Follow us on social

google cta
Shutterstock_98947304-scaled

High stakes: How sanctions relief could impact EU-Iran trade

The new Iranian administration may agree on a revised JCPOA with the U.S. But if the economic benefits are paltry, political support will drain away.

Analysis | Middle East
google cta
google cta

Negotiations to restore the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JPCOA) are expected to resume in August following the inauguration of Iran’s new president, Ebrahim Raisi. The  incoming administration will likely include figures who criticised current president Hassan Rouhani’s effort to normalise political and economic ties with the West. Nevertheless, the strategic value of the nuclear deal, and the need to reduce pressure on Iran’s stagnant economy, should compel the new administration to be pragmatic and make a bargain that enables the United States to re-enter the JCPOA. This step would see Washington remove the secondary sanctions imposed by Donald Trump, who thrust Iran’s economy into nearly three years of economic recession. In parallel, Iran would return to compliance with the controls placed on its nuclear programme by the JCPOA. 

As negotiators in Vienna continue to push for a diplomatic breakthrough, officials across European capitals are examining how to revive EU-Iran trade following the lifting of US secondary sanctions. There are clear steps that governments can already take to encourage this trade and address European business leaders’ caution about resuming trade with Iran. But, unlike in the lead-up to the sanctions relief introduced in January 2016, the experience of the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign has made firms wary of both the durability of the nuclear deal and the reliability of sanctions relief. Companies now have a clearer understanding that sanctions relief does not mean that all barriers are lifted to doing business in Iran – banking challenges in particular will persist even if secondary sanctions are removed.

If the rebound in EU-Iran trade proves underwhelming, the renewed nuclear deal will be vulnerable. Tehran could, perhaps justifiably, cite failures in the implementation of economic commitments by the West. Indeed, senior Iranian officials, including the supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, have already warned that any sanctions relief must be “verified,” meaning that the benefits are clear in “in practice,” and not just “on paper.” And EU-Iran trade data suggest that such low-ebb scenarios may well be borne out.  

Much will depend on whether Europeans resume buying Iranian oil.

The experience last time – starting in January 2016 – was of a significant recovery in EU-Iran trade. Looking to data compiled by Eurostat for the 24-month period following sanctions relief, monthly EU exports to Iran rose 47 per cent, while EU imports from Iran shot up 560 per cent, driven by the purchase of Iranian mineral oils, including crude oil. At the time, European companies were keenly aware of the opportunities presented by sanctions relief given the size of the Iranian market. They expected that securing the necessary legal and banking services to conduct business with Iran would be straightforward.

Since then, the maximum pressure campaign significantly degraded EU-Iran trade. The 24-month period up to April 2021 shows that monthly EU exports to Iran averaged just 63 per cent of the level seen in the two years until January 2016. Imports were just 61 per cent of the average in the same period. This time around, the rebound in EU-Iran trade could be bigger than in 2016 as the starting base is so much lower – but fewer companies are now interested in, or equipped to avail themselves of the opportunities presented by sanctions relief.

The previous 47 per cent and 560 per cent increases offer a baseline for understanding the impact of secondary sanctions relief if and when the US provides it. To account for both possibilities, one can consider pessimistic and optimistic scenarios in which the rise in EU-Iran trade would respectively be 80 per cent and 120 per cent of this baseline. Looking at these scenarios, it becomes clear that EU-Iran trade is unlikely to recover to the levels seen in the initial previous period of sanctions relief. In the pessimistic scenario, 24 months after the lifting of sanctions, monthly EU exports to Iran would average €457m. In the optimistic scenario this rises to €520m – a figure still significantly below the €648m average achieved in the initial period of JCPOA-related sanctions relief.

Imports suggest a similar story: 24 months on from the lifting of sanctions, monthly EU imports from Iran would average between €329m and €463m depending on the scenario that plays out – but this would still be significantly down on the EU imports average of €648m in the two years after the 2016 sanctions relief.

Much will depend on whether Europeans resume buying Iranian oil, as this would give Iran the financial means to purchase European goods. In the two years before January 2016, Iran ran a significant average monthly trade deficit of €128m, which partly reflected strong demand for European industrial goods following years of sanctions-related underinvestment. In the optimistic scenario outlined above, Iran’s trade deficit would narrow to €57m – a reduction that depends on a sharp increase in European oil imports. Without these, Iran has no major facilities to finance its trade with Europe. And this is just one of several potential structural barriers to growth in bilateral trade.

Restoring EU-Iran trade to the levels seen in the initial period of JCPOA-related sanctions relief will require both time and robust policy interventions. In the interim, trade with Iran will have less economic significance than the large size of Iran’s economy and the country’s proximity to Europe might suggest. Under the optimistic scenario, annual European exports to Iran would total around €6.2 billion while imports from Iran would total €5.6 billion – Iran would disappointingly rank somewhere between the Philippines and Pakistan among Europe’s trade partners. However, from a political and security standpoint, the European Union has no bilateral relationship in which a low volume of trade could prove so disproportionately important for fostering diplomatic relations and consolidating non-proliferation achievements.

It appears likely that Iran’s enormous economic potential will remain untapped by most European enterprises in the short term. Nevertheless, Europeans should ramp up their economic diplomacy. Those European companies that resume trading with Iran deserve the full support of their governments – the billions of euros of goods and services they trade will create the foundation for constructive EU-Iran relations. Without this foundation, pro-deal figures inside Iran, including in the new administration, will find it much harder to make the case for sustaining the agreement in the long term.

This article has been republished with permission from the European Council on Foreign Relations. The European Council on Foreign Relations does not take collective positions. ECFR publications only represent the views of its individual authors.


Gas flare at oil drilling site (shutterstock.com).
google cta
Analysis | Middle East
Dan Caine
Top photo credit: Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff U.S. Air Force Gen. Dan Caine conduct a press briefing on Operation Epic Fury at the Pentagon, Washington, D.C., March 4, 2026. (DoW photo by U.S. Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Alexander Kubitza)

Did Caine just announce the Morgenthau option for Iran?

QiOSK

Gen. Dan Caine’s formulation of American war aims in Iran is remarkable not because it is bellicose, but because it is strategically incoherent.

In a press conference Tuesday morning, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did not describe a limited campaign to suppress missile fire, blunt Iran’s naval threat, or even impose a severe but bounded setback on Tehran’s coercive instruments. He described a campaign against Iran’s “military and industrial base” designed to prevent the regime from attacking Americans, U.S. interests, and regional partners “for years to come.” In an earlier briefing he put the objective similarly: to prevent Iran from projecting power outside its borders. Rather than the language of a discrete coercive operation, this describes a war against a state’s capacity to regenerate power.

keep readingShow less
Mbs-mbz-scaled
UAE President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan receives Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the Presidential Airport in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates November 27, 2019. WAM/Handout via REUTERS

Is the US goading Arab states to join war against Iran?

QiOSK

On Sunday, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Mike Waltz told ABC News that Arab Gulf states may soon step up their involvement in the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. “I expect that you'll see additional diplomatic and possibly military action from them in the coming days and weeks,” Waltz said.

Then, on Monday morning, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) slammed Saudi Arabia for staying out of the war even as “Americans are dying and the U.S. is spending billions” of dollars to conduct regime change in Iran. “If you are not willing to use your military now, when are you willing to use it?” Graham asked. “Hopefully this changes soon. If not, consequences will follow.”

keep readingShow less
Why Tehran may have time on its side
Top image credit: Iranian army military personnel stand at attention under a banner featuring an image of an Iranian-made unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) during a military parade commemorating the anniversary of Army Day outside the Shrine of Iran's late leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in the south of Tehran, Iran, on April 18, 2025. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto)

Why Tehran may have time on its side

QiOSK

A provocative calculus by Anusar Farrouqui (“policytensor”) has been circulating on X and in more exhaustive form on the author’s Substack. It purports to demonstrate a sobering reality: in a high-intensity U.S.-Iran conflict, the United States may be unable to suppress Iranian drone production quickly enough to prevent a strategically consequential period of regional devastation.

The argument is framed through a quantitative lens, carrying the seductive appeal of mathematical precision. It arranges variables—such as U.S. sortie rates and degradation efficiency against Iranian repair cycles and rebuild speeds—to suggest a "sustainable firing rate." The implication is that Iran could maintain a persistent strike capability long enough to exhaust American political patience, forcing Washington toward a premature declaration of success or an unfavorable ceasefire.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.