Follow us on social

google cta
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
google cta
google cta

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
google cta
Analysis | Middle East
Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?
Top image credit: President Donald J. Trump holds a joint news conference at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Feb. 4, 2025. (Shutterstock/ Joshua Sukoff)

Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?

QiOSK

In the months that led up to the Iraq War, the Bush administration went to extraordinary lengths to convince the world of the need to oust Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Leading officials laid out their case in public, sharing what they claimed was evidence that Iraq was moving rapidly toward the deployment of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. When U.S. tanks rolled across the border, everyone knew the justification: the U.S. was determined to thwart Iraq’s development of weapons of mass destruction, however fictitious that threat would later prove to be.

In the months that led up to the Iran War, the Trump administration took a different tack. President Trump spoke only occasionally of Iran, offering a smattering of justifications for growing U.S. tensions with the country. He claimed without evidence that Iran was rebuilding its nuclear program after the U.S.-Israeli attack last June and even developing missiles that could strike the United States. But he insisted that Tehran could make a deal with seven magic words: “we will never have a nuclear weapon.”

keep readingShow less
Starmer Macron Merz
Top image credit: France's President Emmanuel Macron, Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Germany's Chancellor Friedrich Merz arrive at Kyiv railway station on May 10, 2025, ahead of a gathering of European leaders in the Ukrainian capital. LUDOVIC MARIN/Pool via REUTERS
Europe's snapback gamble risks killing diplomacy with Iran

Craven Europeans give US and Israel a blank check for illegal war

Middle East

In the aftermath of the new U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran, the transatlantic alliance has offered a response that confirmed what many both in the West and outside knew all along: that for London, Paris, Berlin, and Brussels, the "rules-based international order" has been reduced to a simple, brutal premise: might makes right, provided the might is Western.

The joint statement from the E3 — France, Germany, and the United Kingdom — is a master class in evasion. "We did not participate in these strikes, but are in close contact with our international partners, including the United States and Israel," they declared. The text also lists all the references and rationalizations used by Iran hawks — “nuclear program, ballistic missile program, regional destabilization and repression against its own people.”

keep readingShow less
Trump Iran
Top image credit: Hundreds of people attend a pro-democracy demonstration against U.S. President Donald Trump in Washington, D.C., U.S., on February 28, 2026. Demonstrators cited a number of reasons for their opposition to Trump, including his involvement with sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, ICE raids, authoritarian policies, and today’s bombing of Iran. (Photo by Allison Bailey/NurPhoto) via REUTERS CONNECT

How does this war with Iran end? Or does it?

QiOSK

Now that President Trump has launched an illegal, unprovoked war of choice on Iran, the next question inevitably becomes: how does this end? Or, what are some off ramps Trump can take to end it before the situation turns out of control?

There are three broad scenarios; the first and most likely is that Trump continues this until he gets some sort of regime implosion and then declares victory, while also washing his hands of whatever follows.

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.