A recent BBC article shows the ever growing effects on the Iranian economy of the European Union's latest package of sanctions imposed in 2012 as a response to the Iranians nuclear programme.

Using its 'soft powers' to target the Iranian economy as a whole - its banks, trade, currency, etc. - the European Union (EU) has now decided to take further measures to ensure a change in policy-making within the Iranian government and force Iran to discontinue its nuclear program.

The bans on EU-Iranian trade include sanctions on Iranian oil trade, leading the Iranian currency to loose over 80% of its value against the US dollar. Altogether, Iranian economic conditions continue to collapse, providing further evidence of the effectiveness of economic sanctions.

Nonetheless, one cannot help wonder whether sanctions will force any political change. Could it be argued that the EU's sanctions are counter productive?

Dr. Posch, an Iran expert at the German Institute argues that sanctions such as the ones applied to Iran, tend to have the effect of strengthening rather than weakening regimes. The more restrictions apply, the more radical Iran becomes towards the EU.

Tom Sauer, Research Fellow of the Research Foundation at the Institute for International and European Policy; “The coercive diplomacy adapted by the CFSP [the economic arm of the EU], until today is not proving to be any success, for it has been proven that the threatened government will become more self-confident and even harder to convince”.

Following the ousting of the Iranian Shah in 1979 the European Community found itself in a so called Cold Peace with Iran, which lasted for a decade. Iran was important to Europe as an oil supplier, yet Europe could not afford to jeopardize the United States friendship.

After the death of Khomeini, EU ties with Iran grew stronger, despite the Unites States rigid foreign policy towards Iran. The so-called critical dialogue in 1992 brought about stronger ties between Iran and the EU, while calling for improvement in the human rights domain as well as terrorism.

Unlike the United States' diplomacy of coercion, at that time the EU maintained a style of diplomacy that was based solely on dialogue and negotiations.

“The policy of constructive engagement pursued by the EU towards Iran from 1992 until 2000 was a CFSP [policy] aimed at maintaining contact with Iran in order to influence its regime”, says Dr. Kaussler, Political Science Professor at James Madison University.

In accordance, the CFSP rejected any sanctions and dismissed any kind of policy isolating Iran. This policy in its turn created tensions with the United States.

“From 2003 onwards, the nuclear topic began to dominate the bilateral agenda and gradually developed a dynamic of its own, even changing the format of EU-Iranian engagement”, says Dr. Posch.

In an attempt to become a global player, the EU not only engaged in military intervention but also drafted the so called Non-Proliferation Strategy. In doing so, the CFSP changed its diplomacy based on dialogue and negotiations to a coercive diplomacy where power became front and centre.

According to the Iranian negotiator Hassan Rohani, talks with the EU were not beneficial enough for Iran. Inside Iran, the Reformists saw a change of policy and realized that the EU was more interested in ensuring its own security than actually making a 'positive change'.

A reformists, Shiring Edbai stated “I think they're wrong. Undemocratic countries are more dangerous than a nuclear bomb.”

The relationship between Iran and the EU changed, when Iran sensed a stronger Americanization of EU foreign policy towards Iran.

“The CFSP is about the European Union being able to project its values and its interests – the core of its politics identity – effectively beyond its own borders”, says Dr. Amelia Hadfield; Senior Research Fellow and Associate Professor in European Affairs at IES.

And so it did indeed. This form of 'realist diplomacy' by the CFSP, is one that aims to treat Iran as an outcast, forcing a fundamental change in government that will then adapt to the international system.

In doing so the EU is not considering the Iranian realist approach in foreign policy. In an attempt to become a power in the international arena, Iran is not listening to outside influences. As much as the EU is relying on a position of strength, so is Iran.

By cutting the dialogue diplomacy, the EU has put itself in the US camp and backed away from its position of the 'reasonable and honest broker'.

“The EU's closer alignment to the US position convinced many Iranian policymakers that Europe too was negotiating in bad faith and not seeking a solution but rather Iran's surrender” . Says Dr. Kaussler.

The EU considers its demand for Iran to stop its nuclear programme as not up for discussion, while at the same time ignoring nuclear weapons present in two of its member states, France and the UK.

This of course reinforces the notion of post-colonial powers saving the world from the non-civilized nations.

“Furthermore as agreed upon, in the formation of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), non-nuclear states are to remain non-nuclear, whereas on the other hand the nuclear states promised to get rid of their nuclear weapons over time”, says Tom Sauer.

This 'double standard' presented by the CFSP is not taken well by Iran, and is making this coercive diplomacy become even more so of a failure. Never mind that India attained its own nuclear weapon with the help of the United States.

Both parties have somehow failed to really achieve any kind of trust towards one another... According to R.H Santini, a specialist in EU foreign policy; “discourses is what enable the continuing co-constitution of identity and policy, and hence, security”.

Looking at the CFSP's struggle to force its dominance on Iran by 2003, the main result appears to be the growing apart of both parties.

The EU portrays itself as the generous, civilized 'us' while painting the Iranians as the uncivilized, cruel 'them', hence continuously sending an aggressive notion of discourse, further reinforced by the propaganda on human right issues.

Yet, how humanitarian has the EU really been towards the Iranian population? Instead of bringing about gradual change from the bottom up in Iran, the EU has become a participant in crimes against humanity, in the end justifying the means.

As we have seen throughout history authoritarian states have turned their backs on the progress of humanity. And so it seems rather unlikely, that an authoritarian theocratic state would, in slightest be affected by threats relating to the living conditions of its people.

Nonetheless the EU will have sooner or later have to address its own participation in the ever-growing human-rights violation of the Iranian people.

Not only are sanctions forcing businesses to close and causing patients to die, the sanctions are also destroying the most important factor for change inside the Iranian borders, namely its middle class, a definite driver towards progress.