The Indispensable Mediator: Europe’s Role in the U.S.-Iran Dispute

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and French President Emmanuel Macron

by Ellie Geranmayeh

Tensions between Iran and the United States have risen to a dangerous new level. Recent attacks on Saudi Arabia – which the US blames on Tehran – severely disrupted global oil supplies, prompting President Donald Trump to consider tapping into US strategic reserves and, once again, threaten military action against Iran. Yet the events of recent months only hint at how bad things could become. At the UN General Assembly, European leaders must make another joint push to ease these tensions, warning both sides that they may soon be unable to break the cycle of escalation.

Trump now has two broad options. One is to intensify the US “maximum pressure” campaign largely designed by former national security adviser John Bolton. This policy has neither achieved the president’s stated goal of a new nuclear deal nor weakened Iran’s hand in the region. Instead, in the space of three months, Trump has twice faced a dilemma about whether to carry out a military strike on Iran in response to attacks in the Gulf. Iran has warned that, if targeted by the US, it will launch an “all-out war” – which would likely mire the entire region in conflict.

Alternatively, Trump could use the latest round of escalation to explore the diplomatic opening with Iran created by French President Emmanuel Macron. Since May, Iran and the US have made several major attempts to increase their leverage over each other through escalatory behaviour. The White House has used sanctions to hit Iran’s economy hard, proving that these unilateral measures can drastically reduce global trade with the country. Meanwhile, Tehran has tried to obtain bargaining power by reducing its compliance with the nuclear deal and displaying its military capabilities, aiming to persuade all nations that they will pay for the maximum pressure campaign.

European countries should attempt to convince both sides that now is the time to use this leverage in negotiations rather than provoke each other further. While it seems that Iran and the US realise that they must eventually strike a deal with each other, neither side is willing to make the first concession required to begin talks. They both believe that time is on their side. The leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran have outlasted successive US presidents – and they are confident that they can do the same with Trump. Meanwhile, the US bets that it can endlessly sanction Iran and manage retaliation until Iranian leaders make the first move towards negotiations.

A Looming Election

This diplomatic endeavour is no easy task. Since May 2018, when Bolton entered the White House, the stringency of US sanctions on Iran has significantly constrained Trump’s opportunities to pursue direct negotiations with the country. Facing a re-election battle, he may find that his freedom of action has been limited by his hawkish donors, such as Sheldon Adelson. For this reason, Trump could have greater political space to make concessions if he wins a second term as president.

Tehran is also boxed in. Given the US attempt to throttle Iran’s economy and share of the oil market, Iranian leaders believe that they have been forced to retaliate. This escalatory behaviour could soon cost Iran Europe’s political support and patience on the nuclear deal. Yet without flexibility from the US on sanctions, Iran faces an array of bad options and will need to pick the one that rejuvenates its economy without requiring full capitulation to US demands. Given the realities of US domestic politics, some Iranian leaders argue that it is better to wait until after the 2020 US presidential election than to make concessions to a president who could soon leave office.

However, Iran and the US are engaged in intense escalation. If the two sides do not begin to reduce tensions with each other, they may squander any leverage they have gained.

A Last Push for European Mediation

With Bolton gone and regional security deteriorating, there is now an urgent need for a change in approach. Macron may have proposed ways to open the door to talks, but it is up to Tehran and Washington to take action.

Over the summer, Macron pushed for an initiative to provide Iran with a $15 billion credit line in exchange for full compliance with the nuclear deal and engagement in wider negotiations. However, the events of the past week could derail or significantly delay this process.

Macron may have proposed ways to open the door to talks, but it is up to Tehran and Washington to take action.

Trump has expressed an interest in this plan following the G7 summit. The credit line can only work if the US grants Europe several sanctions waivers. Until recently, it seemed that the parties were not far from finalising these measures. (There are rumours that Trump sought a high level meeting with Iran in exchange for such waivers.)

After weeks of shuttling between Tehran and Paris, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani seems eager to finalise such a deal, returning to full compliance with the nuclear agreement for as long as the credit line lasts. Iran is highly unlikely to agree to a meeting between heads of state, but there are some signs that it would be open to a lower level meeting with the US in a multilateral setting, which Europeans could provide. By backing these initial steps, Trump could pave the way for a bigger breakthrough with Iran.

The Costs of Diplomatic Failure

The French mediation effort is currently the only path to avoiding further escalation. If the French initiative unravels at UN General Assembly, there may be no European leader still willing to mediate between Tehran and Washington.

This could have disastrous repercussions for the Middle East and beyond. Iran has many ways to damage US interests, including by disrupting any American withdrawal from neighbouring Afghanistan. Despite the US administration’s claims that it has weakened Tehran with its attacks on the nuclear deal and a tsunami of sanctions, Iran now feels emboldened to lash out.

The US and Israel – and, potentially, Saudi Arabia – are considering direct overt and covert strikes on Iran. Israel is already openly attacking Iranian assets in Syria and, seemingly, Iraq. The US has also reportedly conducted cyber attacks on Iran (which are likely to increase). Cumulatively, these efforts ramp up the escalation – and are certain to significantly do so if there are direct military strikes.

In this climate, European leaders should use the UN General Assembly to emphasise that, the longer Iran and the US continue on their current path, the more likely they are to stumble into a military conflict that neither wants. European diplomats should primarily focus on personal outreach to Trump, to underscore that only he can shift the current dynamics by creating breathing room for diplomacy. European governments should warn him that, if the US steps up its maximum pressure campaign, the costs will continue to rise not just for US and Europe but also for Trump. In the run-up to US election season, he will likely face continual cycles of escalation with Iran, fluctuating oil prices, and perhaps a slide into another Middle Eastern conflict.

The European Council on Foreign Relations does not take collective positions. This commentary, like all publications of the European Council on Foreign Relations, represents only the views of its authors. Republished, with permission, from the European Council on Foreign Relations.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Ellie Geranmayeh

Ellie Geranmayeh is a policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations based in London since October 2013. She focuses on European foreign policy in relation to Iran on the nuclear talks and wider regional issues.



  1. The comments have been too harsch on the European governments. IMHO they deserve credit for trying to get Trump to accept negotiations.
    The warmongers must love Zarif’s latest tweets. No negotiations is what they want. And with sanctions reaching their endpoint, Trump will find them moving military attack to the top of the list. And then.comes Trump’s preference for “fire and fury” such as the world has never seen, and his statement last week that hitting 15 Iranian locations with nukes would be the easiest way to handle the Iranian “problem.”
    Could a government leader be charged with a crime against humanity because he considered and prepared for (“locked and loaded”) a nuclear attack?

  2. This article offers nothing new. We keep forgetting how aggressively Israel has been trying to influence the European powers to denounce the 2015 nuclear agreement in favour of Trump’s Iran policy. And don’t forget France and Germany’s decades of support for the Zionist killers. As for the unelected, unpopular Britain’s Boris Johnson, he is no different from his American mentor.

    So, we are left with the core of Trump/CIA’s strategy as was the case with Iraq, Libya and Syria: increasing their aggressive propaganda and economic pressure to incite the Iranian public to rise up against the establishment. This should guide the Iranian leadership to unite the people by truly demonstrating that they do care about and respect the public opinion and that they truly stand for the values of the Revolution as pledged by Khomeini during the Revolution, that they respect the constitutional laws and respect transparency and condemn indiscrimination, unlawful exploitations, the epidemic official corruptions especially at the civil courts, municipalities and other institutions; bribing and the shocking money launderings, and the corruption within the police force, the shameful arbitrary political trials, unlawful tortures and rapes in prisons and blackmailing lawyers and freedom of expression in order to keep hold on power – the list is long; in brief: unless the political elite realise that the people are as intelligent as they are and have the same rights before the law as they have had since the establishment of our Islamic Republic.

    Unless the world can see that as a people we Iranians are truly united behind our political establishment because there is mutual respect and trust and cooperation, our ruthless foreign enemies will dare to continue to conspire to weaken our country hoping to destroy us.


    Who cares what the world thinks of Iran or about her: Warrior’s sole friend is his sword.

    The single Houthi attack has made the critical difference in the perception of Americans, Europeans, and Arabs.

Comments are closed.