Zahra Asghari – International Affairs Expert

US Withdrawal from the JCPOA
The three European ministers, in this article, made no mention of the fundamental realities that have shaped the current situation. While the unilateral withdrawal of the Trump administration from the JCPOA in 2018 effectively disabled an agreement that had been formalized by UN Security Council Resolution 2231, and left Iran practically without enjoying its economic benefits, Europe and the US placed Iran under political and legal pressures under the pretext of non-compliance with nuclear commitments under the JCPOA. Europe’s silence in the face of this major violation, along with its inability to implement the INSTEX mechanism while simultaneously imposing sanctions under various pretexts, severely damaged Tehran’s trust.

Ignoring Iran’s Legitimate Rights
The Europeans, in their article, emphasize that Iran’s 60% enrichment is unprecedented. Still, they refrain from stating that, according to the NPT, Iran, like other members, has the right to peaceful use of nuclear energy. Also overlooked is the fact that Iran’s compensatory measures following the US withdrawal from the JCPOA were a response to pressures and bad faith on the part of the other party, particularly the three European countries. They also fail to explain why Iran should be fully committed to its JCPOA obligations when they themselves have not fulfilled any of their commitments under this agreement.

Disregarding the Destructive Role of the Israeli Regime
Another significant absence in the article by the foreign ministers of the three European countries is the Israeli regime. This regime’s actions to derail the JCPOA and oppose this agreement during the 2013-2015 nuclear negotiations were evident. In the years after the agreement, actions including sabotage attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, the assassination of scientists, and threats of military action were all part of the security equation the Israeli regime employed against Iran’s nuclear program. In its latest effort in May, with US accompaniment, it launched a military attack against Iran—a fellow IAEA member whose nuclear program is under IAEA supervision—while the three European countries even refused to condemn this action politically. Despite all these events, Europe has preferred to only point to “increased tensions” by Iran and remain silent about other factors, which are sometimes due to the actions of themselves and their allies.

Europe’s Political Motives
The foreign ministers of the three European countries claimed in the mentioned article that they have “seriously endeavored in diplomacy.” Still, they do not explain why, just as Resolution 2231 was nearing its end, they thought to activate the trigger mechanism. While they emphasize that they made two generous proposals to Iran, they have not disclosed the details of these proposals to clarify why Iran declared them unfair and unacceptable.
The three European countries do not address why, when in 2020 they unprecedentedly countered the Trump administration’s actions to extend Resolution 2231 and prevent the termination of Iran’s arms embargo, they are now considering using the trigger mechanism and, in exchange for its extension, are demanding unreasonable political and technical concessions from Iran?
The article by the three European ministers is more a political text to legitimize this mechanism—a mechanism they prevented the US from operationalizing in 2020—than a comprehensive report on the situation and their reasons for activating the trigger mechanism. In 2020, European countries and the international community stated that the US, as a party that had withdrawn from the JCPOA, could not utilize this mechanism, despite the US remaining a member of the Security Council and being committed to Resolution 2231. How is it that today, the European Troika considers the situation suitable for resorting to the trigger mechanism despite the 2020 precedent?
In other words, by ignoring the US withdrawal from the JCPOA, their own inaction, disregard for Iran’s rights under the NPT, JCPOA, and Resolution 2231, the role of the Israeli regime, and even the humanitarian consequences of sanctions which included humanitarian sanctions, they present an incomplete narrative that tries to place the entire burden of responsibility on Tehran, while the reality is something else.

The reality is that the Iranian nuclear crisis cannot be resolved through pressure and sanctions alone, but only by returning to mutual commitments, lifting sanctions, restoring mutual trust, and by the European and American parties abandoning excessive demands and making concessions. Any attempt to present a one-sided narrative will only further distance diplomacy from resolving the crisis. On the other hand, the consequences of reinstating the six Security Council resolutions against Iran, economically and even politically, are debatable, because since 2018, after the US withdrew from the JCPOA, sanctions have been applied maximally against Iran, and European countries and other US allies have moved in this direction as well.
If sanctions were still a deterrent factor regarding Iran’s nuclear issue, the US and the Israeli regime would not use the option that has always been on their table for over two decades: military attack. Therefore, it must be said that activating the trigger mechanism, especially illegally and without following the procedures envisaged in the JCPOA, is merely an effort by these countries to gain concessions from the US regarding the Ukraine issue, because this process will not only bring Tehran to the negotiating table but may also escalate tensions to higher levels.