Talks with Europe only make sense within US negotiations framework
Keeping diplomatic channels open essential
By Behzad Ahmadi
International relations expert
Europe’s stance toward Iran’s nuclear program has become increasingly hostile—though it was never exactly warm to begin with. The positions taken by the three European parties to the 2015 nuclear talks—Germany, France, and Britian—during Israel’s recent aggression against Iran made this abundantly clear. Their support for Israel was unmistakably one-sided.
In the case of Germany, even language deemed inappropriate in international diplomacy was used in defense of Israel. This shift underscores how much European-Iranian relations have deteriorated in recent years. Countries that once tried to play the role of mediators now appear to have firmly aligned themselves with one side—against Iran.
Europe’s sharply confrontational tone during Israel’s military action can be attributed to how they viewed the war—not as a localized conflict, but as part of a showdown between a unified West and a collective East. Within this framework, Iran was seen as the “weak link” in the Eastern bloc, and striking at it was perceived as a means of reinforcing a Western-led global order rooted in their own values and priorities.
The nuclear negotiations are also shaped by this mindset. European actors believe that Iran is operating from a position of weakness and that this allows them to exert pressure. Their main leverage: the so-called “snapback” mechanism, which they are poised to use to extract concessions at the negotiating table.
Such tactics should not be dismissed as mere psychological warfare. While elements of it may serve that purpose, the strategy is being pursued with seriousness. Europe is clearly aiming to maximize pressure to secure the upper hand in talks.
Even before Israel’s military strikes, there was a strong likelihood that the snapback mechanism could be triggered. Should talks fail to yield results, European governments—keen to curry favor with the United States—may well move forward with it. While their interests do not fully overlap with Washington’s, on this issue their agendas align
Page 2.