After the European transformation … Tehran options between confrontation and complete isolation policy

With the escalation of tension around the Iranian nuclear file, a remarkable shift emerged in the European position, which gradually moved from playing the role of cautious broker to the clear alignment behind the American position.

This displacement is not limited to the technical aspects related to enrichment and inspection, but rather exceeds it to reflect political and strategic accounts related to the war in Ukraine and the balance of power with Moscow and Beijing, which puts Tehran in front of growing diplomatic isolation and options that are more complicated.

The Iranian threat to exclude European Troika from any future negotiating paths that reflects an increasing feeling that Europe is no longer a partner that can be betrayed.

According to the vision of the former Iranian diplomat Abbas Khmayar, what is happening is not real negotiations, but rather an attempt to impose an American agenda through the European gate, which makes the old continent just a political follower, not an independent party.

On the other hand, European reading appears completely different, as Paris, Berlin and London consider that Tehran has not fully committed to the requirements of transparency with the atomic energy agency, which makes it closer to Washington in the file approach.

European bias

The professor of political science in Paris, Ziad Majid, believes that Europe, under the pressure of its need for American support in other files, is no longer able to differentiate, so she chose to align with the American position, even at the expense of its traditional success.

This European shift leaves Iran in front of a more difficult equation. On the one hand, Moscow and Beijing communicated to provide a political margin that prevents complete isolation, but the ability of these two countries to compensate for Iranian economic losses remains limited.

On the other hand, the US -European escalation doubles economic pressures, with the increasing possibilities of imposing more severe sanctions that include vital sectors such as armament, energy and finance.

American analyst Adolfo Franco notes that the administration of President Donald Trump does not see an alternative to the unconditional inspection of nuclear sites, noting that the continuation of the current path may lead to military strikes against Tehran.

This discourse devotes – according to observers – a more dictation negotiating environment than dialogue, and pushes Iran to think of unable to secure consequences.

But these options do not seem comfortable for Tehran, as hardening may lead to suffocating isolation and an accelerated economic collapse, while engaging in partial concessions carries the risk of appearing in the position of weakness in front and outside.

Tehran bet

Therefore, Tehran is betting on earning time and keeping the door open to conditional negotiation, while waving the expansion of its cooperation with Russia and China as a balance of Western pressure.

However, this betting faces objective challenges, Russia -sunken in its Ukrainian war does not have a surplus ability to save the Iranian economy from the effects of sanctions, and China – which is considered the most important commercial partner for Tehran – has been dealing with pragmatic in all previous stages, in a way that guarantees its interests without engaging in a direct confrontation with the West.

The major dilemma is that the Iranian discourse is still reliable to reveal the duplication of international standards, whether by comparing its nuclear program with the international ignorance of the Israeli arsenal, or by noting that the American withdrawal from the 2015 agreement is the origin of the crisis.

But this logic, although it finds political and moral sympathy in some circles, is no longer sufficient to change the actual powers of the forces at the negotiating table.

Therefore, Europe, which years ago was trying to play a safety valve between Washington and Tehran, is today closer to a pressure side, while Iran’s position is more complicated by the intertwining of its internal and external crises.

In the absence of a real balance initiative, the next stage appears to be governed by either more escalation and penalties, or with a settlement imposed by the balance of power at the expense of Tehran.