European Confusion Over Traditional Iranian Weapons

UN Security Council virtual meeting on 30 June (AFP)
UN Security Council virtual meeting on 30 June (AFP)
TT

European Confusion Over Traditional Iranian Weapons

UN Security Council virtual meeting on 30 June (AFP)
UN Security Council virtual meeting on 30 June (AFP)

Once again, the three European countries that are directly concerned with Iran's nuclear program (France, Germany and the United Kingdom) have found themselves in a difficult position between the need to comply to US pressures to extend the ban of arms trade with Iran starting this October and also their caution to maintain a line of communication with Tehran and keep the 2015 Nuclear Deal alive despite the battering it has already taken.

They are trying to reconcile positions that appear either contradictory or incomprehensible. For instance, the European trio considers that lifting the United Nations’ arms embargo on Iran, which the UN has imposed on traditional weapons through Resolution 2231, "may have a major implications for regional security and stability”, agreeing to follow the US position.

Meanwhile, Paris, Berlin, and London rejected the draft resolution that Washington presented to the Security Council last Tuesday, which was also firmly opposed by the Chinese and Russian delegates.

European sources in New York told Asharq Al-Awsat that the Europeans had "advised" the Americans not to submit the Draft, they believed that it would not pass for two reasons: First, it would not receive the nine votes needed for approval in the event of the absence of a veto, second, the Russians and the Chinese would use their veto if the US project were to reach the nine vote threshold. This implies that the five Europeans who are currently in the Security Council, according to what the aforementioned sources said, “will not go as far as voting against the draft resolution, to avoid upsetting the US and creating tension between the two sides of the Atlantic; rather, they would abstain.” The sources added: “If things remain the same and positions do not shift, it is likely that Washington will not put its project to a vote and will resort to an alternative method instead. ”

The alternative method is the so-called "snapback" measure; a process outlined in the nuclear deal that allows for the reimposition of international sanctions that were lifted under the 2231 Resolution at the behest of a signatory to the agreement if the six signatories (5 + 1) and Iran are unable to resolve their differences through negotiations.

The Europeans deny Washington's claim that the latter is still party to the agreement despite its exit from it in the spring of 2018. Olaf Skoog, the European Union's representative to the United Nations, said this week that Washington “has not participated in any meetings or activities within the framework of the 2015 Nuclear Agreement, which means that it cannot claim to still be inside it despite its exit from it.”

In a statement issued after their meeting in Berlin, foreign ministers of France, Germany and Britain had previously rejected "any unilateral (US) attempt to reimpose UN sanctions against Iran."

Thus, the precariousness of the European position is obvious: The rejection of the two US proposals aimed at extending the embargo on conventional weapons sales to Iran and the assertions that lifting the embargo "will have major implications for regional security and stability".

The sources admit that the Europeans "are in a far more awkward position" today, and they had angered both Iran and the US. However, it seems that they have "discovered" a way out that would allow them to distance themselves from this complex problem, at least temporarily. They are privy to a European decision to ban arms sales to Iran that is extended annually and is valid until the spring of 2021. The Europeans thereby assert that the US draft “is not their concern”, while the refusal to re-impose international sanctions on Iran stems from the desire to maintain the agreement.

Earlier this week, the Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, took advantage of the Security Council meeting to exert more pressure on the Europeans by linking the lifting of the arms embargo to his country committing to the agreement, despite the widespread violations that have made it void.

In light of all of these complications, the whispers are growing louder in the corridors of the Security Council about a US alternative plan, which may be the "last way out" for Washington to reach its goals in terms of re-imposing international sanctions, including the extension of the arms embargo on Iran.



What Makes Greenland a Strategic Prize at a Time of Rising Tensions? And Why Now? 

A person walks on a snow covered road, ahead of the March 11 general election, in Nuuk, Greenland, March 9, 2025. (Ritzau Scanpix/Mads Claus Rasmussen via Reuters) 
A person walks on a snow covered road, ahead of the March 11 general election, in Nuuk, Greenland, March 9, 2025. (Ritzau Scanpix/Mads Claus Rasmussen via Reuters) 
TT

What Makes Greenland a Strategic Prize at a Time of Rising Tensions? And Why Now? 

A person walks on a snow covered road, ahead of the March 11 general election, in Nuuk, Greenland, March 9, 2025. (Ritzau Scanpix/Mads Claus Rasmussen via Reuters) 
A person walks on a snow covered road, ahead of the March 11 general election, in Nuuk, Greenland, March 9, 2025. (Ritzau Scanpix/Mads Claus Rasmussen via Reuters) 

When US President Donald Trump first suggested buying Greenland in 2019, people thought it was just a joke. No one is laughing now.

Trump’s interest in Greenland, restated vigorously soon after he returned to the White House in January, comes as part of an aggressively “America First” foreign policy platform that includes demands for Ukraine to hand over mineral rights in exchange for continued military aid, threats to take control of the Panama Canal, and suggestions that Canada should become the 51st US state.

Why Greenland? Increasing international tensions, global warming and the changing world economy have put Greenland at the heart of the debate over global trade and security, and Trump wants to make sure that the US controls this mineral-rich country that guards the Arctic and North Atlantic approaches to North America.

Who does Greenland belong to? Greenland is a self-governing territory of Denmark, a long-time US ally that has rejected Trump’s overtures. Denmark has also recognized Greenland’s right to independence at a time of its choosing.

Amid concerns about foreign interference and demands that Greenlanders must control their own destiny, the island’s prime minister called an early parliamentary election for Tuesday.

The world’s largest island, 80% of which lies above the Arctic Circle, is home to about 56,000 mostly Inuit people who until now have been largely ignored by the rest of the world.

Why are other countries interested in Greenland? Climate change is thinning the Arctic ice, promising to create a northwest passage for international trade and reigniting the competition with Russia, China and other countries over access to the region’s mineral resources.

“Let us be clear: we are soon entering the Arctic Century, and its most defining feature will be Greenland’s meteoric rise, sustained prominence and ubiquitous influence,” said Dwayne Menezes, managing director of the Polar Research and Policy Initiative.

“Greenland — located on the crossroads between North America, Europe and Asia, and with enormous resource potential — will only become more strategically important, with all powers great and small seeking to pay court to it. One is quite keen to go a step further and buy it.”

The following are some of the factors that are driving US interest in Greenland.

Arctic competition

Following the Cold War, the Arctic was largely an area of international cooperation. But climate change, the hunt for scarce resources and increasing international tensions following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine are once again driving competition in the region.

Strategic importance

Greenland sits off the northeastern coast of Canada, with more than two-thirds of its territory lying within the Arctic Circle. That has made it crucial to the defense of North America since World War II, when the US occupied Greenland to ensure that it didn’t fall into the hands of Nazi Germany and to protect crucial North Atlantic shipping lanes.

The US has retained bases in Greenland since the war, and the Pituffik Space Base, formerly Thule Air Force Base, supports missile warning, missile defense and space surveillance operations for the US and NATO. Greenland also guards part of what is known as the GIUK (Greenland, Iceland, United Kingdom) Gap, where NATO monitors Russian naval movements in the North Atlantic.

Natural resources

Greenland has large deposits of so-called rare earth minerals that are needed to make everything from computers and smartphones to the batteries, solar and wind technologies that will power the transition away from fossil fuels. The US Geological Survey has also identified potential offshore deposits of oil and natural gas.

Greenlanders are keen to develop the resources, but they have enacted strict rules to protect the environment. There are also questions about the feasibility of extracting Greenland’s mineral wealth because of the region’s harsh climate.

Climate change

Greenland’s retreating ice cap is exposing the country’s mineral wealth and melting sea ice is opening up the once-mythical Northwest Passage through the Arctic.

Greenland sits strategically along two potential routes through the Arctic, which would reduce shipping times between the North Atlantic and Pacific and bypass the bottlenecks of the Suez and Panama canals. While the routes aren’t likely to be commercially viable for many years, they are attracting attention.

Chinese interest

In 2018, China declared itself a “near-Arctic state” in an effort to gain more influence in the region. China has also announced plans to build a “Polar Silk Road” as part of its global Belt and Road Initiative, which has created economic links with countries around the world.

Then-US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo rejected China’s move, saying: “Do we want the Arctic Ocean to transform into a new South China Sea, fraught with militarization and competing territorial claims?” A Chinese-backed rare earth mining project in Greenland stalled after the local government banned uranium mining in 2021.

Independence

The legislation that extended self-government to Greenland in 2009 also recognized the country’s right to independence under international law. Opinion polls show a majority of Greenlanders favor independence, though they differ on exactly when that should occur. The potential for independence raises questions about outside interference in Greenland that could threaten US interests in the country.