Madrid-Indirect negotiations between Iran and the United States, a considerable absence stands out compared to the Landmark JCPOA: consultations that led to the absence of European countries.
This exclusion shows a marked shift in diplomatic balance that has characterised the process over the years, raising questions about Europe’s future role in one of the most sensitive aspects of international politics.
In his X-account post on Thursday, Araguchi described the current state of bilateral relations with each European troika as a “loss” situation, and despite calling for diplomacy, the trio regrets choosing “hardway.”
“The relationship between Iran and E3 (France, Germany, and the UK) has experienced ups and downs in recent history. Whether you like it or not, why each side has its own story. For me, putting responsibility is a waste of movement.
Araghchi noted that in September last year he had provided conflict, dialogue and cooperation in a meeting with New York’s E3 and other European counterpart foreign ministers.
He said that his proposals extended beyond the nuclear issue to include all areas of mutual interest and concern, but Europeans chose a more difficult path, the minister said.
“I propose diplomacy again. After recent consultations in Moscow and Beijing, I am ready to take my first step with a visit to Paris, Berlin and London. Iran was ready to do that before it began an indirect dialogue with the US, but E3 has opted out,” emphasized Araghchi.
“The ball is currently on the court at E3. They have the opportunity to abolish the grip of special interest groups and build another path. Actions at this important junction could define the near future,” he added.
European relations with Iran in the nuclear territory have a long history, with government President Mohammad Khatami choosing a diplomatic route, dating back to 2002, following the emergence of Iran’s nuclear documents at the International Forum and the rise in external pressure. In this regard, talks have begun with three European countries: the UK, France and Germany. These efforts resulted in three important agreements: Sadabad, Brussels and Paris. It reached its peak as a gesture of goodwill to the international community in the voluntary halt of Iran’s nuclear activity.
However, in 2005, while Hassan Luhani was secretary to the Supreme National Security Council, Iran submitted a report to the then Director-General of Iaa, Mohamed Elbaradei, pointing out that negotiations with the European Troika had failed. Despite Iran strictly pinning its commitments, including halting a critical part of its nuclear program, the three European countries were unable to meet the obligations they had put into effect, leaving Iran unhappy with the process.
Despite this set-off, Europe’s involvement in negotiations with the P5+1 resumed in 2007, but the round of talks ended at the end of the Iranian president’s term. The revitalization of negotiations was under President Luhani’s leadership, which ultimately led to a contract known as the JCPOA. In this process, France took a strict stance, played the role of “bad cop,” and the US took a more flexible approach.
Talks to revive the JCPOA continued under the presidency of martian Reshi. In this new phase, negotiations were conducted indirectly, with the Europeans acting as intermediaries. However, despite efforts, these consultations did not achieve the expected success, leaving a sense of frustration in both Iran and the international community.
In this context, the absence of Europeans in the current negotiations between Iran and the US represents an important turning point. For many years, members of European countries, particularly the Troika (UK, France, Germany) have played an important role in the process, but the lack of direct participation in efforts to stimulate the nuclear agreement raises questions about the future and role that Europe will play in this new two international landscape.
French Foreign Minister Jean Noel Barott responded to indirect negotiations taking place in Oman. Ahead of the future meeting of the European Union’s Foreign Ministers, Barott said France, along with Germany, the UK and other allies, would ensure that the agreement between Iran and the US is consistent with Europe’s strategic interests, particularly with regard to Iran’s nuclear program. “We are waiting for a report from the Executive Director of the International Atomic Energy Agency in the coming weeks. A report that should clarify the exact progress of this program,” he adds, highlighting the need for transparency and oversight in the process.
Over 20 years of nuclear negotiations between Iran and Europe spanning the agreement between Paris and the JCPOA in Sadabad, shows that Europe has failed to establish itself as a truly independent actor in the region. Despite their involvement in the negotiation round, Europeans were unable to fulfill their commitment, particularly after the US withdrawal from the agreement. A clear example of this was the creation of a common financial channel with Iran. This was ultimately cancelled in almost silence, reflecting the difficulties of Europe in the face of Washington’s pressures to act autonomously.
From an Iranian perspective, Europe should take an important step towards regaining its true independence. This could begin with a thorough review of the approach to sanctions. Rather than blindly following the coercive measures imposed by the US, concrete gestures such as the removal of these sanctions are also clear signals that Europe is willing to play a more positive and relevant role in international diplomacy. This step will allow Europe to distance itself from its strategic dependence on Washington and restore its ability to act in its own interests.
In this context, the threat posed by E3 (UK, France, Germany) is carried out to reinvigorate the so-called “snapback mechanism.” This threat, seen by Tehran as an unconditional act of integrity between the United States and its allies, is recognized as a key obstacle to diplomatic resolution of conflicts.
From an Iranian perspective, the activation of the “snapback” mechanism, considered illegal by Iran, will not only undermine the possibility of a negotiated solution, but will align Israel and E3 countries to hamper diplomatic efforts in the region. Such a stance not only weakens the mutual trust needed for effective negotiations, but also perpetuates conflicting dynamics rather than fostering understanding and enduring peace in West Asia.
In this regard, it is considered essential that there are interactions and that all parties respect their commitment for the success of the negotiation process. In the current context where Europe does not exist on the negotiation table between Iran and the US, it may be the right time for European actors to reflect the constructive role they can play. Approaching this new cycle of negotiation with a new focus, based on mutual respect and effective commitment, could significantly contribute to solving nuclear challenges and regional stability. In doing so, Europe not only has the opportunity to restore relevance in international diplomacy, but also strengthens political independence in increasingly complex global scenarios.