France seeks to ...
Page 1
Could France’s insistence on including Iran’s missile program and regional policies in the agreement further complicate efforts to reach a comprehensive deal?
Yes, without question. One of the key reasons behind the relative success of the 2015 nuclear agreement was that negotiations remained confined to the nuclear issue. The broader the scope of negotiations becomes, the greater the number of variables and stakeholders involved, reducing the likelihood of reaching an agreement.
For years, France has argued that any lasting agreement should also encompass missile-related and regional dimensions. From Iran’s perspective, however, these issues fall outside the scope of nuclear negotiations and are closely tied to deterrence capabilities and national security considerations. As a result, introducing such files into the talks could deepen existing divisions and make the path to an agreement longer and more complex.
At the same time, it is important to note that raising these demands does not necessarily mean they will be met. In many international negotiations, parties put forward their maximum demands at the outset, while the final agreement typically emerges from the balance of power and the genuine priorities of the sides involved.
Given the United States’ central role in these negotiations, to what extent can Washington bring its European allies behind its preferred framework? Are there serious differences between the US and Europe over the scope and conditions of a potential agreement?
The United States remains the decisive player in this file and, if the political will exists in Washington, it has considerable capacity to bring its European allies on board. Both the experience of the 2015 nuclear deal and the reimposition of sanctions after the US withdrawal demonstrated that, despite political objections, Europe has limited ability in practice to push back against Washington’s strategic decisions.
That does not mean, however, that there are no differences. Europe generally takes a broader security view of its surrounding environment, placing greater emphasis on issues such as the missile program, regional security, migration, and stability in the Middle East. The United States, by contrast, may at times be willing to prioritize the nuclear issue and temporarily set aside some secondary demands in pursuit of a quicker agreement.
The differences between the United States and Europe therefore relate more to the scope and level of ambition of a potential deal than to the principle of reaching one. If Washington concludes that a more limited but workable agreement serves its interests, it will likely be able to rally most of its European allies behind that approach. Even so, Paris will continue trying to ensure that Europe’s security concerns are reflected in the final text to the greatest extent possible.