Diplomacy in Intensive Care: Is There a Future for Iran–Europe Talks?
More than two weeks have passed since the European Trio (E3) decided on August 28 to trigger the snapback mechanism. During this period, diplomatic talks between Iran and the E3 countries — the United Kingdom, France, and Germany — have continued and are still ongoing. The Iranian nuclear program, which occupies the international agenda, is the subject of a multilateral dispute. In addition to the U.S. and Israeli dimensions of the issue, there are also the EU, UN, Russia, and China sides.
In the dialogue between Iran and the E3, Iran is being asked to once again bring its nuclear activities under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to resume negotiations with the United States, and to account for the 400 kilograms of enriched uranium whose fate is unknown. Iran, citing an attack it suffered from Israel, is proposing a brand-new format of coordination with the Agency. It is also demanding guarantees against any Israeli attack.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi is making every effort to resolve the issue on a diplomatic footing and to free Iran from the grip of sanctions and war. At this point, Araghchi is dealing not only with European powers but also with conservative forces within Iran. The September 7 parliamentary session that was to discuss Iran’s withdrawal from the NPT was narrowly averted. The number and volume of voices in favor of nuclear weapons within Iran continue to grow.
On the evening of September 4, Araghchi held a surprise meeting in Doha, the capital of Qatar, with EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Kaja Kallas. This meeting was critical in showing the continuity of dialogue between Iran and Europe. On September 6, a crucial meeting was also held in Vienna between Iranian and IAEA delegations. These talks reportedly achieved small but tangible progress, and both sides expressed readiness to give diplomacy a chance.
However, the most important development took place on September 9 in Cairo, the capital of Egypt. Talks mediated by the Egyptian Foreign Minister between the Iranian delegation led by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and the IAEA delegation led by Rafael Grossi yielded a positive outcome. According to this, Iran will fulfill its obligations under the NPT and take steps for the Agency’s inspections. Both sides presented the agreement as an important step toward peace and a lasting resolution of the nuclear issue. No further details of the agreement were shared.
Yet this agreement covers only the Iran–IAEA aspect of the multidimensional and multilateral issue described above. By the end of September, the E3 countries must also be persuaded and reach an agreement with Iran; otherwise, under the snapback mechanism, UN sanctions on Iran from before 2015 will return. Should sanctions be reinstated, Iranian Minister Araghchi stressed that the agreement with the Agency would also become void.
Although diplomacy’s lifespan has shortened, it is still breathing. However, there are question marks over whether dialogue between Iran and Europe alone can produce results. Whether the EU is a game-changing actor in this matter is a question that deserves careful consideration.
The EU’s Ineffectiveness
Although the EU has never been able to develop a completely independent Iran policy from the U.S., it did have a certain degree of autonomy in softening U.S. policy toward Iran and steering it toward different diplomatic solutions. In the 1990s, the Iran policy it formulated as “critical dialogue” aimed not to burn bridges with Iran but to develop selective dialogue — pressuring Iran into certain behavioral patterns on issues such as human rights while developing trade relations and joint investment areas. Another dimension of this policy was to strengthen cooperation and solidarity with moderate and reformist elements within Iran and to increase these actors’ room for maneuver in Iranian politics.
In recent years, however, the EU’s loss of ground in world politics has been reflected in its stance toward Iran. Especially after the Russia–Ukraine war, Europe, which has become increasingly dependent on the U.S. in the security field, does not seem capable of developing an autonomous policy on Iran. In this sense, the anti-Trump and pro-agreement stance Europe displayed after Trump’s withdrawal of the U.S. from the nuclear deal (2018) — which occurred before the war — is no longer visible today. It is even said that Marco Rubio’s pressure played a role in the E3 countries’ decision to trigger the snapback. In short, the EU now has no option other than aligning itself with U.S. policy on Iran.
Iran, for its part, is using this very observation to invite the EU to become an independent actor again. In an article published in The Guardian on September 7, Abbas Araghchi accused Europe of following Donald Trump’s lead on Iran and acting within the framework of Israeli directives. Araghchi stated that for Europe to once again be a subject in international politics, it must pursue an independent foreign policy — and specifically an independent Iran policy.
The Breaking of Bridges Between Europe and Iran
On the other hand, although the E3 countries remained formally committed to the agreement after 2018, they did not actually implement it due to the force of U.S. sanctions. They suspended their economic relations with Iran. Therefore, today there is no economic relationship between Europe and Iran that could be considered at risk. In a context where economic dependence is weak, it seems easier for Europe to write Iran off.
Finally, it is clear that the EU is extremely disturbed by Iran’s military cooperation with Russia in the face of the growing Russian threat. During the Ukraine war, Iran supplied UAVs to Russia, turning it into an actor that, in the EU’s eyes, must be punished, as it undermines Europe’s security. Under these circumstances, it can be said that the EU has no motivation to save Iran from U.S. wrath.
Is There Still a Chance for an Agreement?
The 12-Day War signaled that any negotiations with Iran would now take place under the shadow of military intervention. This is because the war did not resolve the military tension between the two countries, and both sides are preparing for a second round. The E3 countries’ snapback decision also showed that negotiations would take place under the threat of sanctions. Therefore, although Iran continues to pin its hopes on diplomacy under the pressure of war and sanctions, the most positive development at present would be to extend the snapback period by six months to create an opportunity for comprehensive negotiations and agreements. Even so, the likelihood of a final resolution within six months is not high.
It should be remembered that the deadlock stems not from technical details but from the political context. As long as Israel is not restrained, there is no possibility of resolving the Iranian nuclear file. The parties negotiating with Iran are aligned behind Israel. The 12-Day War produced the strange situation in which EU countries condemned not aggressive Israel but a defensive Iran. There is no sign that these countries will use diplomacy on the nuclear issue for peace. In this process, diplomatic contacts have no meaning beyond serving as a stalling tactic and a way to buy time for the parties.
This article was also published by Anadolu Agency:
