The sanctions imposed this week on Iran by the Council of Europe and the UK Labor government represent yet another chapter in a Western policy characterized by hypocrisy and double standards. Despite Tehran’s announcement, made only a day earlier, of a resumption of nuclear talks with European countries, Brussels and London decided to tighten punitive measures against the country, accusing it of militarily supporting Russia in the war in Ukraine and of arming groups in the Middle Eastern region. Accusations, however, which appear unfounded and, to say the least, contradictory.
Europe justified the new sanctions on the basis of the alleged transfer of Iranian drones and missiles to Russia, used in the Ukrainian conflict. However, the Ukrainian president himself Volodymyr Zelensky recently stated that there is no evidence of supplies of ballistic missiles by Iran. Despite this, the measures hit Iranian strategic sectors hard, such as the shipping company IRISL and the national airline Iran Air, accused of transporting weapons and “related military technologies” to Moscow.
Ali Akbar Safaei, Iranian Deputy Minister for Road and Urban Infrastructure and CEO of the “Ports and Maritime Organization”, defined these sanctions as an attack on the civilian population. IRISL, Safaei reiterated, is a commercial company whose main purpose is the transportation of basic necessities, especially in the Caspian Sea. The latest punitive measures will therefore weigh mainly on the civilian population. The accusations of transport of military weapons are “baseless illusions” and follow the US approach of building pretexts to intensify economic pressure.
At the same time, the West appears to ignore Israeli actions in the region, including indiscriminate bombing of Gaza and the genocide of the Palestinian population. While Iran is accused of supporting groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, Israel, equipped with an undeclared nuclear arsenal and outside the control of the IAEA, continues to receive diplomatic cover and military support.
The sanctions come at a delicate moment, with the possible return of Donald Trump to the US presidency. The rumors speak of his plan to relaunch the “maximum pressure” policies against Tehran, which had already proved unsuccessful during his first mandate. While Trump prepares a team of anti-Iranian “hawks”, unconfirmed sources suggest that Elon Musk has secretly met with the Iranian ambassador to the UN to explore alternative diplomatic channels. In short, the situation, awaiting Trump’s inauguration in the White House on January 20th, remains fluid and it is perhaps not a given that the Republican president’s second term will be a photocopy of the first in terms of relations with the Islamic Republic.
On the other hand, 2024 is not 2016. The geopolitical reality of the Middle East has changed. The Beijing agreement between Iran and Saudi Arabia, mediated by China, re-established diplomatic relations between the two main regional players, marking a decline in Western influence and, as demonstrated by the latest developments following the vertex of the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, a certain preventive distancing from the radical American positions dominated by the “neocons”. Furthermore, Iran has strengthened its economic position, reaching pre-sanctions oil production levels thanks to cooperation with Russia and China, demonstrating the substantial ineffectiveness of Western punitive measures, especially in relation to the objective of altering Tehran’s behavior and its strategic priorities linked to the principles of “resistance”.
The 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA), which had represented a rare diplomatic success, was sabotaged by Donald Trump’s unilateral US withdrawal in 2018. Since then, Iran has progressively abandoned its commitments, eventually reaching a uranium enrichment level of 60% and increasing its technological capacity.
Western behavior, however, has shown a clear lack of willingness to respect Iran’s strategic needs, as a recent analysis of the Tehran Times. Despite concessions from Tehran, which had significantly reduced its uranium stockpile and accepted rigorous IAEA inspections, the United States and Europe did not keep their promises, instead continuing to impose sanctions and ignoring requests for guarantees on compliance with the agreements.
The unequal treatment between Iran and Israel represents one of the most critical points in this context. While the Islamic Republic, signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), has always collaborated with the IAEA, Israel remains immune to any type of control, despite being an undeclared nuclear power.
Western sanctions, while heavy, have not achieved their goal of significantly weakening Iran. Instead, the country has strengthened its self-sufficiency, developed independent strategic industries and diversified its trading partners.
As highlighted again by Tehran TimesTrump’s return and the intensification of “maximum pressure” policies risk achieving the opposite of what is desired, pushing Iran towards even stronger alliances with rival Western powers. Furthermore, a possible military intervention against Tehran, already evoked by some analysts after Trump’s recent presidential success and the appointment of the first “hawks” to some crucial positions in the nascent cabinet, would represent an enormous risk, with unpredictable consequences on regional stability and global.
The West therefore continues to follow a path that has already proven ineffective. Without a change in approach, which includes respect for international agreements and recognition of Iran’s legitimate security concerns, the conflict with Tehran will remain unsolvable. In an increasingly multipolar global context, persisting in Iran’s isolation is tantamount to strengthening the already evident cracks in Western hegemony.
The latest sanctions against Iran are thus yet another example of a policy based on flimsy pretexts and a stubborn desire to ignore regional dynamics. The West should abandon the arrogance that has characterized its diplomacy in recent decades and recognize that Iran is no longer willing to bow to a unilateral international order. Dialogue and mutual respect are the only viable ways to avoid an escalation with unpredictable consequences.
1. How does the new set of sanctions imposed by the Council of Europe and the UK Labor government against Iran reflect Western policy towards the country, and what are the potential long-term implications of these measures?
2. Does President Volodymyr Zelensky’s statement about there being no evidence of Iranian ballistic missile supplies to Russia undermine the EU’s justification for imposing sanctions on Iran?
3. How does the economic and diplomatic relationship between Iran and China and Russia compare to their ties with Western powers, and what impact could this have on regional stability and global politics?
4. To what extent can Israel’s continued violations of international law and regional aggression be justified as a pretext for sanctions against Iran, and what are the broader implications of selective enforcement of these measures?
5. How has Iran responded to previous Western sanctions, and what are the potential consequences of maintaining or intensifying current economic pressure?
6. Are there any potential benefits to the recent lack of cooperation from Iran in the JCPOA and its advancements in uranium enrichment, or could it lead to further destabilization in the Middle East?
7. What are some potential alternative diplomatic paths forward for the West to engage with Iran, and how can mutual respect and recognition of Iran’s security concerns be incorporated into future negotiations?
