The draft resolution prepared by Britain, in concert with the United States and France, to be submitted to the Security Council, condemning Iran for failing to stop its ballistic missiles from falling into the hands of Houthi militias, shows that the differences between the European and American positions are changing. These differences are gradually narrowing in tackling the lingering issues with Iran, especially the nuclear deal, ballistic missile program and Tehran's regional role.
However, this does not negate the fact that European states are still keen to preserve the nuclear agreement, as other alternative options run contrary to their interests and views towards the multiple crises in the Middle East. This means that the main objective of this move may not be to impose fresh sanctions on Iran but to send strong warnings that its insistence on meddling in the internal affairs of regional states and smuggling arms to terrorist and armed militias, in violation of Security Council resolutions, would enhance the prospects for the collapse of the nuclear pact. This is even more critical given the new policy espoused by the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump in this regard.
A momentous move
The European countries involved in the nuclear deal have tried to find a middle ground between the U.S. and Iran, to preserve the nuclear agreement and maintain the investment opportunities they have gained in Iran following the deal. Accordingly, the European countries espoused a new approach, through which they sought to reach compromises between the U.S. demands to modify some of the points of contention in the nuclear agreement and the Iranian insistence on applying the agreement as it is.
The European countries have made efforts to coax Iran to new rounds of negotiations on those contentious points, especially with regard to the ballistic missiles program, but the latter insisted on adopting a tough stance, rejecting any attempts to hold discussions on ballistic missiles.
This came in parallel with some developments on the regional scene, which were not far from the disagreement with Iran over those issues. The Houthi militias fired several ballistic missiles, many of which have proved to be Iranian-made, at Saudi Arabia, in flagrant violation of Security Council resolutions 2216 on Yemen and 2231 on the nuclear deal.
Moreover, more than one Iranian military official threatened to extend the range of Iranian ballistic missiles to reach Europe. In this context, IRGC Deputy Commander Hossein Salami, warned on November 25, 2017, that “if Europe threatens Iran, the Revolutionary Guards will increase the range of missiles to over 2000 kilometers”, adding that “so far we have felt that Europe is not a threat, so we did not increase the range of our missiles. But if Europe wants to turn into a threat, we will increase the range of our missiles”.
Prior to these remarks, the head of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari, threatened on October 8, 2017, the U.S., that “if the Revolutionary Guards is classified as a terrorist organization, it has to move its military bases more than 2000 km”, referring to the current range of Iranian ballistic missiles.
These developments pushed the European countries to adopt a new approach that converges with that of the U.S. policy towards Iran. They have come to realize that continuing to count on the nuclear deal, while disregarding Iran’s subversive activities in the region, sends the wrong messages to the latter, allowing it to continue on the same track, upping the ante in regional crises, exacerbating them and impeding efforts to reach political settlements.
In other words, the European states, through this move, want to warn Tehran that from now on, it will not be able to exploit the divergence in the stances between the European countries and the American administration to widen the margin of options and freedom of movement. In fact, the Iranian policies have contributed to reducing this divergence and achieve greater convergence, as reflected in the recent draft resolution prepared in coordination between London, Paris and Washington.
Therefore, those states are arguably trying to persuade Iran of the need to show greater flexibility towards the U.S., and Western reservations in general, on the sticking points, otherwise it will risk coming under greater pressure during the next period, after the remarkable convergence in American and European policies.
Litmus test
Nevertheless, this move does not point to the crystallization of an international consensus against Iran, as the latter continues to count on Russia, an international player which can play a role in the Security Council to veto sanctions or a condemnation against it in the coming period. Russia has played that role with the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, as it has repeatedly vetoed international resolutions against it.
Remarkably, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif visited Moscow after his participation in the Munich Security Conference on February 18. Although the stated goal of the visit was to attend the Valdai Conference 2018 one day later, it could offer an opportunity for discussions with Russian officials on issues of common concern, notably the European-American escalation against Iran, and the developments of the conflict in Syria after the limited confrontation with Israel.
Apparently, Iran is in a bid to exploit the new nuclear strategy announced by the U.S. administration to achieve greater convergence in its relations with Russia, in a way that, in its view, could block an international consensus against its policies.
Furthermore, imposing sanctions or condemning Iran could have direct implications on the nuclear deal, as it might provide an opportunity for the U.S., or any participating state in the so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (in reference to the Agreement) to prove that Iran is not abiding by the nuclear agreement or with international resolution No. 2231. This gives such countries the right to lodge a complaint against Iran because it has carried out activities in violation of the obligations set out in in the agreement, which would enhance the prospect of re-imposing international sanctions. However, this is unlikely to happen as the international powers involved in the agreement, especially the European states, are not prepared to deal with its repercussions, at least at the current stage.
To conclude, it may be argued that the new move taken by Britain, in concert with the U.S. and France, would ramp up international pressures on Iran, due to its destructive role in the region. This could throw Iran’s calculus into disorder, as it is facing an internal crisis, whose underlying roots remain unaddressed, given the regime’s insistence on continuing its roles abroad and ignoring the chronic problems at home.
