The US wants to impose sanctions on Iran and isolate itself from the diplomatic scene

The issue of sanctions against Iran has always been a staple of Trump’s political agenda, now, on the eve of the presidential elections, when the electoral campaign is intensifying, the US president is putting his intention to restore back to the center of the international debate. full sanctions against Tehran. This will was announced by the US Secretary of State, justifying it with United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231. According to the American interpretation, Iran has not respected the commitments made by signing the nuclear agreement, an agreement from which the United States unilaterally withdrew. According to the White House, the notification to the United Nations, which took place last August 20, would have activated the process of restoring the sanctions with effect from 19 September 2020. The coincidence with the electoral campaign appears evident, however this intention places the United States in a further state of isolation, which aggravates the American position within the diplomatic landscape. The most eloquent reaction is that of the European Union, which denounces the illegitimacy of the US in wanting to reapply the sanctions. This is an illegality in contradiction with international law, as Americans cannot reapply the sanctions of a treaty from which they have withdrawn and, therefore, to which they are no longer subscribers. The contempt for the law, bent to the contingent needs of domestic politics, however, of only one part of the country, highlights how the attitude of the administration in office is a mixture of inexperience and amateurism, from which, for the umpteenth time, the country it comes out very badly. In fact, if the reactions of China, Russia and Iran itself are opposed for reasons of national political interests, the position of Europe stands out as a progressive move away from the United States, at least if this president remains in charge. The clash is not only on the provision of the application of sanctions on the basis of an agreement from which Washington unilaterally withdrew, but also on the American threat to apply sanctions to those states that will not comply with the decision of the White House. The American attitude is also a challenge to the United Nations, a head-on confrontation that can have serious consequences on the balance of international politics; in fact, the threats to sanction other states, which will not want to comply with the US decision, is a potential consequence of the almost certain decision of the United Nations not to want to comply with the implementation of the sanctions. It is understood that a diplomacy now made up only of threats and which rejects any dialogue and also the application of normal rules of conduct represents a sign of weakness, both in the short and medium term. But it is also a question of the formal abdication of the role of a great power by a country that is withdrawing more and more on itself at a time when the need for a common front of Western democracies against China and Russia no longer appears to be a need. postponable. Not only does the “America First” program, the slogan accompanying Trump’s political action, also seems to be betrayed by this excess of leadership which is certainly against the interests of the United States. Washington cannot propose itself against Chinese expansionism or Russian activism in a singular way, because it needs the joint action of Europe, which is always given as certain, but wrongly: in fact, it cannot be expected that the greatest ally the American, already intolerant of Trump’s action, is passively subjected to these impositions; from a commercial point of view, the European Union cannot tolerate being subjected to sanctions in an illegal way and the consequence can only be a tightening of relations even on issues where American interests had found an agreement with Europe, such as scenarios of telecommunications developments, with the exclusion of Chinese technology. This case once again highlights how Europe must find a way to be increasingly independent from other international actors; if there is an enormous distance vis-à-vis China and Russia on issues such as human rights, computer violations and even commercial relations, which increasingly places them as unreliable interlocutors; the United States, despite Trump’s policies, still remained the natural interlocutors, however the White House seems to want to exercise an increasingly hegemonic role, which cannot be tolerated by Europe. If the American presidential elections do not give a different result from the one produced four years earlier, the distances with Trump are destined to increase: at that point Washington could become not so different from Beijing or Moscow.