Europeans have already ...
Page 1
Could the European proposal for a temporary extension of the snapback mechanism be seen as a sign of willingness to preserve room for negotiation? And in this context, what opportunities exist for Iran?
The idea of an extension does not offer Iran any particular advantage; it merely buys a few more months for diplomacy. The Europeans seem intent on pushing it to the wire to see whether Tehran backs down. That is why they continue to insist on their earlier demands: that Iran allow IAEA inspectors to access nuclear facilities, especially those that came under attack. Iran, however, has strong reservations, since any information gathered by the agency could easily leak out to Western parties, the US, or Israel—who are eager for an exact assessment of the impact of their strikes. This makes the issue highly sensitive, with direct implications for Iran’s national security.
The second demand is for clarity on enriched uranium stockpiles—whether they have been destroyed or remain intact. Again, this is part of a Western effort to gauge the effectiveness of their actions.
Many of the conditions set by Europeans can actually be resolved through the same cooperative process with the IAEA in a reasonable timeframe. The problem is that Europeans seem to have made up their minds in advance and are not really looking for solutions.
A third issue relates to talks with the United States. Iran has repeatedly expressed readiness for fair negotiations based on mutual interests. But Washington not only backed Israel’s strike during those talks—it later joined in directly. On top of that, the US walked away from the negotiating table. If progress is to be made, it is they who must come back.
Given that the European parties keep doubling down on their position, how can Iran continue the process of building trust within the framework of cooperation with the IAEA?
Iran has already taken every conceivable step. This latest agreement carries features that could well pave the way for a way-out of the current standoff, provided there is genuine will to seek solutions rather than a preordained decision aimed solely at turning the screws on Iran.
If the chosen path is confrontation, the only outcome will be further escalation—a scenario that benefits no one. Admittedly, finding a way forward is far from easy; with Europe’s current stance and the added pressure from Washington, the odds of reaching a breakthrough may be slim. But while difficult, it is not impossible.
If European countries go ahead with reinstating sanctions, what options exist for Iran to manage political and economic pressure?
Iran has tried every available path to lift sanctions—from negotiations to cooperation with the IAEA and engagement with its counterparts—but these efforts have not produced the desired results. Naturally, when one path leads nowhere, alternatives must be pursued. The Iranian president’s recent participation in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit, along with meetings with leaders from various countries—particularly Eastern powers—sent a clear signal of such a strategy: in the absence of successful engagement with the West and in the face of heightened confrontation, Iran will increasingly lean on partnerships with Eastern states. To put it bluntly, rather than “commit suicide out of fear of death,” Iran will focus on shoring up alternatives to navigate this phase as well.
The opposing side, of course, is aiming for Iran’s submission. The West is not genuinely interested in negotiations. What they call talks is, in reality, an attempt to dictate terms that fit into their preferred deal. What they demand from Iran amounts to capitulation—neither aligned with Iran’s national interests nor those of its people. And even if such demands were met, it would not mark an end to the matter, but merely the beginning of a fresh round of pressure designed to further weaken Iran.
That is why Tehran has little choice but to grow stronger and to find alternative routes to withstand the mounting pressure.