The Europeans’ sham market

In the turbulent world of diplomacy and international relations, scenes sometimes unfold that, on the surface, appear ordinary and within familiar protocols, but beneath the surface conceal complexities and hidden aims.

What we are witnessing in the process of reimposing UN Security Council sanctions on Iran possesses both of these outward and inward characteristics! In other words, even the appearances of the game have not been observed in this process by the American and European side.

The recent activation of the snapback mechanism by the European troika (composed of France, Germany and the United Kingdom) and also by the International Atomic Energy Agency is a clear example of such a scenario. This action, which has drawn much attention in recent days, looks more like a theatrical “sham market” than a genuine step based on concrete realities. What is presented as “snapback” here has neither intrinsic value nor a fixed price; rather, it reflects the will of another actor located on the other side of the Atlantic, namely in Washington.

The Europeans’ big mistake

To understand this phenomenon more deeply, two fundamental points must be noted. The first relates to the West’s strategy toward Iran. The West, especially the United States, sought to use the lever of “delaying the finalization of the snapback mechanism” to compel Iran to accept its demands in future nuclear negotiations. The West faces two key unknowns regarding Iran’s nuclear program: “the true fate of the Natanz and Fordow facilities” and “the exact location of the stockpile of 60% enriched uranium.”

These unknowns limit the West’s room for maneuver and risk tolerance while increasing Tehran’s leverage and vulnerability. The European troika, on behalf of the United States and the Zionist regime, has been tasked with triggering the snapback process to force Iran, in exchange for a delay in its full implementation (but not its definitive cancellation), to solve these multiple‑unknown equations with its own hands. As long as these vital unresolved components remain, the West cannot proceed with complete confidence to subsequent steps. Therefore, it is essential first to correctly recognize and understand the philosophy and nature of this “sham market” as well as the coordinates, rules, and instruments of this arena.

Trading in the West’s sham market is forbidden!

The second point concerns the consequences of Iran accepting the rules of this game. The more we move toward accepting the rules of this “sham market,” the more it means accepting the logic of buying and selling within it. This implies that our main effort and focus must be on “destroying the enemy’s strategic puzzle” and disrupting their grand design, rather than merely getting entangled in their minor and superficial methods and tactics. Managing this difficult scene is challenging, but not impossible.

One important part of this confrontation is the repeated public arguments by the Islamic Republic of Iran, Russia, and China regarding the lack of legitimacy in Europe’s activation of the snapback mechanism. This approach is directed at the “nature of the West’s sham market,” not the “rules of participation in this market.” We must insist on this very argument (which has so far been rightly emphasized by our Ministry of Foreign Affairs) and avoid entering the deceptive outer layers of this dangerous game designed on both sides of the Atlantic. Our power to disrupt the core and essence of this game must not be underestimated.

Part of a multifaceted strategy

This nuclear “sham market” is not merely a momentary diplomatic event, but rather part of a long‑term, multifaceted strategy designed to comprehensively contain Iran. This strategy is rooted in a negative and pessimistic view of the Islamic system that exists, to varying degrees, across different political spectrums in the West, including French socialists and conservatives. This approach should not be seen as a tactical or short‑term decision, but rather as the result of deep strategic thinking. In this context, the role of political leaders, such as Emmanuel Macron, President of France, becomes prominent. His commitments since 2017 to the United States—to permanently impose limitations on Iran’s nuclear program and to curb its missile program—indicate the depth of this strategy.

Recent analytical notes rightly warn that we should not fall into the “blame‑game” trap designed by the Western side, especially France. The President of France may claim that Iran has not cooperated adequately, but this claim is part of an effort to divert attention from their own breaches of promise.

It is essential that our diplomatic apparatus break its silence regarding France’s breach of promises, and that the country’s officials, with transparency and decisiveness, expose the true nature of decision‑making in Europe. This clarification will not only help illuminate the facts for public opinion but can also deter future actions. Meanwhile, Macron emerges as a symbol of the European Union whose political life many believe is nearing its end, which itself can be a challenge to the sustainability of its long‑term strategies.

What should our approach be?

Therefore, Iran’s approach to this “sham market” should be based on exact knowledge of the enemy, the maintenance of strategic vigilance, and a focus on its own strengths. Using diplomatic, legal, and media tools to expose the nature of Western actions and emphasize their lack of legitimacy can help neutralize this strategic puzzle.

Ultimately, Iran’s real power lies not in engaging with minor tactics but in disrupting the core and essence of the game designed by the enemy. This requires prudence, decisiveness, and unity in the country’s foreign policy so that, in the face of increasing pressure, a firm and effective stance can be taken.

Meanwhile, our diplomatic and foreign policy apparatus should move away from the substance of official and covert diplomacy (whose channels so far have not produced results in curbing the West’s brazen game) and redefine and confirm its focus within the framework of public diplomacy. In that case, the costs for the West in confronting Iran will certainly increase considerably compared to before.