Tehran’s path to ...
Page 1
From an economic standpoint, Europe incurred virtually no cost. Iran plays no role in Europe’s energy supply chains, and trade ties are negligible. Politically, however, the move was costly, showing Europe’s misjudgment of Iran’s response and making trust harder to rebuild. Europe expected Iran to cave—to reduce uranium stockpiles, increase cooperation with the IAEA, or return unconditionally to negotiations with Washington. None of that happened.
What, then, are Iran’s options? Neither extreme path will succeed. A rush to build nuclear weapons or a complete retreat from its nuclear program would both be dead ends. A hedging strategy offers the only viable solution: retain nuclear capability while staying open to dialogue. This enables Iran to maintain strategic flexibility, manage European pressure, and balance threats. It also allows Iran to secure its national interests without resorting to either escalation or capitulation.
This strategy includes preventive measures, managing the effects of sanctions, building economic and social resilience, and strengthening strategic partnerships with countries such as Russia and China. Limited options like threatening to withdraw from the NPT or closing the Strait of Hormuz are neither effective nor sustainable. North Korea’s experience shows that leaving the NPT and brandishing nuclear threats without real operational backing only creates costs without results. Unlike North Korea, Iran faces a hostile adversary—Israel—on its doorstep, which makes such tactics even riskier.
Hedging, by contrast, is rational and practical. It keeps the door to negotiations open, strengthens resilience, and preserves nuclear capability as leverage. In today’s polarized world, where Iran is already perceived as a structural adversary in Europe, hedging provides the only realistic framework. It offers Iran the means to protect its interests, maintain diplomatic flexibility, and balance threats while avoiding the pitfalls of both confrontation and submission.