Zarif: Maximum pressure and war could not change Iran's resilience

Mohammad Javad Zarif, former Minister of Foreign Affairs and founder of the Payab Institute, in an article in the German publication Zenith, examined the developments in the relations of the Islamic Republic of Iran with the European Union, especially Germany, and also with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The full text of this note is as follows.

Proving Iran's Resilience Against Maximum Pressure and Military Aggression

The escalation of military tensions in recent months across West Asia has shattered a dangerous and long-standing illusion: the belief that stability can be achieved by deploying foreign military bases and purchasing advanced weapons, or that independent countries can be forced into submission through economic warfare and airstrikes. Another dangerous illusion has persisted among many European and regional actors: that Iran can be trapped by the United States and its partners in Europe and the region in a permanent cycle of securitization, diplomatic isolation, economic strangulation, and direct military aggression, while they themselves remain immune to the consequences of this situation and continue in peace to celebrate and pursue their own economic development and prosperity.

Recent developments in the region have clearly shown that no country can build a secure and prosperous oasis on the quicksand of instability imposed on its neighbor.

It is time to accept reality. Decades of maximum pressure and military attacks have not been able to eliminate Iran's resilience or erase its technological advances. More importantly, this experience has shown that zero-sum approaches in international politics inevitably lead to negative-sum results. Security and sustainable development are interconnected and collective realities. Insecurity and anti-security dynamics cannot simply be confined within the borders of one country; these dynamics inevitably cross borders, just as recent developments in the region have clearly shown that no country can build a secure and prosperous oasis on the quicksand of instability imposed on its neighbor. To escape this endless cycle of crisis, we need a paradigm shift; a change that replaces the worn-out language of coercion with a native architecture of collective security.

The People's Resistance Against Siege and Economic War

The root of the current deadlock lies in the "cycle of securitization." The United States and Israel, over decades, have portrayed Iran not as a normal international actor with legitimate security needs, but as an existential threat requiring extraordinary measures outside normal legal frameworks. This narrative has been used to justify unilateral sanctions, condemnations and punitive measures by the Security Council, cross-border economic warfare, and direct military aggression.

As was predictable, this campaign led to a self-fulfilling prophecy. Iran, in dealing with the hostile siege and economic war, was inevitably forced to take defensive countermeasures. The country strengthened its conventional deterrence and expanded its nuclear enrichment to show that it would not be forced into submission. Opponents, with an opportunistic approach, used these very reactive and defensive measures as a pretext to confirm their initial accusations and intensify pressure even further.

The Necessity of Rebuilding Trust Based on Respect for the Dignity and Welfare of the Iranian People

The International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly confirmed that Iran has never sought to build a nuclear weapon. Nevertheless, extra-regional powers have continued to accuse Iran of such an action and have imposed punishments against it that have been far beyond those imposed on countries that have actually established nuclear arsenals. This situation has created a widespread perception in Iran that adherence to international non-proliferation norms, instead of being rewarded, has led to adverse consequences. Breaking this vicious cycle requires learning from past mistakes and reversing the logic of engagement. If the United States and its partners want to ensure that their behavior does not push Iran to reconsider its long-standing nuclear doctrine, they must immediately stop efforts to collapse Iran's political system, including through economic, political, diplomatic, and military war. Trust cannot be rebuilt based on unilateral demands; trust can only be rebuilt based on respect for the dignity and welfare of Iran and its people.

The JCPOA Failed Because the United States Returned to the Habit of Imposition, and Iran Was Also Forced to Return to the Habit of Resistance

The failure of the zero-sum approach in the nuclear file is now evident. The West's insistence on maximum restrictions and punitive measures has repeatedly collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions. During the difficult years of negotiations that ultimately led to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015, I witnessed closely how the transition from zero-sum demands to positive-sum compromises could unlock a deadlock that seemed unsolvable. By spending countless hours in Vienna and Geneva alongside our negotiating partners, we proved that diplomatic will and mutual respect can overcome decades of deep hostility. However, this brief period of the dominance of a realist, cooperative, and mutual-interest-based approach was very short-lived.

The JCPOA Fell Victim to the United States' Return to the Habit of Imposition and Europe's Inaction

The JCPOA ultimately fell victim to the return of coercion-based habits. Old habits die hard. The United States was never able to commit itself to fully implementing its obligations and continued to insist on the notion that sanctions and pressure must be maintained. Europe, which considered the JCPOA a historic achievement of its diplomacy, with opportunistic inaction and a preference for alignment with the United States, allowed this agreement to be destroyed. The JCPOA failed because the United States returned to the habit of imposition, and Iran was also forced to return to the habit of resistance. In the meantime, Europe, by setting aside its tradition of promoting compromise and respect for international law and preferring external political considerations, painfully contributed to the early death of this moment of international cooperation.

Iran's Indigenous Knowledge Will Not Be Destroyed by Bombing

If we want to prevent a change in Iran's nuclear doctrine and move beyond the current nuclear deadlock, we must transform the nuclear issue from a permanent source of crisis into a factor for regional confidence-building and scientific cooperation. The international community, instead of proposing dangerous and impossible demands such as the complete cancellation of Iran's nuclear program, must accept that Iran's indigenous knowledge and capability cannot be eliminated by any amount of airstrikes or catastrophic environmental sabotage. The most realistic path is to ensure that this indigenous capability is used in peaceful cooperation to solve real-life challenges, from water scarcity to the production of medical radioisotopes.

When conflict occurs in the Persian Gulf, it is Europe—not the United States—that bears its immediate consequences, including refugee waves, supply chain disruptions, and energy fluctuations.

This is the main objective of the "Middle East Network for Nuclear Research and Progress," or "Manara," an Arabic word meaning "lighthouse." Manara, instead of viewing civilian nuclear energy through the lens of fear, provides a multilateral framework open to all countries of the Middle East and North Africa that commit to not possessing nuclear weapons. Through Manara, countries in the region can pool their scientific expertise, cooperate on peaceful applications, and establish mutual regional verification mechanisms.

A Regional Solution to the Nuclear Deadlock

To resolve the current deadlock over Iran's enrichment, the West and especially Europe must accept the reality that Iran has acquired this right and capability at a very heavy cost; a cost that can neither be ignored nor eliminated by bombing. Therefore, a multilateral fuel enrichment consortium may be the only remaining opportunity to achieve a diplomatic solution. Instead of proposing impractical demands for zero enrichment, Iran should be encouraged to have direct participation in joint enrichment facilities located in Iran and other countries of the region, with interested Persian Gulf littoral states and international partners. Such a consortium can provide a structural and robust guarantee for transparency and prevention of material diversion, ensure the reliable supply of fuel needed for civilian electricity generation throughout the region, and transform a disputed national capability into a joint regional enterprise under mutual supervision.

Regional Network Security Instead of Purchased Security

A sustainable nuclear understanding cannot survive in a strategic vacuum. This understanding must be placed within a broader architecture of a regional security network. West Asia has suffered for generations from the false notion that national security requires military superiority over neighbors. Real security is indivisible; the strategic goal of the countries of the region must change from building "strong countries" to cultivating a "strong region."

The institutional platform for this transformation should be a multi-layered network of regional cooperation and security that replaces hostility with friendship and empathy. This process should begin with institutionalized dialogue among the eight littoral states of the Persian Gulf, along with Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, Syria, and Turkey. This initiative not only does not exist in a legal vacuum, but can be formally based on the neglected mission of Paragraph 8 of UN Security Council Resolution 598; a paragraph that asks the UN Secretary-General to examine regional solutions for strengthening stability and security.

Within this international umbrella, this network can establish practical confidence-building measures, including binding non-aggression arrangements; arrangements that prohibit the use of force and the provision of territory, airspace, or logistical access for hostile actions against other members. Also, relying on the "Hormuz Peace Initiative," countries of the region can establish mechanisms to guarantee freedom of navigation. These mechanisms should be based on an obvious necessity: the countries that are the gatekeepers of the vital arteries of global trade, such as the Strait of Hormuz, should not themselves be deprived of the benefits of transit due to cross-border sanctions. Sanctions and foreign naval fleets are inherently destabilizing, and guaranteeing the mutual benefit of all parties is the only sustainable way to ensure long-term maritime stability.

West Asia has suffered for generations from the false notion that national security requires military superiority over neighbors. Real security is indivisible; the strategic goal of the countries of the region must change from building "strong countries" to cultivating a "strong region."

The proposed regional network should also coordinate collective responses to environmental crises threatening the livability of this region; including water scarcity, land erosion, desertification, and climate change. Finally, a regional development fund can be established to support post-conflict reconstruction.

Germany Should Correct Its Current Path

We live in a post-bipolar world; a world in which traditional global hegemonies have eroded and power is distributed among multiple actors and issue-based networks. In this emerging space, Europe and especially Germany face an important strategic and economic choice.

Germany has traditionally had fewer energy interests and dependencies in the southern shore of the Persian Gulf compared to many other actors. In a forward-looking and cooperation-oriented atmosphere in West Asia, Germany is in a unique position to play a role as a vital and non-hegemonic partner for regional development and to complement the economic interactions of actors such as China. To realize this potential, Berlin would do better to emerge from its current diplomatic inertia. The foreign policy of post-Merkel governments has distanced Germany from the diplomatic credibility it once enjoyed and reduced its role to that of a passive spectator.

European capitals have for a long time merely followed Washington's cycles of tension escalation and have preferred transatlantic alignment over their own clear economic, energy, and migration interests. But when conflict occurs in the Persian Gulf, it is Europe—not the United States—that bears its immediate consequences, including refugee waves, supply chain disruptions, and energy fluctuations. Europe's comparative advantage lies not in demonstrating and applying coercive military power, but in promoting respect for international law, normative diplomacy, building global consensus, conflict resolution, and development partnerships. By understanding the reality that sustainable security is not achieved through permanent confrontation, Europe can help dismantle the securitization trap by actively supporting indigenous regional dialogue and inclusive networks.

Germany has the capacity to correct its current path and lead the construction of a global support structure for this regional initiative; and in this way, regain its independent diplomatic legacy and help build a stable and prosperous neighborhood for Europe. The alternative option is to continue following the policy of war and permanent instability. This path neither serves the interests of Germany, Europe, or the world, nor does it contribute to the ideal of peace in West Asia. It does not even serve the long-term interests of the United States. Donald Trump, in fact, came to the field with the slogan "Make America Great Again"; a slogan based on draining the swamp and pulling the United States—and consequently the international community—out of the quagmire of endless wars.