We must face the facts. If Europe is sending Catherine Ashton, who is as eloquent as she is powerless, on reconnaissance to Teheran; if Barack Obama has, for the past few months, responded more strongly to the Israeli challenge, it is only due to the fact that the Israelis are flexing their muscles and pretending that nothing can hold them back. Had [Israel] been as cautious as most states, Teheran would have been more likely to have quick access to the bomb. [...] In case of an emergency, it is the West that will, single-handedly, take the nuclear weapons from the hands of Iran's leaders.

It is by no means certain that Iran will not be able to make up for the loss of the European market elsewhere. That said the risk of further increases in oil prices is limited: the resumption of hydrocarbon production in Iraq and Libya should absorb most of the upward pressure at a time when the world economy is slowing down. However, doubts remain about the initiative’s potential to force Teheran to engage in meaningful talks about its nuclear ambitions. The mullahs’ regime has yet to reach a point where it has to choose between its survival and its military programme. But there is an urgent need for action. How else will it be possible to prevent the Israelis, who are convinced of the imminence of Iran’s nuclear capability, from launching military strikes? No doubt the oil embargo will be less effective than the secret war of assassinations and computer viruses. But it does have the merit of publicly demonstrating Europe’s determination to maintain pressure on Iran.

In terms of sanctions against Iran, the EU has played its final card, warns Süddeutsche Zeitung in Munich:

It marks the final escalation in the effort which has been ongoing for close to ten years to resolve the conflict by peaceful means. If Iran remains unmoved, the only remaining means will be military ones. The EU and the United States, which has been backing severe sanctions for some time, run the risk that their efforts may come to nothing. But countries that want to prevent Iran from progressing towards nuclear capability have no alternative.

However, this view is contested by Britain’s former permanent representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Writing in the Daily Telegraph, Peter Jenkins argues that Teheran should be allowed to enrich uranium – but with the toughest safeguards:

Now, the West is all but isolated in insisting that Iran must not enrich. Most non-Westerners would prefer to see Iran treated like other NPT [Non-Proliferation Treaty] parties: allowed to enrich uranium in return for intrusive monitoring by IAEA inspectors. My sympathies lie with the non-Westerners. My hunch is that this gathering crisis could be avoided by a deal along the following lines: Iran would accept top-notch IAEA safeguards in return for being allowed to continue enriching uranium. In addition, Iran would volunteer some confidence-building measures to show that it has no intention of making nuclear weapons. This, essentially, is the deal that Iran offered the UK, France and Germany in 2005. With hindsight, that offer should have been snapped up. It wasn’t, because our objective was to put a stop to all enrichment in Iran. That has remained the West’s aim ever since, despite countless Iranian reminders that they are unwilling to be treated as a second-class party to the NPT – with fewer rights than other signatories – and despite all the evidence that the Iranian character is more inclined to defiance than buckling under pressure.

But it is probably too late, argues Barcelona daily La Vanguardia: "Neither Brussels nor Washington have any confidence in Teheran’s insistence that its nuclear activities are solely for peaceful civil purposes." That said:

… the economic impact of the measure is uncertain: it will largely depend on support from other countries, like China, Japan and India, which could all too easily absorb the production destined for the EU [20% of Iranian oil exports]. At the same time, the sanctions could have a boomerang effect that would damage the European economy. Experts expect an increase in the price of oil […], and it is the countries which have been worst affected by the economic crisis that depend the most on Iran; Spain is, after Greece, the country that will be hardest hit by the boycott.

According to the Bucharest daily, "the boon of greater economic and geo-strategic access to Asia will not only be of benefit to the Russians". The 25-billion euro project will also facilitate access to the Caspian Sea oil reserves, and its capacity will be doubled by a future network of motorways to link Russia and China." România libera has calculated "that if the canal attracts just 5% of the current maritime freight traffic between China and Europe, countries on the new route will receive an additional 2.2 billion euros in tax revenue every year." On this basis, the daily points out that the European Union should hurry "to present its long awaited strategy for the Danube, which flows into the Black Sea."

The daily also notes that it is not the first time that Ramadan has been criticized: "Earlier this year, questions were asked about his position in the wake of homophobic and sexist remarks, which caused some representatives to walk out of a session of the municipal council." In response to questions from Volksrant, Ramadan insists that Press TV allows him "the freedom to focus on any subject," and that he has "never been in contact with any member of the Iranian government." He also points out that he has "repeatedly said that the repression and assassination of citizens […] must be condemned."

“Azerbaijan dashed Nabucco promoters’ hopes by deciding in early July to grant priority access to Gazprom,” explains the French daily. In view of Europe’s irate reactions, however, the Azerbaijani State oil company has since confirmed that it will supply the quantities pledged. Turkmenistan, for its part, which is on bad terms with Moscow, has opted to join the European project. “Brussels hopes to clinch the same promise from Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, though in the longer term it is ogling the gas reserves in Egypt, Iraq and Iran,” concludes Le Figaro.