Follow us on social

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

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).
Analysis | Middle East
Friedrich Merz
Top photo credit: German Prime Minister-in-waiting Friedrich Merz (Shutterstock.Penofoto)

German leaders miscalculated popular will for war spending

Europe

Recent polls show the center right Christian Democrats (CDU-CSU) headed by prospective chancellor Friedrich Merz losing ground against the populist right Alternative for Germany (AfD), even before the new government has been formed.

The obvious explanation is widespread popular dissatisfaction with last month’s vote pressed through the outgoing parliament by the CDU-CSU and presumptive coalition partner the SPD (with the Greens) to allow unlimited increases in defense spending. This entailed disabling the constitutional “debt brake” introduced in 2009 to curb deficits and public debt.

keep readingShow less
Bernie Sanders Chris Van Hollen
Top image credit: U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) speaks during a press conference regarding legislation that would block offensive U.S. weapons sales to Israel, at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, U.S., November 19, 2024. REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz
Will Senate vote signal a wider shift away from Israel?

Can Bernie stop billions in new US weapons going to Israel?

Middle East

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and National Security Advisor Mike Waltz have been roundly criticized for the security lapse that put journalist Jeffrey Goldberg into a Signal chat where administration officials discussed bombing Houthi forces in Yemen, to the point where some, like Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) have called for their resignations.

But the focus on the process ignores the content of the conversation, and the far greater crime of continuing to provide weapons that are inflaming conflicts in the Middle East and enabling Israel’s war on Gaza, which has resulted in the deaths of over 50,000 Palestinians, most of them civilians.

keep readingShow less
Is US bombing Somalia just because it can?
Top Image Credit: The aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76), foreground, leads a formation of Carrier Strike Group Five ships as Air Force B-52 Stratofortress aircraft and Navy F/A-18 Hornet aircraft pass overhead for a photo exercise during Valiant Shield 2018 in the Philippine Sea Sept. 17, 2018. The biennial, U.S. only, field-training exercise focuses on integration of joint training among the U.S. Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps. This is the seventh exercise in the Valiant Shield series that began in 2006. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Erwin Miciano)

Is US bombing Somalia just because it can?

QiOSK

U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) conducted an airstrike in Somalia against ISIS targets on Saturday, killing “multiple ISIS-Somalia operatives.” It was the eighth such strike in the short time that Trump has been in office, reflecting a quiet, but deadly American campaign in a part, of the world that remains far below the public radar.

“AFRICOM, alongside the Federal Government of Somalia and Somali Armed Forces, continues to take action to degrade ISIS-Somalia's ability to plan and conduct attacks that threaten the U.S. homeland, our forces, and our civilians abroad,” a Sunday AFRICOM press release stated.

keep readingShow less

Trump transition

Latest

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.