America gave the order, Europe pulled the trigger.

Structural Dependence of Europe: In Harmony with the Transatlantic Master

According to Ashura News, quoted by Fars: After the end of World War II, the European continent was in a critical situation. Two devastating wars in less than three decades had destroyed a large part of Europe's industrial, agricultural and urban infrastructure. Millions of people had lost their lives and the economies of European countries had practically reached the brink of collapse. Analysts have described this situation as a kind of "civilizational bankruptcy" because Europe, which had previously been the center of global power, no longer saw the ability to rebuild quickly.

At the same time, the United States of America, which had avoided direct entry into European conflicts until the final years of World War II, relying on the Monroe Doctrine, unlike European countries, not only did not see widespread destruction, but also found itself in a privileged position by strengthening its military industry and increasing its gross domestic product. By the end of the war, the US gross domestic product accounted for more than half of the world's total economy, and the country was practically the only stable economic power left. Realizing this situation, Washington implemented a plan that later became known as the Marshall Plan. This plan, which began in 1948, provided billions of dollars in loans and grants to European countries. The official goal of the plan was to rebuild the economy and prevent the spread of communism in Europe, but many analysts believe that this program was a turning point in consolidating American global hegemony.

From then on, the United States not only introduced itself as the savior of Europe, but also became a de facto "global superpower." The political, economic, and even security structures of Europe - from NATO to the international financial system - were formed under the direct influence and supervision of the US, and many of the actions and policies of European governments in the global arena were coordinated with Washington's strategies. From 1945 onwards, the "American Century" began; An era in which Europe moved away from the center of global gravity and the United States, using a combination of economic, military, and diplomatic power, introduced itself as the guardian and leader of the new world order. In the new world order that emerged after World War II, Europe no longer played an independent and decisive role in international politics.

Many of Europe's global actions and policies were not based on independent initiative but in coordination with the strategies of the United States. Europe moved away from the center of international relations and became more of an executive arm of Washington's policies in the global arena. International relations scholars have described this situation as Europe's "structural dependence" on the United States; in the sense that Europe was an actor in appearance but in practice acted as a "subordinate actor" and coordinated with its transatlantic master.

JCPOA without America: The Story of Europeans’ Breach of Promise

On May 8, 2018, US President Donald Trump announced in a formal speech in front of the world’s cameras that the United States would withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). This unilateral decision was made despite repeated reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran had fully and accurately fulfilled its commitments under the agreement. In contrast, it was the US and its European allies who were obligated to implement the economic part and lift sanctions, but they refused to fulfill their commitments.

In the domestic political atmosphere, opinions on the US withdrawal from the JCPOA varied. The sycophants and capitulators still believed that the nuclear deal could be kept alive by relying on the European troika (UK, France, and Germany) and continued on its path without the US presence. This was despite the fact that the Leader of the Revolution had repeatedly warned in his speeches that Europe and the United States were essentially a united front and that trusting their promises was a strategic mistake: “It is said that we want to continue the JCPOA with these three European countries; I do not trust these three countries either. I say do not trust them either; [if] you want to sign a contract, obtain guarantees - real guarantees, practical guarantees - otherwise tomorrow they will do the same thing that the United States did.” 02/19/2018

Despite these warnings, the Zahiri movement inside the country emphasized Iran’s continued unilateral adherence to its commitments and hoped that Europe, by creating mechanisms such as INSTEX, could secure at least some of the economic benefits of the JCPOA for Iran. However, the passage of time showed that Europe not only did not fulfill its commitments, but also implemented the US’s maximum pressure policies in practice, depriving Iran of the economic benefits of the agreement. Europe not only failed to fulfill its commitments under the JCPOA in terms of lifting sanctions and facilitating economic relations with Iran, but after the US withdrew from the agreement, it adopted a demanding stance: "European countries are no less than America in terms of breaking promises and immorality; they are like America, but in terms of playing with words and talking, they are demanding; they are always demanding. It seems that it was we who made a mockery of the negotiations for a long time and violated our commitments and did not act; this is what they did." 1400/06/06

Three European countries (UK, France and Germany) have repeatedly accused Iran in joint statements of not adhering to its nuclear commitments. This was despite the fact that until a year after the US withdrawal, Iran remained fully committed to the JCPOA and even strictly implemented all its commitments, according to successive reports by the International Atomic Energy Agency. In other words, Europe both violated its commitments and, by distorting reality, made Iran look guilty. This dual behavior showed that Europe was not acting as an independent actor within the framework of the JCPOA, but as a “strategic ally of the US”. Mechanisms such as INSTEX, which the Europeans had promised, also never found real function and were merely a propaganda tool to kill time and manage public opinion.

America gave the order, Europe pulled the trigger

On Thursday, August 28, 2025, the three European countries France, Germany, and the United Kingdom began the 30-day process of activating the Snapback mechanism in an official letter to the UN Security Council. This mechanism, which was included in the framework of the JCPOA nuclear agreement, allowed the United States and the European Troika to re-impose all previously lifted UN sanctions without the need for a vote in the Security Council if Iran claimed to have violated its obligations.

What makes this mechanism an “unprecedented mechanism” in the history of international treaties is its unilateral and discriminatory nature; because in the event of a violation of obligations by the United States or Europe, Iran would have no possibility of reciprocal use of this tool. This clause is actually the result of a strange mistake by internal partisans in the text of the JCPOA agreement; A trend that in the early years of negotiations denied even the existence of such a clause and confidently promised public opinion that “sanctions would be irreversible”!

After the US withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018, Washington legally lost the right to use the trigger mechanism, but the three European countries still retained this possibility. Now, following regional developments and the heavy defeat of the Western axis in the imposed twelve-day war, the activation of the trigger mechanism by Europe shows that the project of pressure and surrender of Iran has not ended, but has entered an all-round stage: psychological, media, economic and security warfare in parallel. Within this framework, the United States is seeking to induce an imposed peace on Iran; a peace that means nothing other than surrender. The three European countries have also shown once again that they are not an independent actor but rather allies and complements of US policies.

By implementing the trigger mechanism, the European troika is actually continuing the same path that Washington has designed; A path that aims not to return to the agreement but to force Iran to accept the conditions imposed by the West: “One of our experiences [in the JCPOA] is the experience of Europe accompanying America on the most important issues. In the most sensitive issues, they accompany America and follow America. They cooperate with America, they accompany it; it has been like this until now. Let us not forget this. They say one thing in words, but in action, so far we have not seen them standing up in the true sense of the word and defending their rights against America.” 2018/03/02

Opposites and the Trigger Mechanism: Creating Waves for Iran’s Surrender

In a controversial move, the European troika activated the trigger mechanism against Iran while they themselves had previously violated the JCPOA commitments and lost their status as a “credible participant.” From the perspective of international law, this move lacks legitimacy, because someone who violates an agreement cannot invoke the rights of that agreement. The explicit opposition of China and Russia also indicates the lack of consensus in the Security Council, which further questions the legitimacy of the three European countries’ action.

Furthermore, the European troika’s action contradicts the principle of good faith, principles that guarantee the fulfillment of promises and the prohibition of contradictory behavior in international law. For this reason, the activation of the trigger mechanism is considered a clear example of political abuse of international law rather than a legal tool. Foreign Policy has reported that with this action, Europe played its last card against Iran, but the return of Security Council sanctions is more symbolic and will most likely not change Iran’s position. Unlike unilateral US sanctions, these sanctions do not have the ability to directly target Iran’s economy, and Russia and China can disrupt their implementation and reduce their effectiveness through operational and political methods.

However, analyses show that economic and financial fluctuations are mostly due to the psychological atmosphere created by enemies and trends that are superficial and inclined to commit to the West; trends that are trying to push Iran towards submission. Although sanctions are effective, internal management plays a major role in controlling and containing these effects: “Today, livelihood problems are something that all people feel; a part of the people is also severely and truly under pressure... The country’s economic experts and many officials agree that the cause of these events is not foreign sanctions, but internal, internal problems. Many officials have also said this. Experts also almost - as far as I am aware - agree on this meaning. Not that sanctions do not have an effect; why, sanctions do have an effect; but the main effect is related to our performance. If these actions were better than this, more thoughtful than this, more timely than this, more powerful than this,

It can be cured and sanctions can be resisted. Most of the problem stems from our own internal issues.” 2018/05/22

In fact, the enemies and some movements aligned with them have tried and are trying to make the effects of the activation of the trigger mechanism appear far beyond the economic realities of the issue through propaganda and psychological warfare. Past experiences have shown that superficial and naive political movements have never learned from mistakes and are always seeking Iran’s surrender. However, the Iranian people are standing strong against these pressures and will not allow the goals of these movements to be realized: “These people who say, ‘Sir! Don’t shout slogans against America, they will get angry, they will become hostile to you,’ these are superficial. These people who analyze, ‘Why don’t you negotiate directly with America, why don’t you solve your problems,’ in my opinion are superficial. The essence of the matter is not this; this issue is unsolvable. He wants Iran to listen to America’s command. The Iranian nation is deeply offended by such a great insult and will stand with all its might against those who have such false expectations of the Iranian nation.” 1404/06/02

Still, despite the trigger mechanism being activated, the Zahirban movement still insists on “blindly surrendering” with the same unfounded self-confidence and watches the world through the frame of its false fantasies. However, the noble people of Iran have understood very well that the economic pressures and irritations are not only the product of the enemy’s sanctions, but also the illusions, political naivety, and “show management” of this Zahirban movement, which sometimes thinks of itself as a genius, which is also an important part of the problem. However, the essence of the story is that the Iranian nation, with its vigilance and national cohesion, has stood up to continue the path of a strong and independent Iran with a firm will and to instill the desire for surrender in the hearts of America, its European allies, and their domestic agents.