategy appears to be fueled by a mix of desperation to contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions and a desire to align more closely with U.S. policy. However, this confrontational approach raises the stakes and risks pushing Iran towards drastic measures, including possible withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which could significantly destabilize the region.
**Host:** That’s quite alarming. With the IAEA resolution seen as a precursor to activating the “snap-back” mechanism for sanctions, how do you foresee Iran’s response?
**Dr. Elam:** Iran’s potential response could be multifaceted. While there is internal resistance to departing from the NPT, the pressure from external sanctions and international isolation might incentivize a more radical shift in policy. If Tehran perceives that compliance is leading to more severe sanctions and censure, it may decide that the risks of withdrawal or further enriching uranium outweigh the benefits of sticking with the agreement. The Iranian leadership is currently in a difficult position, as public sentiment is turning against the idea of unilateral concessions that have not yielded results.
**Host:** Given this precarious situation, what do you recommend as a path forward for European nations and the international community?
**Dr. Elam:** Dialogue remains essential. The ongoing escalation only serves to deepen the divide. European nations need to acknowledge their role in the current crisis and work towards rebuilding trust with Iran. This could involve revisiting the terms of the JCPOA, providing tangible economic incentives, and ensuring a more balanced approach to compliance that holds all parties accountable—not just Iran. Engaging in honest dialogue might prevent a complete breakdown of relations and help stabilize the region.
**Host:** Thank you, Dr. Elam, for sharing your insights. It’s clear that the situation remains complex and deeply intertwined with international relations. We appreciate your expertise on this pressing issue.
**Dr. Elam:** Thank you. It’s important to keep the conversation going as the situation evolves.
**Host:** That’s all the time we have today. Thank you for tuning in, and we hope you’ll join us next time as we continue to explore pressing global issues.
