From Critical Engagement to the Geopoliticization of Containment: The Evolution of Relations Between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the European

Relations between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Europe have evolved over the past three decades from a model based on critical engagement toward a form of geopoliticized containment policy.

Relations between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Europe have evolved over the past three decades from a model based on "critical engagement" toward a form of "geopoliticized containment policy." In the 1990s, the European Union sought to define a model distinct from that of the United States by leveraging its diplomatic and economic capacities. This model, grounded in dialogue, gradual conditionality, and limited integration of Iran into the global economic system, was pursued within the framework of EU institutions. It operated on the assumption that changing Iran’s behavior was possible through economic interdependence and political interaction. During this period, Europe viewed itself as a "normative power"—an actor that influences its surrounding security environment through soft power tools, legal standardization, and multilateral diplomacy.

This approach became more institutionalized in the 2000s with the prominence of Iran’s nuclear file. Three European countries—Germany, France, and the UK—led the negotiation initiative with Tehran under the E3 format, a process later institutionalized within the P5+1 framework. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) represented the peak of this model: Europe saw itself as the architect of a diplomatic solution that could simultaneously contain nuclear proliferation and integrate Iran into the global economy. However, the US withdrawal from the agreement in 2018, coupled with Europe’s inability to secure economic benefits for Iran—despite designing mechanisms such as INSTEX—exposed Europe’s strategic limitations. From this juncture, the gap between Europe’s "political will" and its "geopolitical capacity" became evident.

The developments after 2022 marked a second turning point. The war in Ukraine and the structural confrontation between Russia and the West transformed Europe’s security environment. In this context, Iran was defined not merely as a proliferation issue, but as a geopolitical variable in Europe’s security equation; particularly following claims regarding military cooperation between Tehran and Moscow. From this time onward, Europe’s approach shifted from "crisis management" toward "multi-layered deterrence": expanding human rights sanctions, imposing missile and drone restrictions, and aligning more closely with US policies. In effect, Europe transformed from a mediator into an actor aligned with containment strategies.

This shift can be analyzed within the framework of the European Union’s transition from a "normative power" to a "geopolitical actor"—a concept highlighted in Brussels’ new strategic documents. Europe seeks to be, in the transitioning international order, not merely a rule-setter, but a security-oriented actor utilizing hard and semi-hard tools. Within this framework, Iran, alongside Russia and China, is regarded as part of the peripheral challenges to the liberal order. Consequently, European policy is no longer solely focused on changing Iran’s nuclear behavior; it has extended to containing its regional, missile, and network influence capacities.

Furthermore, the evolution of European policy toward Iran must be understood within the broader restructuring of the continent’s security architecture. Post-Ukraine war, the discourse of "strategic autonomy," previously focused mainly on technological and defense independence, has taken on a more concrete reality. Europe seeks to reconfigure its supply chains, energy security, and industrial resilience against geopolitical shocks. In this context, any actor capable of influencing energy equations, maritime security, or strategic ties with Europe’s structural rivals finds itself at the center of containment policies. Due to its geopolitical position in the Persian Gulf, connection to Eurasian transit corridors, and capacity to influence energy markets, Iran is viewed by Europeans not merely as a "nuclear file," but as a multi-dimensional geo-economic and security variable.

In this context, the active role of the Zionist regime has also influenced the Iran-Europe relationship equation. Tel Aviv has recently sought to steer Europe toward greater alignment with containment strategies by highlighting threats arising from Iran’s nuclear, missile, and regional network programs, utilizing security diplomacy, intelligence cooperation, and influencing threat discourses in European capitals. Simultaneously, the expansion of anti-Zionist protests and movements in the streets of European cities—particularly following developments in Gaza—has caused the regime to feel concerned about the erosion of its symbolic and political capital in European public opinion. This situation has created a duality: on one hand, security convergence between European governments and Israel within the framework of containing Iran; on the other, social and normative pressure from below that can influence European politicians' calculations and limit their maneuvering room for unconditional alignment with Tel Aviv.

Concurrently, the role of transnational institutions and European public opinion has not been without impact in hardening policies. The European Parliament and some member states have, in recent years, expanded the scope of sanctions and restrictions based on human rights and regional security agendas. This trend indicates that European policy toward Iran is no longer solely the product of diplomatic calculations at the Council level; it is the outcome of an alliance of political, media, and security forces that define Iran in connection with broader crises of the European order. In such a context, even if there is will to revive diplomatic channels, a return to the 1990s "critical engagement" model faces serious structural obstacles.

However, the European strategy faces a structural paradox. On one hand, due to energy dependence, migration crises, and Middle Eastern instability, Europe requires communication channels with Tehran; on the other hand, security pressures and transatlantic alliances limit Brussels’ maneuvering space. The result is a dual policy: maintaining minimal diplomacy to prevent the complete collapse of the nuclear agreement, while gradually deepening pressure and deterrence tools.

In conclusion, the trajectory of Iran-Europe relations demonstrates a transition from "critical engagement" to "geopolitical containment." Europe is no longer merely a mediator or regulator; it is redefining itself as a security actor in its surrounding environment. The future of this relationship depends on three variables: the fate of the nuclear file, the level of European alignment with the United States, and how Iran positions itself in the broader equations of the transitioning order, particularly the war in Ukraine. Otherwise, the current trend could lead to the consolidation of a mutual, erosive cycle of deterrence between Tehran and Europe—a cycle that leads neither to integration nor to complete rupture, but to a managed and sustained confrontation.

Sajjad Atazadeh, Expert at the Center for Political and International Studies

 (The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the IPIS)