European JCPOA; A Deliberate Self-Deception

Can we translate the JCPOA into an economic progress by relying on the European states without any dependence on the US? To have an in-depth understanding of the issue, we need to have a historical review of Europe’s relations with the Islamic Republic and its approach towards the JCPOA.
1) The 40-year history of the Islamic Republic of Iran shows that the Europeans have never stood by Iran against the US. The materialistic view of the Europe on the one hand and the largeness of the US economy on the other, are two main elements which push the Europeans towards the US. Amid all the tensions between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the US including the Iraqi imposed war, economic siege and human rights disputes, the Europeans have always stood by the US and sometimes even had labour divisions among themselves to exert pressure on Iran.
2) The Europeans maintain that the JCPOA should be preserved but Iran’s regional and missile powers should be limited. This is what the US says. Trump says the JCPOA was expected to harness Iran in all fields but it has failed to put an end to the growing power of Iran in the region. So, the arguments of Trump, Macron, Merkel and May are the same. They just differ in intonation. The Europeans don’t use warmongering rhetoric in public but they are politely pressing ahead with the same goal that Trump is pursing.
3) Now the main question is: What is the difference between the US and the Europeans when it comes to the implementation of the JCPOA over the past two years? Even Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said just recently that Iran has not managed yet to open a bank account in the UK. Today, no major European bank cooperates with Iran. "Total” is the only European company in Iran but the company has said explicitly that if the US pulls out of the JCPOA, it will leave Iran. So, as we see, there is no difference between the US and the Europeans when it comes to the JCPOA. They have even a similar stance towards Iran’s regional and missile power saying that Iran’s power need to be limited. And they have announced their stances explicitly and publicly.
Another option that the Iranian politicians are working on is playing with some concepts like "dialogue” and the differences between dialogue and "negotiation”. In a recent ceremony in Tehran, President Rouhani said no one is allowed to set conditions for Iran’s military power which is based on the country’s Constitution and defence measures and doctrine.
He went on saying that some states are interested in holding talks with Iran. "We welcome dialogue to show who will be the loser.” This is what I call playing with words to confuse public opinion. This means opening a new front under the title of "dialogue” instead of "negotiation”, that is we hold talks but there would be no give-and-take over Iran’s regional and missile power.
The trend can gradually lead to a target which is not predictable. Why should the Europeans listen to you and get convinced? Macron has his own goals in negotiation (in Rouhani’s view, dialogue) before coming to Iran. Is he really after a persuasive and logical debate?
The Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) has lost at least over one thousands of its members in fight against terrorism over the past years. This comes as it is now accused of sponsoring terrorism. Now why on the earth the accusers should be waiting for a logical debate with us? It seems we are back to the first square.
The only way out of the current deadlock is adopting the principle of a resilient economy and conducting a step by step confrontation against nuclear sanctions imposed on the country. A step by step confrontation is neither a pullout of the JCPOA to create a global consensus against Iran nor a passive policy tarnishing our national pride.
So a step by step confrontation means to make up for the retreats made over the JCPOA but the main issue which has gained momentum is that we need not to keep the country in a limbo and pin our hope on the outside world. We should put an end to this strategy.