Iran under UN Sanctions: What are the US conditions – and how is Europe the Biggest Loser

By Elijah J. Magnier –

When it comes to Iran, Washington’s objectives have remained remarkably consistent across administrations, regardless of the Iranian government’s identity, either conservative or pragmatic. Behind the diplomatic language and the talk of “non-proliferation” and “regional stability,” the goal has been the same for decades: Iran must submit, surrender its strategic capabilities, dismantle its regional alliances, and ultimately accept a subordinate place in a US-led order. That objective has been pursued under Democratic and Republican presidents alike, through sanctions, sabotage, cyberattacks, diplomatic isolation, and military threats.

Even as these measures intensify, Western officials continue to frame their actions as part of a broader diplomatic strategy. EU foreign policy chief Kaya Kallas, for instance, insisted that the return of UN sanctions “does not mark the end of diplomacy” but rather a necessary step toward renewed negotiations. In Washington, senior figures echoed this dual message: Secretary of State Marco Rubio described the snapback as a “clear signal” that the world would not tolerate Iranian “half-measures,” while maintaining that a diplomatic solution remains “the best outcome.” Yet Tehran sees such language as deeply disingenuous — a way to justify coercion while shifting blame for the breakdown of dialogue onto Iran – and that the US conditions are impossible and unacceptable.

For Tehran, this reality is no longer in question. What has become equally clear over the past decade is that Europe – which has often presented itself as a moderating force and an advocate of dialogue – lacks both the political will and the strategic autonomy to act independently of Washington. And as a result, it is Europe, more than the United States, that stands to lose most from the deepening confrontation.

Pragmatists or Hardliners: It Makes No Difference

In the West, political commentary often divides Iran’s leadership into “hardliners” and “moderates,” portraying the country’s foreign policy posture as a function of which faction is in power. The Rouhani-Zarif administration, which negotiated the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with the P5+1, was widely described as pragmatic, centrist, even reformist. Yet this government – not the so-called hardliners – was targeted with the most punishing sanctions in the Islamic Republic’s history when Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018 and launched his “maximum pressure” campaign.