Rising Tensions Between Iran, the U.S., and Europe

Image: Imamzadeh Saleh Holy Shrine in Tajrish Square, Northern Tehran

Provided by: Mari Nukui

Iran, a regional power in the Middle East, has championed anti-Americanism under its Islamic Republic system for 40 years since the Iranian Revolution, which ousted the pro-American Shah Pahlavi. Consequently, it is natural that conflict with the United States—which does not recognize the revolutionary regime—has become normalized. The situation is now showing signs of further intensification after President Trump, who was critical from the start of the Iran nuclear deal (hailed as a success of multilateral diplomacy in non-proliferation), withdrew from the agreement in May 2018 and imposed what he calls the strongest economic sanctions in history against Iran.

Iran has labeled the superpower as the "Great Satan," pointing to U.S. interventionism, while the United States has denounced Iran as the root of all evil in the Middle East; both countries have criticized each other relentlessly. The U.S. is pressing Iran to accept 12 demands, asserting that Iran must first correct its behavior to be accepted by the international community. These include reasonable items such as stopping interference in neighboring countries, ending ties with armed groups, and halting the proliferation of ballistic missiles. However, they also include stopping nuclear activities that are permitted under the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), an agreement which Iran continues to implement unilaterally.

In this way, the Trump administration is forcing a total surrender on Iran, yet it ignores the fact that by withdrawing from a nuclear deal endorsed by UN Security Council resolutions, the U.S. itself is in violation of Security Council resolutions and international law. While secretly providing nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia in defiance of domestic U.S. procedures, it seeks to make Iran abandon even its rights under the NPT. In addition to facing an Iran that will not succumb to pressure, the U.S. is showing malice by applying secondary sanctions to Iran's trading partners. This is a folly that creates a paradox: punishing third countries that are sincerely implementing Security Council resolutions.

The threat posed by Iran is often perceived as greater than it actually is, with arbitrary and calculated presentations of the facts. Much of this is due to the Trump administration being swayed by the interests of Israel, which views Iran as an existential threat, and certain Arab nations that position Iran as a hypothetical enemy.

It is presumed that these U.S. allies are not actually seeking a change in Iran's behavior, but rather—along with National Security Advisor John Bolton, who has long advocated for regime change—are plotting the collapse of the current regime. The Trump administration, following this line, has developed the situation by persistently provoking Iran, hoping to elicit a "reaction" that can be used as a pretext for launching military operations against the country.

Iran itself is attempting to parry all provocations, deciding to "hold the fort" in hopes of finding a way out if the Trump camp is defeated in the fall 2020 elections. Meanwhile, regarding the nuclear deal, it has expected an expansion of economic relations from Europe—which has distanced itself from the U.S. on this issue—as the intended compensation for the agreement. However, even if a rift has formed across the Atlantic, the resistance Europe can offer against the financial sanctions wielded by the U.S. is limited. Furthermore, it is impossible for European governments to overturn the business decisions of private companies that risk suffering enormous losses due to U.S. sanctions. Additionally, Europe, which expresses concern over Iran's human rights issues and ballistic missile development, is not uniformly or unconditionally supportive of Iran.

Distrust of the other party is the same on the Iranian side. While there are bitter memories of historical imperialism, Iran, which has complied with the nuclear deal until now, is issuing an ultimatum not only to the U.S. but also to Europe by suspending some of its implementation items. Recently, Iran has also doubted Europe's intentions regarding the emergence of activities by anti-regime Iranian armed groups within European countries. Thus, the situation is unstable.

Disturbing movements are increasingly occurring near the Persian Gulf. Incidents symbolizing the rapidly rising tension are happening almost daily, such as the damage to tankers in the Gulf of Oman facing the Indian Ocean, the strike on a domestic pipeline in Saudi Arabia, the rocket attack on the Green Zone in Baghdad, repeated threats to block the Strait of Hormuz, and arguments for retaliatory strikes against Iran appearing in influential Arab newspapers. As provocative rhetoric continues on both sides, even if the leaders of Iran and the U.S. publicly state they do not seek military conflict, the possibility of reaching that point accidentally can no longer be ruled out. It should be self-evident what kind of situation that would bring about.

The situation Japan finds itself in is not significantly different from that of Europe. Due to the re-introduced U.S. secondary sanctions, the economic relationship between Japan and Iran, centered on crude oil transactions, is in jeopardy. This is also the prelude to the collapse of the nuclear deal, which was the fruit of years of effort toward non-proliferation.

The G20 Osaka Summit, which President Trump will attend, may become a venue that demands continued strategic patience from Iran while attributing the responsibility for the increasing tension to Iran. If Japan, as the chair country, asks Iran for self-restraint, it must, for the sake of balance, guarantee compensation for the implementation of the agreement and, furthermore, admonish the United States for deepening the crisis.