The recent behavior of Germany, France and the United Kingdom in drafting and passing a resolution against Iran once again showed that the West remains trapped in the outdated pressure-and-negotiation paradigm—one that failed years ago but still lingers in the minds of European decision-makers. Acting on behalf of the United States, the three countries passed a resolution that, with the dissolution of the JCPOA and the annulment of Resolution 2231, effectively has no legal basis. While the Agency is obligated under safeguards rules and the NPT to treat Iran like any other member state, Europe seeks to use the Agency as an instrument of pressure.
The U.S. Treasury’s new sanctions, Canada’s human-rights resolution against Iran, and this latest European move all sit within a single, continuous project: reproducing pressure to extract unilateral concessions from Tehran. The European troika’s new claim about “opening the door to diplomacy” is nothing more than a call for Iran to surrender to U.S. demands, given that Europe has already admitted it has no independent authority from Washington on this file.
Collapse of the Unipolar Illusion
Europe continues to replay the pressure-and-negotiation game even as global developments clearly show that a unipolar order no longer exists. Voting statistics alone make this evident. Despite heavy Western lobbying, the anti-Iran resolution at the Board of Governors received only 19 votes in favor, while 15 countries abstained or voted against—effectively calling its legitimacy into question. In the UN human-rights resolution on Iran, 63 countries abstained—another sign that the West no longer possesses its old consensus-building power.
The joint statement issued by Iran, Russia, China, Belarus, Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Zimbabwe condemning the U.S. and Israeli attacks on safeguarded nuclear facilities further reflects this shift in global power. China stated plainly that pressure to pass a confrontational resolution would worsen the situation and said the international community must condemn military attacks on Iran. Russia likewise called Europe’s and America’s conduct “destructive and destabilizing.”
The coordination among Non-Aligned Movement member states, the support of the UN Group of Friends, and backing from emerging frameworks such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and BRICS for expanding cooperation with Iran all indicate that the world is not only transforming but also forming new power centers in which the West no longer sits at the top.
Iran’s Consistent Paradigm Versus the West’s Manufactured Shifts
The West assumes that by activating the snapback mechanism or passing unrealistic resolutions, it can force Iran to retreat—overlooking the fact that Iran has repeatedly shown it does not yield under pressure, and that every concession simply fuels new Western demands. Tehran has stated repeatedly that with the end of the JCPOA, its basis for cooperation with the Agency is strictly limited to safeguards and the NPT, and it will not accept any measures beyond them.
Senior Foreign Ministry officials—Araghchi, Gharibabadi and Najafi—have stated plainly that the Board of Governors’ latest resolution effectively ends the Cairo agreement. Meanwhile, in circumstances where the Agency has refused even to condemn U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities, the demand for inspections of bombed-out sites is meaningless
Iran will continue its technical and legal cooperation in line with regulations, but it will not allow baseless claims or insincere Agency reports to become tools of pressure. Iran’s paradigm—rooted in indigenous capability, internal cohesion, and its global standing—cannot be altered.
Security: A Concept the West Uses Only for Exploitation
Europe’s claim that it is concerned about global security bears no resemblance to its actual behavior. If Europe truly cared about security, why did it not condemn the U.S. and Israeli military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities? Are the dozens of U.S. nuclear tests and those of some of its allies not a threat to global security? Is Europe’s full-throated support for the genocide in Gaza not a dismissal of risks to international security? And is the massive flow of weapons to Ukraine—which has displaced millions—not a clear example of disregard for security
Europe’s double standards show that the governing principle of Western foreign policy is neither security nor ethics. This is the same truth that Josep Borrell, the EU’s former foreign-policy chief, stated openly: “Morality has no place in the European Union’s foreign policy.”
NOURNEWS