They say it’s better late than never. The European position on a response to the US withdrawal from the Vienna Agreement has ultimately changed. European countries that signed the agreement, France, Germany and Britain decided to use the dispute settlement mechanism provided for in the agreement to force Tehran to comply with all its stipulated obligations that the Iranian regime has neglected to force these countries to submit to the mullahs’ dictates. This European position has angered the Iranian regime.
The Iranian regime has made bitter statements to the European parties. “The threat of the French & German govts & the vicious British govt to send Iran’s case to the Security Council proved once again that they are the footmen of the US,” said Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. “These 3 countries are the ones who helped Saddam as much as they could in his war against us.” Similarly, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif accused the troika of yielding to blackmail from President Trump.
Faced with the mullahs’ regime, European countries had no choice but to resort to the mechanisms already mentioned in this agreement. After his country’s decision to abandon its obligations under the nuclear agreement following the assassination of the Quds Force Commander, General Qassem Soleimani, Iranian President Hassan Rahhani said that there were no limits that compel his country to enrich uranium. On January 5, Iran announced that all its obligations under the nuclear agreement were suspended against the backdrop of Soleimani’s death in a US Bombing in Iraq.
In an official statement, the Iranian government said it had suspended all its obligations under the nuclear agreement and would no longer meet them. Tehran will not meet its obligations related to uranium enrichment, storage, research and development, it said. In an official speech, President Rouhani acknowledged that the nuclear programme is in a “better position” than it was before the nuclear agreement with the world powers.
The European parties have therefore only had to resolve the discussions that have been going on for months on the possibility of activating the “dispute settlement mechanism” as one of the measures that one party to the nuclear agreement can use to resolve the problem of non-compliance by the other. If this is not possible, it could lead to a return of the matter to the UN Security Council and possible re-imposition of sanctions.
The truth is that European states have been slow to take a collective position to activate the conflict resolution mechanism contained in the agreement.
But what is strange is that the mullahs’ regime says that this is a submission to American diktats, even though the Europeans have been reluctant to take this step, which has led to criticism due to continued Iranian blackmail and the mullahs’ pursuit of exploiting transatlantic differences and working to deepen the differences between Europeans and Americans over the handling of the Iranian nuclear issue. As always, the mullahs are acting solely on the basis of their interests, without any consideration for the interests of the European parties.
The European parties are therefore in an unenviable position in the face of Iranian recklessness in disavowing any obligation stipulated in the agreement, which means that Iran has practically withdrawn from the agreement without officially announcing it.
It is well known that any international agreement is a framework that includes a set of rights, obligations and responsibilities. What has happened is that the Iranian regime has officially announced its renunciation of the obligations set out in the nuclear agreement. The agreement has become meaningless or of no real value unless Iran withdraws from recent decisions and fully respects the terms of the agreement. Iran has announced its willingness to return to the agreement if sanctions are lifted and its interests are safeguarded. In concrete terms, it has unilaterally withdrawn or, at best, suspended or frozen the agreement.
The European response of activating the dispute settlement mechanism becomes imperative and obvious then. But it is curious that the Iranian Foreign Minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, criticised what he described as the “severe subordination of Europeans” to the US, and thought that Britain, France and Germany had dropped the nuclear agreement to protect themselves from tariffs.
US President Donald Trump has always threatened to impose tariffs, although he is fully aware that it has taken a long time for Europe to resolve the issue of the implementation of the dispute settlement mechanism since the beginning of Iran’s violation of its obligations under the agreement. It therefore makes no sense for Zarif to describe the European position as a renunciation of the agreement in order to get rid of the new Trump tariffs.
It is true that the tariffs may have played a role in obtaining the European decision, but that role is minimal. The decision was born out of the practices of the mullahs themselves, who completely withdrew from their obligations and returned to lamenting the European position and accusing others of sacrificing the agreement. They actually withdrew but demanded that the Europeans maintain it.
Admittedly, the European parties, who have been slow to activate the mechanism that could end up reimposing sanctions on the Iranian regime, have moved closer to the American position on Iran. That’s what worries the mullahs the most.
