Follow us on social

google cta
Already fragile JCPOA talks 'paused' over Russian demands

Already fragile JCPOA talks 'paused' over Russian demands

Moscow is playing hardball, but the question remains: do they mean to make the others sweat or scuttle the deal completely?

Analysis | Europe
google cta
google cta

Stunning news today as European Union foreign affairs chief Josep Borell announced a “pause” in the Iran nuclear talks in Vienna, citing “external factors.” Diplomats say this refers to the eleventh-hour demand by the Russians, one of the original JCPOA signatories, to relieve some of its sanctions over the Ukraine invasion in exchange for its support on a renewed deal.

Though the JCPOA has not been killed by these Russian demands, Moscow does have the ability to harm the United States by delaying the agreement at a crucial point of Washington’s vulnerability to high oil prices. It may also have the ability to pull the plug on the agreement as a whole by triggering snap-back sanctions in the UN Security Council or preventing the Joint Commission from adopting the decision to bring the US back into the deal. The snap-back option would of course create a very significant crisis between Tehran and Moscow.

In retrospect, the parties were clearly mistaken in thinking that Russia would continue to compartmentalize the JCPOA talks from its tensions with the West. The Ukraine crisis of 2014 did not undermine the JCPOA negotiations, but it is of course incomparable to the Ukraine crisis of 2022. It remains unclear, however, if the Russian objective is to delay the deal to undermine the West’s efforts to pressure Russia over Ukraine or to completely scuttle the deal.

Though Tehran has been tempered in its statements so far, it must clearly be angered by the Russian maneuvers. But Iran is stuck between two bad choices: Accepting the potential collapse of the deal and continued U.S. sanctions, or seeking a potential agreement with the U.S. outside of the JCPOA. The latter could dangerously increase tensions between Tehran and Moscow while making Iran dependent on the U.S. at a time when GOP officials have made it clear they will kill the JCPOA if they take the White House in 2024. 

Hopefully, the deal can still be salvaged. But if it collapses on the goal line because of Russian sabotage, it further underscores the folly of Biden not going back to the deal via Executive Order on the first day of his presidency. No one could have predicted Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine as a factor, but many predicted that it would be unpredictably messy to negotiate a return.


A police officer stands outside the hotel where a meeting of the JCPOA Joint Commission, or Iran nuclear deal, is held in Vienna, Austria, April 27, 2021. REUTERS/Leonhard Foeger|A police officer stands outside the hotel where a meeting of the JCPOA Joint Commission, or Iran nuclear deal, is held in Vienna, Austria, April 27, 2021. REUTERS/Leonhard Foeger
google cta
Analysis | Europe
Tony Blair Gaza
Top photo credit: Britain's former Prime Minister Tony Blair attends a world leaders' summit on ending the Gaza war, amid a U.S.-brokered prisoner-hostage swap and ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas, in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, October 13, 2025. REUTERS/Suzanne Plunkett/Pool/File Photo

Phase farce: No way 'Board of Peace' replaces reality in Gaza

Middle East

The Trump administration’s announcements about the Gaza Strip would lead one to believe that implementation of President Trump’s 20-point peace plan, later largely incorporated into a United Nations Security Council resolution, is progressing quite smoothly.

As such, Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff announced this month on social media the “launch of Phase Two” of the plan, “moving from ceasefire to demilitarization, technocratic governance, and reconstruction.” But examination of even just a couple of Witkoff’s assertions in his announcement shows that "smooth" or even "implementation" are bitter overstatements.

keep readingShow less
Trump Polk
Top image credit: Samuele Wikipediano 1348 via wikimedia commons/lev radin via shutterstock.com

On Greenland, Trump wants to be like Polk

Washington Politics

Any hopes that Wednesday’s meeting of Greenland and Denmark’s foreign ministers with Vice President Vance and Secretary Rubio might point toward an end of the Trump administration’s attempts to annex the semiautonomous arctic territory were swiftly disappointed. “Fundamental disagreement” remains, according to Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen.

That these talks would yield no hint of a resolution should not be surprising. Much of Trump’s stated rationale for seeking ownership of Greenland — the need for an increased U.S. military presence, the ability to access the island’s critical mineral deposits, or the alleged imperative to keep the Chinese and Russians at bay — is eminently negotiable and even achievable under the status quo. If these were the president’s real goals he likely could have reached an agreement with Denmark months ago. That this standoff persists is a testament to Trump’s true motive: ownership for its own sake.

keep readingShow less
Swedish military Greenland

Top photo credit: HAGSHULT, SWEDEN- 7 MAY 2024: Military guards during the US Army exercise Swift Response 24 at the Hagshult base, Småland county, Sweden, during Tuesday. (Shutterstock/Sunshine Seeds)

Trump digs in as Europe sends troops to Greenland

Europe

Wednesday’s talks between American, Danish, and Greenlandic officials exposed the unbridgeable gulf between President Trump’s territorial ambitions and respect for sovereignty.

Trump now claims the U.S. needs Greenland to support the Golden Dome missile defense initiative. Meanwhile, European leaders are sending a small number of troops to Greenland.

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.