Follow us on social

Shutterstock_1399072808-scaled

European officials: Stop dawdling and pass the JCPOA already

Absent renewal, the two parties risk 'entering into a state of corrosive stalemate' and a potential crisis in the Middle East.

Analysis | Middle East

More than 40 former top European officials, including former foreign and defense ministers from more than half a dozen countries, have called for the United States and Iran to quickly conclude their year-long negotiations to return to full compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

In an open letter released by the Brussels-based International Crisis Group, the former officials warned that, absent a renewed accord, the two parties risk “enter[ing] a state of corrosive stalemate, serving neither side’s interests, that risks devolving into a cycle of increased nuclear tension, inevitably countered by the further application of coercive tools.”

The letter called on Washington, in particular, to “swiftly show decisive leadership and requisite flexibility to resolve the remaining issues of political (not nuclear) disagreement with Tehran,” a reference to the Biden administration’s apparent failure to date to decide whether to retain or drop Iran’s Islamic Republican Guard Corps on the State Department’s list of “Foreign Terrorist Organizations,” a designation made by the Trump administration as part of its “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran.

During the last year’s negotiations, Iran reportedly demanded that the IRGC be delisted as part of Washington’s return to compliance with the 2015 accord since the designation came after Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA but has since suggested a compromise whereby the IRGC’s Qods Force , which operates outside Iran’s borders, would remain on the list while the rest of the IRGC would be dropped. The Biden administration, worried about the domestic political consequences of being seen as compromising on the issue, has reportedly failed to respond officially to the proposal.

“We know that the politics of this issue are difficult, particularly on issues like the designation of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, which is reportedly the last lingering issue of contention,” according to the letter, which was signed by members of the Crisis Group, the European Leadership Network, and the European Council on Foreign Relations. “While the details are of course for U.S. policymakers to determine, we believe that there are ways to provide the counter-terrorism benefits of the current designation while still accommodating Iran's specific request, and consider it imperative that these be fully explored.”

If the letter was implicitly critical of the Biden administration’s failure to respond to Iran’s proposal or suggest an alternative compromise, it was withering about the Trump’s administration’s decision to withdraw from the JCPOA which it called “reckless.”

“The strategy that the U.S. followed for more than two years after this withdrawal, based on “maximum pressure” alone, yielded little but nuclear escalation, dangerous regional sparring and economic deprivation for the Iranian people,” it said. “The legacy of this strategic error can today be measured in the tons of enriched uranium Iran has since accumulated, including uranium enriched to near weapons-grade; in the thousands of advanced centrifuges it is spinning; and in the rapidly dwindling timeframe for Iran to reach a breakout capability.” 

Current estimates suggest that Iran, which waited a full year after Trump’s withdrawal to significantly accelerate its enriched uranium production, could possess enough fissile material to manufacture one or more atomic bombs within weeks if it decided to do so. The JCPOA had placed strict limits on Iran’s nuclear program overseen by the International Atomic Energy Agency.   

The letter underlined the importance and urgency of overcoming what it called the “period of stasis that threatens to undo the real and welcome progress made in recent months” in light of the war in Ukraine.

“At a time when transatlantic cooperation has become all the more critical to respond against Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, for U.S. and European leaders to let slip the opportunity to defuse a nuclear crisis in the Middle East would be a grave mistake,” it asserted.

Among the signatories were the former prime ministers of Sweden and Norway, Carl Bildt and Gro Harlem Brundtland, respectively; as well as former IAEA director-general Hans Blix and former NATO Secretary-General Javier Solana, who also served as the European Union’s High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. Former foreign ministers of nine European nations also signed the letter.


Image: Photo Veterok via shutterstock.com
Analysis | Middle East
Trump Vance Rubio
Top image credit: President Donald Trump meets with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance before a call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Monday, August 18, 2025, in the Oval Office. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The roots of Trump's wars on terror trace back to 9/11

Global Crises

The U.S. military recently launched a plainly illegal strike on a small civilian Venezuelan boat that President Trump claims was a successful hit on “narcoterrorists.” Vice President JD Vance responded to allegations that the strike was a war crime by saying, “I don’t give a shit what you call it,” insisting this was the “highest and best use of the military.”

This is only the latest troubling development in the Trump administration’s attempt to repurpose “War on Terror” mechanisms to use the military against cartels and to expedite his much vaunted mass deportation campaign, which he says is necessary because of an "invasion" at the border.

keep readingShow less
President Trump with reporters
Top photo credit: President Donald Trump speaks with members of the media at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland on Sunday, September 7, 2025. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Is Israel forcing Trump to be the capitulator in chief?

Middle East

President Donald Trump told reporters outside a Washington restaurant Tuesday evening that he is deeply displeased with Israel’s bombardment of Qatar, a close U.S. partner in the Persian Gulf that, at Washington’s request, has hosted Hamas’s political leadership since 2012.

“I am not thrilled about it. I am not thrilled about the whole situation,” Trump said, denying that Israel had given him advance notice. “I was very unhappy about it, very unhappy about every aspect of it,” he continued. “We’ve got to get the hostages back. But I was very unhappy with the way that went down.”

keep readingShow less
Europe Ukraine
Top image credit: German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, Volodymyr Zelenskyi, President of Ukraine, Keir Starmer, Prime Minister of the UK, and Donald Tusk, Prime Minister of Poland, emerge from St. Mary's Palace for a press conference as part of the Coalition of the Willing meeting in Kiev, May 10 2025, Kay Nietfeld/dpa via Reuters Connect

Is Europe deliberately sabotaging Ukraine War negotiations?

Europe

After last week’s meeting of the “coalition of the willing” in Paris, 26 countries have supposedly agreed to contribute — in some fashion — to a military force that would be deployed on Ukrainian soil after hostilities have concluded.

Three weeks prior, at the Anchorage leaders’ summit press conference, Russian President Vladimir Putin noted that Ukraine’s security should be ensured as part of any negotiated settlement. But Russian officials have continued to reiterate that this cannot take the form of Western combat forces stationed in Ukraine. In the wake of last week’s meeting, Putin has upped the ante by declaring that any such troops would be legitimate targets for the Russian military.

keep readingShow less

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.