Tehran – Europe remains a tough stance against Tehran, reflected in the expansion of sanctions, leveraging the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to scrutinize Iran’s nuclear program and host anti-Iranian terrorist groups.
European leaders like EU foreign policy director Kaja Kallas are calling for a “Atlantic united front against threats from Iran, Russia, North Korea and China.”
However, European approaches to Iran are increasingly highlighting its global impact and reduced strategic failure. In a rapidly evolving multipolar world, the continent’s strict attitude is counterproductive and requires reassessment.
Relationship between Europe and Iran
European involvement with Iran includes a complex tapestry of collaboration and discord. The Landmark 2015 Joint Comprehensive Action Plan (JCPOA), which aims to curb Iran’s civilian nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief, introduced Europe’s role in global diplomacy.
However, his inability to support the withdrawal from the US under President Donald Trump in 2018 and subsequent economic promises to Europe to Iran exposed EU restrictions claiming autonomy from Washington.
As a result, Iran faces increased scrutiny from Europe despite his willingness to engage in talks with France, Germany and the UK.
Iran’s trade with Europe navigated a turbulent landscape characterized by sanctions and diplomatic twists. European countries export European export machinery, medicines and agricultural products to Iran, importing Iranian treasures such as pistachios, carpets and saffron.
Continental businesses are exploring opportunities for Iran’s fast-growing high-tech sector, particularly the possibility of a market with over 90 million consumers, leading to lower energy prices in Iran and lower production costs.
However, Europe has also recently hosted infamous groups such as Mujahedin e Kalk (MKO), a terrorist organization designated until recently, further eroding trust and goodwill.
These actions promoted the recognition of EU hypocrisy and undermined claims of “democracy” and “human rights.”
MKO was horribly tortured and supported Saddam Hussein’s full-scale invasion of his country in the 1980s, with over 18,000 Iranian blood, but Europe doesn’t care.
The impact of the Ukrainian War on Europe
The war in Ukraine has had a major impact on Europe, focusing on immediate security and economic concerns from global diplomacy. Military spending has skyrocketed, budget tensions have emerged, and the energy crisis has emerged as a European scramble to replace Russian gas and oil imports.
Europe’s function as a means of Washington’s damaging proxy conflict with Russia reduced its ability to influence global stages, including its involvement with Iran.
Furthermore, the Ukrainian War deepened the rift between disagreement between European and American citizens. For example, US President Donald Trump, his vice president JD Vance, and Ukrainian President Voldymir Zelensky highlight the growing gap.
Trump’s approach to European security and his administration’s willingness to subordinate European interests to domestic political theatres further reveals the vulnerability of Europe.
Transatlantic rips: security and economic impacts
Contrary to hopes of euro-centric officials like Crows for a “unified transatlantic front,” the reality of US-EU relations is becoming increasingly tense.
Transatlantic fissures are emerging and driven by diverse priorities and approaches to global challenges. The US has shifted its focus to addressing the rise of China, adopting trade policies and economic strategies that are sometimes opposed to European interests.
At the same time, differences in opinion regarding defense spending, climate change commitments, and unilateral US actions have deepened the disparities.
These tensions highlight a range of visions and partnerships tackling reduced aggregation in the face of an evolving geopolitical landscape.
This disparity extends beyond security to the economic and political spheres. American companies face challenges in Europe, ranging from EU fines to strict regulations.
The tensions have strengthened Trump’s support among American business elites. Its arrogant interests are consistent with its conflicting attitude towards Europe.
Furthermore, as American companies face European regulatory hurdles and substantial fines, their focus has shifted to supporting policies that strengthen the domestic economic strength and promote claims at the global stage.
These evolving priorities highlight how the interaction between US and China’s competition and broader geopolitical change can reshape the dynamics of regional strategies and global power, enhancing the more confrontational approaches to elite businesses and foreign policy.
Meanwhile, Trump sent tips through the European capitals about re-editing with Russia, which sent shockwaves through the European capital. The multifaceted potential deal between the US and Russia, where NATO from the region could retreat, reflects the broader US extremes to counter China, bystanders of Europe’s priorities and threaten decades of transatlantic unity. Even in Britain, even in the US allies, who have long been bound by their “special relationships,” there is no immunity for this tension.
To question whether Britain can stand up to Russia alone, Trump’s public yabu of Prime Minister Kiel’s Prime Minister excludes the vulnerability of “special relationships.”
Kamala Harris’ support for Trump in the U.S. election by the British Labour Party, like its contrasting stance on Ukraine’s Zelensky, leaves these waters even more muddy.
Europe’s hard-line stance on Iran is unwise
In this new multipolar world, institutions such as the European Union and NATO face existential challenges.
The emotional pouring of President Christophe Husgen at a security conference in Munich, where she was shed tears, reflects European unrest over the effects of its erosion.
The Trump administration has openly questioned the values of NATO and has even proposed a reduction or withdrawal of US commitments.
Trump recently said he launched diatribe after the EU was formed to “screw” the US and again threatened 25% tariffs on longtime US partners. He told the Cabinet meeting that Brock “really took advantage of us.”
For Europe, it is difficult to see them take on the defense alone, as they are already tackling economic misery and energy unrest.
This decline in institutional relevance amplifies the vulnerability of Europe, particularly in its approach to Iran. Given the geopolitical changes of these earthquakes, Europe’s indomitable attitude towards Iran is increasingly unacceptable.
A more practical approach could provide great benefits to meet the strategic needs of Europe in the multipolar era.
Below are five reasons why Europe needs to rethink its policy:
1. Energy Security: Iran holds enormous oil and gas reserves and offers a viable alternative to Russia’s energy. As the Ukrainian War reveals the vulnerability of European energy, close ties with Iran can diversify supply, stabilize prices and strengthen economic resilience.
2. Economic Opportunities: Relieving tensions can unlock trade and investment prospects. The Iranian market, rich in resources and human capital, presents undeveloped possibilities for European companies seeking growth amidst the domestic stagnation.
3. Security cooperation: Iran’s strategic position will become a key player in dealing with local threats such as terrorism and unwanted migration. The joint efforts could increase stability in West Asia and benefit both parties.
4. Avoiding alienation: Hard-line policies risk creating an effective bloc that could drive Iran deeply into the Russian and Chinese trajectory and challenge European interests. Diplomacy with Iran could instead offset this trend and maintain the remaining leverage of Europe.
5. Focus on recovery: With the drainage resources of the Ukrainian War, Europe should prioritize policies that support its economic and social recovery. Enemy with Iran distracts attention from these pressing domestic needs and extends European vulnerability.
In rethinking Iran’s policy, Europe can not only secure concrete benefits, but also regain a measure of relevance in a world that is no longer controlled by American direction.
It’s time for a bold, positive shift. Before the geopolitical tide drifts further through Europe.