The New York Times | Steven Erlanger: As the divide widens between the United States and Iran over the 2015 nuclear deal, the European Union finds itself trapped between them, with no easy or quick way to respond to its dilemma.
President Trump pulled out of the deal, which the European Union championed and which three key European allies of the United States — Britain, Germany and France — all continue to support. The United States has reinstated punishing sanctions intended to disrupt Iranian oil exports and trade.
The Europeans have been trying, without much success, to come up with a way to compensate for the American sanctions and protect trade with Iran, mollifying Tehran and salvaging the agreement’s limits on the Iranian nuclear program.
But on Wednesday, President Hassan Rouhani said Iran would scale back some of its commitments to the deal. In a carefully calibrated speech, he said Iran would retain its enriched uranium and heavy water rather than selling them to other nations while remaining, for now, within the limits prescribed in the nuclear deal.
But Mr. Rouhani warned that Iran could resume high-level uranium enrichment if the remaining signatories — Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia — did not make good, in the next 60 days, on promises to shield its oil and banking sectors from American penalties. He also hinted that Iran could do less to block migrants and drugs from entering Europe.
There was little immediate response from European leaders to Mr. Rouhani’s statement on Wednesday. But they have sharply criticized American actions, which many consider aimed at overthrowing the Iranian government, despite denials from Washington.
The split between the United States and its traditional allies was evident on Wednesday, when Secretary of State Mike Pompeo appeared at a news conference in London with his British counterpart, Jeremy Hunt.
Mr. Pompeo stressed the “special relationship” between the United States and Britain, dismissing any suggestion of serious tensions as a “parlor game,” insisting that both countries were on the same side and saying that the United States would wait to see what Iran actually does.
But those remarks were belied by earlier comments from Mr. Hunt, the British foreign secretary, who described the developments in Iran as “unwelcome” and warned there would be consequences for Tehran if it failed to comply with the agreement.
Although both countries wanted to make sure that Iran would not develop a track to build a nuclear weapon, Mr. Hunt added, “It’s no secret we have a different approach on how best to achieve that.”
The Europeans have been working on a limited way around American sanctions that would allow European companies to do a kind of barter trade with Iran without using the dollar or ordinary banks. Set up by Germany, Britain and France, the mechanism, called Instex, or “Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges,” is in its initial stages, and relied on Iran setting up a similar system, which happened only at the end of April.
But so far even Instex has only been seen as a way to trade in items not covered by American sanctions, including medical goods, food and humanitarian aid, and Mr. Pompeo indicated that nothing had changed on that front.
“We’ve talked with the U.K., Germany and France,” Mr. Pompeo said at the news conference. “There are provisions that allow humanitarian aid and certain products to get in the country. But when transactions go beyond that, there will be consequences.”
There is no indication that European companies, which do far more trade with the United States than with Iran, will want to use Instex and risk being punished somehow by Washington.
Sign up for The Interpreter
Subscribe for original insights, commentary and discussions on the major news stories of the week, from columnists Max Fisher and Amanda Taub.
“Instex was never thought of as economically efficient,” said Pierre Vimont, the former executive secretary-general of the European External Action Service, the European Union’s foreign affairs and defense agency. “It was always considered a political answer to underline to Iran that we, like Russia and China, are still committed to the nuclear deal.”
At the same time, the Europeans have been trying to negotiate with both Washington and Tehran on how to restrain Iran’s non-nuclear and anti-Israel activities, like its ballistic missile program and support for terrorism and for regional actors like the Syrian government, Hezbollah and Hamas. It is the nuclear deal’s failure to have covered these other activities that Mr. Trump has said made it “the worst” in history.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo suddenly postponed meetings with top German leaders on Tuesday to fly to Iraq to respond to what he said were increased but unspecified dangers to Americans there from Iran’s forces and allies. But some Europeans wondered why he could not have seen the German chancellor and foreign minister, Angela Merkel and Heiko Maas, before rushing to Baghdad for a few hours before traveling to London.
Colin Kahl, writing in Foreign Policy, suggested that the Trump Administration is seeking military confrontation with Iran and even heading toward war. Mr. Kahl, who was national security adviser to former Vice President Joe Biden, highlighted a statement from John Bolton, Mr. Trump’s national security adviser, that Washington would deploy a carrier strike group along with a bomber task force to the Persian Gulf, “to send a clear and unmistakable message to the Iranian regime that any attack on United States interests or on those of our allies will be met with unrelenting force.”
The United States, Mr. Bolton continued, “is not seeking war with the Iranian regime” but is “fully prepared to respond to any attack.” Mr. Kahl called that a provocation to Iran.
Russia, less dependent on the American banking system and under its own set of sanctions from Washington, has promised to keep trading with Iran, as has China, which has been Iran’s main buyer of oil. But it is not clear how significant that trade is or how far China will want to test Washington while engaged in sensitive trade talks.