Europe’s persistence in a major strategic mistake

In continuation of its unconstructive stance toward Iran’s nuclear issue, the European Union issued a new statement announcing that several non-EU countries—including Albania, Norway, Serbia, and Ukraine—have aligned themselves with the European Council’s decision to reimpose nuclear sanctions on Iran, in line with the “snapback” mechanism.

The recent developments surrounding the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear file and the European Council’s decision to activate the “trigger mechanism” under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) once again expose serious doubts about the EU’s strategic independence and its understanding of today’s complex geopolitical dynamics.

The tripartite decision by the European Troika (the UK, Germany, and France) to move forward with the trigger mechanism in the JCPOA Joint Commission was not a cautious diplomatic act; rather, it revealed the degree to which these countries are playing in Washington’s field.

This activation comes at a time when the United States, after its unilateral withdrawal from the deal in 2018, had already undermined the agreement’s diplomatic framework. When the three main European powers under the JCPOA (E3) choose to use this mechanism, the move can only be interpreted as a strategic surrender to U.S. pressure and narratives. Ultimately, Europe has willingly become an integral component of the Washington–Tel Aviv strategic confrontation puzzle against Tehran.

Europe has long claimed that it seeks to preserve the JCPOA as a diplomatic achievement and resist the policy of “maximum pressure.” However, triggering the snapback mechanism has undermined this very principle. This decision reflects how short-term energy security interests and domestic political pressures—especially in France and Germany—have overpowered the EU’s strategic independence, positioning Europe in the role the U.S. has designed for it: exerting maximum pressure instead of acting as an effective mediator.

Under these circumstances, engaging in negotiations with the European Union would not only represent a strategic and calculative mistake, but also a cognitive error in the foreign policy approach of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The primary critique even among Western strategists is that the EU lacks a comprehensive understanding of both the textual realities (technical details of obligations and violations) and the contextual realities (regional and global political-security dynamics).

Nevertheless, the EU’s latest statement shows that the bloc remains far from achieving the level of strategic maturity required to act as an independent and credible player in the international system.