Europe is scrambling to form a united front and regain relevance in the Iran crisis
On Tuesday the EU's top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, was the latest senior European figure to phone the Iranian foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, offering to be a facilitator and urging Tehran not to leave the crisis in a dangerous limbo by keeping UN weapons inspectors out of Iran.
The French president, Emmanuel Macron, has even broken a three-year silence to speak to Vladimir Putin about the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, including how a deal could be struck between Iran and the US on a restricted civil nuclear programme. Macron has been involved in Iranian diplomacy for a decade and came close to engineering a rapprochement between Trump and the then Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, at the UN general assembly in 2018.
But Iran, faced with what it regards as craven European support for Israeli and American airstrikes that killed more than 930 people and injured as many as 5,000, is not placing much faith in the continent's ability to influence the White House.
For Europe, this signals a slow slide into irrelevance. The three major European powers known as the E3 – France, Germany and the UK – were once key fixtures in Iran's diplomacy and played a central role in brokering the Iran nuclear deal, which they signed alongside the EU, the US, China, Russia and Iran in 2015.
Europe had little input in the US's recent negotiating strategy with Iran, led by Trump's special envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, and was given just over an hour's official warning before the Israeli and US attacks. The one meeting that the E3 foreign minsters held during the crisis with Iranian diplomats in Geneva on 20 June proved a failure and was followed by the US strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. France claimed it helped Israel repel Iranian drones.
Trump crowed afterwards that 'Iran doesn't want to speak to Europe. They want to speak to us. Europe is not going to be able to help in this one.'
From the Iranian perspective, Europe has long been a disappointing negotiating partner, repeatedly failing to show any independence from the US. When Trump withdrew the US from the nuclear deal in 2018, the E3 condemned the move in a joint statement issued by its then-leaders, Angela Merkel, Theresa May and Macron. But it did nothing effective to pursue an independent strategy to lift European sanctions on Iran as it had promised. The fear that European firms trading with Iran would be put under US sanctions was too great.
The view from Tehran, it was felt, was that Europe's timidity left it with no choice but to follow the policy of nuclear brinkmanship, including gradually increasing its stockpile of enriched uranium.
At the start of Trump's second term, the E3 plus Kallas tried again to insert themselves into the process by holding three low-key meetings with Iranian negotiators. But Araghchi was always angling to speak to Washington, telling the Guardian of his discussions with the Europeans: 'Perhaps we are talking to the wrong people.' After Trump indicated he was willing to speak to Iran bilaterally and showed some flexibility about Tehran's right to enrich uranium, Iran cast Europe aside.
Iran believes Europe played a role either through naivety or complicity in opening the door for the Israeli attack by tabling a motion of censure at the board of the UN nuclear inspectorate, the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Such motions have been passed before at the IAEA and usually led to Iran retaliating by increasing its stocks of enriched uranium. But the 12 June motion was different – for the first time in 20 years the board found Iran in breach of its obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
Europe had to take that step to use its right as a signatory to the 2015 deal to reimpose sanctions on Iran before expiry of the deal on 15 October. Because of the way the deal was negotiated, neither Russia nor China can veto Europe reimposing sanctions. America is no longer party to the deal so this power to reintroduce UN sanctions is Europe's diplomatic re-entry point into the Iranian file.
European diplomats insist that the IAEA censure motion was necessary, and that they had no option owing to Iran's mounting stocks of highly enriched uranium that had no possible purpose in a civilian nuclear programme. Europe also still hoped the talks between the US and Iran, mediated by Oman, would bear fruit, and had not foreseen the US giving Israel the green light to attack.
Since the Israeli strikes, European unity has frayed further. Britain has largely opted for opacity, but it was obvious from what ministers did not say that the government's legal advice was that the Israeli attack could not be justified as an act of self-defence under the UN charter. France openly asserted that the attack was unlawful.
By contrast, Germany endorsed all that Israel has done. At the G7 summit in mid-June, the chancellor, Friedrich Merz, said: 'This is the dirty work that Israel is doing, for all of us.'
Germany's foreign minister, Johann Wadephul, told parliament that 'Israel has the right to defend itself and protect its people. Let me say clearly that, if Israel and the US have now managed to set back the Iranian nuclear programme, it will make Israel and its neighbourhood more secure.'
Asked by the newspaper Die Zeit if he believed Israel's actions were lawful, he said Germany did not have the same quality intelligence sources as the US and Israel, but he had to trust their belief that Iran was close to acquiring a nuclear weapon. 'They told us that, from their perspective, this is necessary – and we must accept that.'
Such remarks have left Iranian diplomats spitting about European double standards over the sanctity of international law.
By contrast, Enrique Mora, the EU's point person on Iran from 2015 to early 2025, has written a scathing piece in which he says Israel has killed nuclear diplomacy and Iran's nuclear knowledge cannot be destroyed.
He wrote: 'If Iran now chooses the militarisation of its nuclear capabilities, if it now decides to move toward a bomb, it will do so following a clear strategic logic: no one bombs the capital of a nuclear-armed country. June 21, 2025, may go down in history not as the day the Iranian nuclear programme was destroyed, but as the day a nuclear Iran was irreversibly born.'
There are different strategies Europe can pursue. It can, like Germany, show Iran there is no daylight between the E3 and Israel and assert that Iran can only have a civil nuclear programme that excludes domestic enrichment of uranium. It can press ahead with the reimposition of sanctions and hope that Iran buckles.
Alternatively, it can champion a compromise that Tehran can wear. In a recent statement, the European Council on Foreign Relations said 'maximalist demands on Iran – including negotiating over missiles now viewed by Tehran as its main deterrence umbrella – will likely push the country to use every means still available to reach nuclear breakout. A more viable endgame would involve a return of wide-scale inspections by international monitors and an immediate, substantial roll-back of Iranian uranium enrichment. The goal should be Iran pursuing this enrichment through a regional consortium backed by the United States.' That is broadly closer to the French position.
Europe will never hold sway like Israel or the US, but it has one last chance to help create something durable, and prevent the Iranian crisis becoming a nuclear proliferation crisis for the whole region.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
30 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Just raise tax? No, there's only one way out of this mess
On Wednesday, fears that Donald Trump's 'big beautiful bill' would further swell America's towering public debt triggered a sharp sell-off in government bonds across the advanced world. As anxiety swept global markets, UK gilts were hit especially hard, with US jitters coinciding with Labour's failed welfare bill. Before reversing on Thursday, government borrowing costs in the UK increased by even more than in the US. You would be hard-pressed today to find a serious investor who believes that Rachel Reeves's fiscal arithmetic adds up. The only question ahead of the autumn Budget now seems to be not whether, but by how much, she will raise taxes to balance the books. This week's cover of the New Statesman captures the view from the Left. It reads 'Just raise tax'. Since our ageing population is adding to the demands on public healthcare systems and welfare, Left-of-centre analysts argue that Britain simply needs to face the facts and increase taxes to finance the necessary spending. The solution put forward by the Right is not to raise tax thresholds but to cut them. Have you not heard of the Laffer curve? They say that the way to increase tax receipts is to reduce tax rates. Both sides are wrong. Putting taxes up would not only be wildly unpopular, but it would further weaken Britain's already mediocre growth rate. Cutting taxes in a major way is also a non-starter – Liz Truss tried that already, and remember what happened. Across the whole spectrum of British politics, policymakers have become prisoners of their own economic ignorance when it comes to the causes and solutions of our present fiscal dilemma. Is this situation hopeless? Not at all. There is, in fact, a way to increase tax yields and hence finance higher public spending without raising tax rates. But the debate needs to refocus on the underlying causes of the fiscal gap and escape the siloed thinking about whether tax rates should go up or down, as if that is the only choice. The Government faces a serious constraint because of its promise not to raise rates on the big three taxes – on income, employee National Insurance and VAT. But this does not mean that policymakers have no options to increase the tax yields in these areas. Britain's persistent tax shortfall is a symptom of a persistent growth shortfall, caused by the excessive weight of misguided rules and regulations that arbitrarily slow and even prohibit all sorts of economic activities that would otherwise take place. Remove the economic straitjacket on our factors of production – land, labour, capital and entrepreneurship – and the fiscal problems will be solved. Needlessly restrictive and complex planning and zoning regulations prevent a much-needed increase in the stock of housing, transport infrastructure, factories and offices. We have left the EU only to discover that our Eurosclerosis is home-grown. The surest way to boost the revenues to the Exchequer from income tax and National Insurance would be to implement pro-employment policies that increase the number of people in jobs. Instead, with the Employment Rights Bill, minimum wage increases and the uplift in employers' National Insurance, Labour has delivered the most anti-employment policies in a generation. The unemployment rate has risen from 4.1pc to 4.6pc during Labour's first year in office and looks likely to rise further. Over the coming years, any rise in employment and incomes will be lower than it could have been. Economists have long known that increasing the ratio of capital to workers is the only way to increase productivity in the long run. But capital, which includes vehicles, machines and computers, needs power. The more cheap power is available, the greater the opportunities for capital to deepen and productivity growth. However, under our dogged decarbonisation push, we have reduced the availability of electricity to the economy by around a fifth since the peak in 2005. This decline has occurred due to the planned decommissioning of electricity production facilities powered by coal, oil, and even nuclear. Ahead of the election, Labour was making all the right noises. But the early promises to focus on growth with a pro-business message seem to have given way to a damaging and self-defeating cycle of growth disappointments and tax increases. Fears over higher taxes encourage saving and lacklustre spending and investment, which lowers tax yields across the board. Chronically fearful consumers are saving more than 10pc of their income, despite average annual real wage gains of nearly 2pc for over two years while businesses sit on near-record cash balances. Taxes, like public services, are a second derivative of the real economy. We depend on the profits and investment of British industry, as well as the incomes and spending of private sector workers, to finance our public sector. The UK does not need to raise taxes; it needs to raise supply. Cutting red tape to promote these activities is the path to fiscal sustainability.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
State leader's bold new plan to entice Donald Trump to Australia
US President Donald Trump will join a meeting of Australia's most important allies in Brisbane next year if the Queensland Premier can convince Anthony Albanese. David Crisafulli is campaigning for his state to host the next leaders summit of the Quad, the diplomatic partnership between Australia, India, Japan, and the US. 'I'm leading a campaign to get the Quad to Queensland,' he told an American Chamber of Commerce in Australia event in Brisbane on Friday. 'Australia is due to host it (next year), and I couldn't think of a more appropriate place than Queensland to have it.' He said he had floated the idea with the Prime Minister as recently as Thursday and he had been 'pretty persistent'. Crisafulli said he plans to travel to Japan and India along with representatives of Queensland universities in coming weeks to lobby for the opportunity. The last time global leaders descended on Brisbane was 2014 when it hosted the G20 summit, with guests including then US President Barack Obama and Russian leader Vladimir Putin. Crisafulli said Queensland did not get the 'buzz and recognition' some had expected from the summit, claiming its high-calibre invites had overshadowed the host city. He said he couldn't think of a 'more appropriate place' to host the Quad meeting and promoted commercial ties between Queensland and the United States. Crisafulli said Trump-era 'uncertainties' did not spell 'doom and gloom' but were a time of opportunity for the major trading partners. Australia is North America's biggest supplier of beef, with Queensland being responsible for roughly half of Australia's production of beef. He said demand for Queensland's resources will help offset impacts from the end of the US' country-specific tariff pause on July 9. 'It really plays into our strengths, what's happening on the trade front,' he said. 'Almost half of our exports at the moment are beef, and I see that as a good opportunity for a couple of reasons. 'First, the demand for Aussie beef isn't going anywhere in a hurry, and it will be a bedrock of great trade relationships for many years to come. 'But I also look at the new opportunities, and particularly with a lens of those tariffs over it, and how great that could be for Queensland. 'Start with critical minerals. Imagine an exemption for our critical minerals at a time when others are competing to get their products into one of our major markets.' Washington hosted this week's Quad meeting, where Australia sought to brand itself as an alternative to Beijing in the supply and processing of critical minerals. A meeting of foreign ministers from each member state agreed on a 'Quad Critical Minerals Initiative' designed to shore up global supply. The joint statement cited concerns over the 'abrupt constriction and future reliability of key supply chains, specifically for critical minerals'. 'Reliance on any one country for processing and refining critical minerals and derivative goods production exposes our industries to economic coercion, price manipulation, and supply chain disruptions, which further harms our economic and national security,' the statement said.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
EU to stockpile critical minerals amid geopolitical risks, FT says
July 5 (Reuters) - The European Union plans to stockpile critical minerals as a precaution against potential supply disruptions due to geopolitical tension, the Financial Times reported on Saturday, citing a draft document by the European Commission. "The EU faces an increasingly complex and deteriorating risk landscape marked by rising geopolitical tensions, including conflict, the mounting impacts of climate change, environmental degradation, and hybrid and cyber threats," the newspaper quoted the draft as saying. The document warns that the higher-risk environment was driven by "increased activity from hacktivists, cybercriminals and state-sponsored groups", the FT said. The European Commission did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment. The draft document, due to be published next week and still subject to change, says there is "limited common understanding of which essential goods are needed for crisis preparedness against the backdrop of a rapidly evolving risk landscape", the newspaper reported. In March, the European Commission unveiled its EU Preparedness Union Strategy, urging member states to strengthen stockpiles of critical equipment and encouraging citizens to keep at least 72 hours' worth of essential supplies in case of emergencies. The strategy was designed to prepare the bloc for risks such as natural disasters, cyberattacks and geopolitical crises, including the possibility of armed aggression against EU countries.
