What after refusing to extend the lifting of sanctions on Iran? Analysts answer policy

The recent Security Council vote on Iran opened a new front of the international division, after a draft resolution would have been postponed to activate the international sanctions, which Tehran considered an illegal step blowing the path of diplomacy and opens the door to a regional nuclear confrontation, whose features are waving.

The decision seemed to be a reflection of a complex equation that exceeds the limits of the nuclear file, as Iran believes that re -waving the sanctions mechanism is based on an agreement torn by US President Donald Trump, and Europe has not fulfilled its pledges accordingly.

As for Tehran, the dependence on “dead” texts is nothing more than a political pressure that has no legal basis, which makes the Western escalation a continuation of the approach of hegemony.

On the opposite bank, the West is based on the reports of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which indicates Tehran raising the level of uranium enrichment to 60%, which Western politicians describe as a step closer to making a nuclear bomb.

The former British Minister of State for Middle East and North Africa, Tobias Elwood considered in his talk to the “Beyond the News” that Iran’s transcendence of this ceiling made it difficult to deal with as a party seeking peace, which strengthened the lineup of European capitals alongside the American position.

But the Iranian vision reflects a different logic; Former political advisor, Mohamed Mahdi Shariatamar, insists that fertilization took place under the control of the International Agency and in accordance with the terms of the agreement itself, which allows the reduction of obligations as a reaction to the violation of the other parties.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BURKXI1O

Illegal

Hence, Tehran considers that the waving of war or sanctions lacks the legal basis, and reveals the inability of the West to fulfill its promises.

The irony is that the division within the Security Council did not obscure the growing risks. According to the professor of international relations at the University of Geneva, Hosni Abidi, the door is still a sign of diplomacy, but the window is narrowing quickly.

The next few days will be decisive, and the upcoming UN meeting may constitute a platform for reviving negotiations if Iran responds to more clear answers about its stock of enriched uranium.

However, the bet on this diplomacy is fraught with many dangers; Abidi warns that the decision of sanctions may turn into an additional pretext that gives the United States and Israel a legal justification for launching military strikes against Iran, which enhances fears of the transmission of the crisis from the corridors of negotiation to the arenas of direct confrontation.

In the background of the scene, a wider dilemma is to link the West between the Iranian nuclear file and Tehran’s regional behavior through what is described as the “Axis of Resistance”.

As for Elwood, Iran’s support for armed movements in the region exacerbates the confidence crisis, and prevents any Western openness to its demands, while Tehran believes that this link is just a political excuse to distract attention from the violation of Europe and America with their pledges.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mplagggpch8

Limited options

This tangle places Iran in front of limited options. Either proceeding with the policy of challenge through fertilization and raising the negotiating ceiling, or accepting additional confidence measures with the International Agency to block the road on European Troika.

However, Shariatamar confirms that Tehran will not be acquired for pressure, citing its ability to withstand an economic siege that extends for decades, and its insistence on staying at the negotiating table despite the Israeli and American strikes.

On the other hand, observers believe that the West is seeking to make sanctions tool to change Iranian behavior without slipping into a comprehensive war, which explains the Europeans’ insistence on reactivating the sanctions mechanism despite their reluctance to engage in wide military action.

However, the ambiguity surrounding the red lines makes the possibility of military strikes existing the higher the levels of enrichment or negotiations.

The international division, then, goes beyond the legal issue of sanctions to a broader test for the future of the global nuclear regime. If Iran continues to enrich, the West will find itself in front of the deterrence dilemma, and if Western capitals insist on sanctions without real negotiating alternatives, it may push Tehran towards a full withdrawal from the treaty prohibition of nuclear proliferation, a scenario that Eloud described as “a loss for all.”