Iran International
Iran’s outreach to European powers has divided Tehran’s political commentators over whether engaging France, Germany and Britain serves any real purpose amid the Islamic Republic's talks with Washington.
Senior diplomats from Iran and the three European signatories to the 2015 nuclear deal met in Istanbul on Friday in what appears to be Tehran’s attempt to prevent a "snapback" of the UN sanctions that were suspended for ten years as part of that deal.
But the initiative is being questioned—somewhat surprisingly—by voices long known for advocating diplomacy, such as former lawmaker Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh.
“There is no point in holding talks with Europeans. Iran’s only solution is to continue negotiations with the United States,” he told the conservative Nameh News on Friday
“Europe’s influence will remain insignificant as long as Trump is the President of the United States.”
Missed chances
A former head of parliament’s foreign policy committee, Falahatpisheh argued that Iran’s recent diplomatic overtures to the signatories of the 2015 deal are little more than a symbolic attempt to break out of the political impasse created by Washington.
“Iran should have negotiated with (US President) Trump during his first term,” Falahatpisheh said. “Unfortunately, Iranian officials are known for their costly and untimely decisions.”
This critique of past decisions may be shared by many in Tehran’s commentariat, but the way forward is certainly not.
“Even if talks with the Americans are paused or entangled in new complexities, we should not stop our negotiations with the Europeans,” political analyst Ali Bigdeli told the moderate outlet Fararu.
“The truth is that the Europeans are holding a hostage called the ‘trigger mechanism,’ which they can use to pressure us. If they don’t agree to postpone its activation by a year, they can use it as leverage against us,” he added.
Fearing the trigger
The trigger clause in the 2015 nuclear deal allows any signatory to reimpose lifted UN sanctions on Iran. The United States effectively forfeited that prerogative when the first Trump administration withdrew from the agreement in 2018.
It remains unclear whether the so-called snapback of sanctions was discussed in the Istanbul roundtable on Friday.
European officials described the event as a broad discussion about Tehran’s relationship with the West. Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi asserted that it had “nothing to do with negotiations with Washington.”
It did, as far as the media inside Iran are concerned. Whatever their view on the significance of the Istanbul meeting, most editorials linked it to the talks with the US.
“The position of the United States, which has initiated bilateral negotiations with Tehran, has somewhat sidelined Europe’s role,”Khabar Online wrote in an editorial on Friday.
“The nuclear negotiations are not merely a diplomatic engagement between Iran and Europe, but will more broadly affect the balance of power in the region,” it concluded.
President Trump arrived in Saudi Arabia on May 13 on the first leg of a four-day, three-country trip to the Middle East that included stops in Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.
The choice of Saudi Arabia for the first state visit of Trump’s second term mirrored that of his first, except this time he did not go to Israel, signaling that the administration is doubling down on its Arabian peninsula partners as key supporters of US regional interests.
Iran was naturally not on the itinerary but ever-present in Trump’s public statements, with the president using a characteristic blend of carrot-and-stick which urged Iranian leaders to take a “new and better path” and warned of “massive maximum pressure” if Tehran “rejects this olive branch.”
Trump expressed his desire to reach a deal with Iran on many occasions, even hinting that a deal was almost agreed. For that to happen, however, Tehran "must stop sponsoring terror, halt its bloody proxy wars, and permanently and verifiably cease its pursuit of nuclear weapons,” he added.
Later, aboard Air Force One, Trump told reporters that Iran had to “make the right decision” about its nuclear program because “something’s going to happen one way or the other” and "we’ll either do it friendly or we’ll do it very unfriendly.”
Arab, Iranian audiences
There are various takeaways for leaders in Iran as well as in its neighboring Arab countries, from Trump’s commentary.
For the latter, Trump’s demand that Iran end its sponsorship of terror and involvement in proxy wars will be welcomed as a signal that any agreement with Tehran might not be narrowly confined to its nuclear program alone, as was the case with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2015.
For leaders in Riyadh, Doha and Abu Dhabi - not to mention in Tel Aviv -it was Iran’s regional activities that were as much a priority as its nuclear program, and their exclusion from the negotiations for the 2015 nuclear deal caused alarm in the region.
However, any such optimism in regional corridors of power may be tempered by concern that the president’s unconventional approach to deal-making may create openings for an agreement that gives Trump the optics he desires at the expense of nuts-and-bolts details on specific Iranian commitments.
Deals, details and differences
Comments by Steve Witkoff, Trump’s chief negotiator and one of his closest confidants, in podcast and other appearances, have not given the impression of a details-focused approach to diplomacy, whether in terms of Russia and Ukraine or Iran.
Witkoff and other members of the Trump administration have also sent mixed messages about whether Iran would be able to enrich uranium in any agreement, reinforcing concerns by domestic and regional critics of US engagement with Iran that a new deal may be worse than no deal.
For the leadership in Tehran, beset by economic challenges, energy shortages and geopolitical setbacks that left its regional "Axis of Resistance" weakened, the optics of Trump’s regional procession offer glimpses of opportunity.
The fact that Trump met with Syria’s new president, Ahmed al-Sharaa, in Riyadh and declared that sanctions on Syria would be lifted was further illustration that Trump is transactional rather than ideological, and willing to take decisions that break the mold of conventional American policy thinking.
This was underscored in Trump’s remarks in Riyadh on May 13 when he slammed the failures of generations of western interventionists and neocons in the Middle East who “told you how to do it, but they had no idea how to do it themselves” and, he argued, did far more damage than good.
In making these comments and receiving al-Sharaa, Trump has shown himself willing to break free of traditional constraints on US policymaking in the region, at least on the surface, and this may yet extend to Iran.
Unclear outlook
There are nevertheless multiple uncertainties for Iranian officials as they begin to digest the outcomes of Trump’s visit to the Middle East and assess the implications, both short- and long-term, for Tehran.
The plethora of major deals signed in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE have cemented these countries’ deep and longstanding ties with the US across the defense and security, economic, and energy spectrum.
Any concerns in the region of US disengagement from the Middle East may be dissipated by the sight of Trump bestowing such significance on the region, in stark contrast to the disdain with which the administration has treated its formal allies in Europe and North America.
And yet, if Trump is to reap the benefits of the hundreds of billions of dollars of planned investments into the US, he will likely return from his trip with a conviction that the pledges, and the returns, require stability and would be jeopardized by any conflict with Iran.
This not only plays into the de-risking and de-escalatory approach that Iran's energy-rich Arab neighbors have taken since 2020 but may also fortify Trump’s desire to burnish his credentials as a peacemaker in the explosive region.