The decision of the Council of the European Union to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization marks the end of a long and gradual process. The European Union began imposing sanctions on the Iranian regime as early as 2011 and has since expanded these measures in response to both human rights violations within Iran and Tehran’s foreign policy concerning the nuclear issue, the Middle East, and Ukraine.
However, the decision to take direct action against the IRGC encountered significant political obstacles over the years that delayed its adoption. Although other Western countries have designated the IRGC as a terrorist organization in recent years, and despite repeated calls from the European Parliament to undertake a similar initiative, several European governments—led by France—have opposed such as move until now. This opposition has stemmed from concerns that designating the IRGC as a terrorist entity would jeopardize the possibility of reaching a diplomatic resolution with Iran. In addition, Paris, in particular, has expressed concerns regarding the fate of European citizens held hostage by Tehran.
Iran’s violent suppression of domestic protests in recent weeks prompted the countries that had previously opposed the designation to change their positions. In this context, it’s important to note that the European Union’s official statement underscores the domestic situation in Iran and the deepening cooperation between Moscow and Tehran as the primary factors influencing this decision, rather than events occurring within the Middle Eastern arena.
From the Iranian perspective, the EU decision comes against the backdrop of a significant deterioration in Iran–EU relations in general, and in its relations with the E3 countries in particular, especially following the activation of the snapback mechanism. This decision further diminishes the chances of bridging the gaps between the sides and indicates, from an Iranian viewpoint, a practical retreat by Europe from active engagement in dialogue with Tehran on the nuclear issue.
Alongside its economic implications—primarily concerning companies and entities linked to the IRGC and their capacity to maintain economic ties with the European Union—the decision is expected to heighten tensions between Iran and additional EU countries, which already accuse Tehran of interfering in their internal affairs.
On the political level, the decision conveys a clear message regarding the legitimacy of the Iranian regime in the eyes of the European Union and reflects the desire of European countries not to be relegated entirely to the margins of events in the Middle East while American involvement intensifies.
The decision of the Council of the European Union to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization marks the end of a long and gradual process. The European Union began imposing sanctions on the Iranian regime as early as 2011 and has since expanded these measures in response to both human rights violations within Iran and Tehran’s foreign policy concerning the nuclear issue, the Middle East, and Ukraine.
However, the decision to take direct action against the IRGC encountered significant political obstacles over the years that delayed its adoption. Although other Western countries have designated the IRGC as a terrorist organization in recent years, and despite repeated calls from the European Parliament to undertake a similar initiative, several European governments—led by France—have opposed such as move until now. This opposition has stemmed from concerns that designating the IRGC as a terrorist entity would jeopardize the possibility of reaching a diplomatic resolution with Iran. In addition, Paris, in particular, has expressed concerns regarding the fate of European citizens held hostage by Tehran.
Iran’s violent suppression of domestic protests in recent weeks prompted the countries that had previously opposed the designation to change their positions. In this context, it’s important to note that the European Union’s official statement underscores the domestic situation in Iran and the deepening cooperation between Moscow and Tehran as the primary factors influencing this decision, rather than events occurring within the Middle Eastern arena.
From the Iranian perspective, the EU decision comes against the backdrop of a significant deterioration in Iran–EU relations in general, and in its relations with the E3 countries in particular, especially following the activation of the snapback mechanism. This decision further diminishes the chances of bridging the gaps between the sides and indicates, from an Iranian viewpoint, a practical retreat by Europe from active engagement in dialogue with Tehran on the nuclear issue.
Alongside its economic implications—primarily concerning companies and entities linked to the IRGC and their capacity to maintain economic ties with the European Union—the decision is expected to heighten tensions between Iran and additional EU countries, which already accuse Tehran of interfering in their internal affairs.
On the political level, the decision conveys a clear message regarding the legitimacy of the Iranian regime in the eyes of the European Union and reflects the desire of European countries not to be relegated entirely to the margins of events in the Middle East while American involvement intensifies.