Why Iran Pays More for Each Kilogram of European Medicine

Since the year 2000, Iran has about doubled its annual imports of pharmaceutical products from the European Union, reflecting both advances in Iranian healthcare and the growth in Europe-Iran trade ties. This growth has remained durable in the face of multilateral—and more recently—unilateral sanctions. Pharmaceutical products can be sold under longstanding humanitarian exemptions under both the US and EU sanctions regimes.

Yet, reporting from Iran has highlighted the significant disruptions in the price and availability of many medications in Iran. Iranian medical professionals complain that despite the exemptions, sanctions are making it more difficult for patients to reliably and affordably access medication. US officials have countered that there has not been an dramatic drop in pharmaceutical exports to Iran, but their defense relies on an incomplete picture of the nature of the trade disruption. Iranian patients are not principally struggling because of a supply disruption. They are suffering because of a price distortion that can be observed in the relationship between the quantity of European pharmaceutical exports to Iran, and the declared value of those exports.

To contextualize the distortions in European pharmaceutical exports to Iran, it is possible to conduct Pearson correlation analyses for the quantity and value of monthly pharmaceutical exports from the European Union to Russia, Turkey, Pakistan, and Iran for the period between January 2000 and June 2019. Intuitively, we would expect that an increase in the quantity of exports from Europe to these countries would be correlated with an increase in the declared value of those exports—if Europe is selling more it should be earning more. 

This is clearly the case when looking to European pharmaceutical exports to Russia, Turkey, and Pakistan in this period. The observed correlations are strongly positive and statistically significant. However, the underlying data tell slightly different stories for each country. In the case of Russia, the magnitude of the increase in the value of exports since 2000 has been greater than the increase in quantity. In Turkey, the opposite is true. To put it more simply, Russia is buying slightly more medicine at a significantly higher price, while Turkey is buying significantly more medicine at a slightly higher price. That is an observation that deserves its own analysis, but in the context of understanding comparative differences with Iranian purchases of European medicine, what matters is that in both cases an increase in quantity of medicine exported correlates with an increase in the value of medicine exported.

The data for Russia, Turkey, and Pakistan shows relatively low levels of volatility. This can be seen when the value and quantity of monthly exports are indexed. Fluctuations each month can be explained by a range of factors such as seasonal or cyclical demand, as well as variation in the composition of exports, particularly in terms of price. Many medicines weigh roughly the same amount, but have vastly different prices—consider the price of aspirin and the price of pills used in the treatment of rare diseases.

Sudden spikes in pharmaceutical exports are often related to disaster response. The December 2005 spike in European exports to Pakistan corresponds to the 2005 Kashmir earthquake, which killed nearly 90,000 people. The August 2010 spike in exports to Russia corresponds to a weeks long heatwave that led to thousands of deaths and triggered extensive wildfires. 

Putting these spikes in context, and looking to fluctuations over time, we see that the expected relationship holds—the greater the quantity of pharmaceutical products exported from Europe to Russia, Turkey, and Pakistan, the greater the declared value of those exports. 

In the case of Iran, the expected relationship also holds, but not so definitively. Looking to the period between January 2000 and June 2019, the correlation between quantity of exports and value of exports is still positive and statistically significant, but is notably weaker. The explanation becomes clear when looking at a chart of indexed export quantity and value. Sales of European pharmaceutical products to Iran are marked by huge volatility. In more recent years, it appears that the declared value of exports has increased without a commensurate increase in the quantity. 

There has been extensive reporting on the impact of sanctions on Iran’s ability to reliably important pharmaceutical products. To test whether the relative weakness in the relationship between export quantity and value is sanctions related, it is possible to test the relationship in two time periods. Multilateral sanctions on Iran reached their apogee in July 2012, when the United States imposed strict sanctions intended to cut off Iranian banks from the global financial system. The number of correspondent banking relationships dwindled, meaning that even for trade in pharmaceuticals, which remained an exempted category, European exporters and Iranian importers faced significant challenges in identifying viable banking channels. When such channels were found, their use typically entails higher transaction costs and payment delays. 

Looking to the period prior to July 2012, we can observe a moderately positive and statistically significant correlation between export quantity and value. When limiting the analysis to the period after July 2012, that relationship is only weakly positive. This is a remarkable finding, suggesting that since 2012, the price paid by Iranian importers for European pharmaceuticals is only loosely related to the quantity of goods ordered. Sanctions may have exacerbated whatever factors led the relationship between quantity and value to be weaker than that observed for Russia, Turkey, and Pakistan.

As a consequence of the weakened relationship between quantity and value, Iranian importers are paying significantly more for each kilogram of European medication they purchase than importers in Russia, Turkey, or Pakistan. In the period between June 2018 and June 2019, European exports to Iran can be “priced” at EUR 8464 for each 100 kilograms exported. By comparison, exports to Russia were just EUR 5707 for each 100 kilograms, while exports to Turkey were EUR 5645. In the case of Russia and Turkey there may be economies of scale at play—the value of monthly European pharmaceutical exports to these countries are on average 9 and 3.5 times higher, respectively, than those to Iran. But even Pakistan, which imports less than half the pharmaceutical products that Iran imports from Europe each month, benefits from a significantly lower price of EUR 7509 per 100 kilograms. Taking the average of the price enjoyed by Russia, Turkey, and Pakistan, in the most recent 12 months for which data is available, Iran paid EUR 2723 more for each 100 kilograms of pharmaceutical products. This premium is almost certainly being passed onto consumers, with devastating effects. 

It is difficult to say to what extent distortions in Europe-Iran pharmaceutical trade are attributable to sanctions impacts. Certainly Turkey, Russia, and Pakistan do not share the same experience of being targeted by unilateral and multilateral sanctions, though they do share many of the same political and economic risk factors that can serve as an impediment to bilateral trade. There are other possible explanations for Iran’s highly volatile pharmaceutical imports, including issues related to the devaluation of the Iranian rial, the use of middlemen in transactions, and changes in the composition of imports related to protectionist policies.  

Looking to total relative proportion of total export quantities in 2018, it is possible to take a snapshot of the composition of European exports to the four countries. What we find is that the composition of exports is broadly similar, with nearly all of the top ten export categories for Iran represented among the top ten for Russia, Turkey, and Pakistan, albeit with differences in proportion. What is clear is that all of the countries import significant volumes of pharmaceutical ingredients, such as vitamins, for use in domestic pharmaceutical manufacturing. Iran imports significantly more vitamin E than the other countries, but significantly less wadding. Neither is a particularly expensive good.

What is most remarkable about the price distortion is that it can be observed through European customs data. In this data, the value of goods is reflective of the value declared by the European seller at time of export. This distinguishes the analysis here from reports focusing on the price increases observed by Iranian consumers. It would appear that at least some of the exorbitant increases in the price of medication for Iranians are attributable to disruptions in trade that originate outside of Iran, rather than tariffs, hoarding, price gouging, or other market disruptions that are known to exist within Iran. 

The price distortion also challenges the conception of sanctions impacts on pharmaceutical trade as being principally about reduced export volumes or shortages within Iran. The analysis presented here suggests that European pharmaceutical exports to Iran could theoretically grow in both absolute value and quantity under sanctions, and yet there could still be harms felt by Iranian consumers if the price of medication continues to rise unchecked. This means that sanctions policy cannot be defended on the basis that trade data shows limited disruption in the value or quantity of exports. The price related disruption shown here only becomes clear when looking to the relationship between export value and quantity over time. Any significant increase in the price of medication at time of export will necessarily lead to circumstances where the sick and dying in Iran cannot afford the medication they need.

Photo: IRNA

Europe Failed on Iran, but It’s Not Helpless

Iran’s decision to scale down its commitments under the 2015 nuclear deal abandoned by President Donald Trump signifies a serious foreign policy failure for the EU and its member states. They have acted too meekly and ineffectively in the face of unilateral U.S. sanctions, and this unnecessary softness may well come back to haunt them as the U.S. use of extraterritorial sanctions expands.

Last year, after Trump pulled the U.S. out of the agreement known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, meant to restrict Iran’s nuclear program, European leaders refused to follow suit and moved to protect the deal as the U.S. reimposed harsh sanctions on Iran. First, the EU expanded an existing device, the so-called blocking statute, meant to protect European companies against extraterritorial U.S. sanctions. The statute declares it a transgression to comply with the sanctions, nullifies any foreign court decisions based on them and enables European companies to seek compensation in EU courts for any damages arising from them.

Then, the EU moved to set up a special purpose vehicle to enable trade with Iran to bypass normal financial channels, which would have exposed such trade to U.S.  sanctions enforcement. After months of buck-passing, Instex, the Instrument for Supporting Trade Exchanges, was set up in France at the end of January.

These measures were meant to show Iran that Europe was willing to confront the U.S. in order to protect JCPOA. The reason they failed to work is that, as implemented, they amounted to no more than window-dressing.

The blocking statute doesn’t guarantee European firms any reasonable compensation for potential U.S. fines because European courts’ rulings are unenforceable in the U.S. Besides, it’s not even implemented, for example, in French national law, which exposes Iran’s erstwhile business partners such as oil major Total or the French carmakers to U.S. sanctions without any protection. In any case, the statute provides firms with an easy way out: They don’t even have to pay small fines in Europe for complying with U.S. trade restrictions if they can prove to the European Commission that trying to bust the sanctions would result in serious damage to their operations or to EU interests. Most large firms have taken this path.

The only time the blocking statute ever helped the EU was back in 1997 and 1998, when the bloc used it as a negotiating tool in hammering out deals with the Clinton Administration that protected European firms from U.S. measures linked to Cuba sanctions. These deals recently have been put into question by the Trump Administration’s decision to toughen the Cuba restrictions. And in general, Trump appears to be uninterested in any compromises with European allies when it comes to sanctions that project U.S.  policy beyond its borders. They are expected to acquiesce, or else.

Instex, for its part, is, for now, merely a mechanism for humanitarian deals permissible under the U.S. sanctions. It avoids money transfers to and from Iran, making it possible instead for Iran’s European trading partners to pay each other as they sell or receive goods of equal value from the Islamic Republic. But the U.S. may still go after it for potential anti-money-laundering violations, making it risky for any private company to use. Besides, as my colleague Lionel Laurent noted last week, Instex is yet to start operations.

Iran now demands more from the European signatories of the JCPOA and threatens to stop observing uranium enrichment restrictions in 60 days unless they deliver more trade. Not much can be done within that time frame with the EU’s current toolbox: It doesn’t offer private business substantial protection from U.S. ire. But Europeans can and should work to defang extraterritorial U.S. sanctions. Otherwise the EU, the member states and European multinationals are exposed to the unpredictable vicissitudes of domestic U.S. politics.

What if Trump, with his disrespect for allies, gets re-elected in 2020? What if he, or Congress as it tries to tie his hands, pushes through crippling sanctions on China, Russia or Europe’s other major trading partners? None of this can be ruled out, and it’s possible that the U.S. will choose to act more as Europe’s competitor than its friend regardless of who sits in the White House. U.S.-proofing European economic interests is  a necessity.

That’s not a hopeless cause, even if European concerns about a possible trade war with the U.S. make drastic action difficult. For example, the EU is probably right not to exert more pressure on the Brussels-based global financial messaging service, SWIFT, to scale down its compliance with U.S. sanctions. It could create chaos in the global financial system and lead the U.S. to punish the EU with trade restrictions. Going to such lengths just to make a case against extraterritorial sanctions probably wouldn’t be smart.

There is, however, something Europe can do: use the U.S.  legal system to curb the U.S. government’s sanctions ambitions. Sascha Lohmann of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs in Berlin suggested as much in a brief earlier this year. He noted that the U.S. executive branch’s increasingly expansive interpretation of the international reach of U.S. sanctions barely has been litigated in U.S. federal courts. Foreign companies charged with sanction-busting choose to make a deal and pay a fine rather than fight such battles. And yet, Lohmann noted, the U.S. Supreme Court recently may have made legal challenges easier by strengthening the so-called presumption against extraterritoriality. 

The EU could proactively mount legal challenges in the U.S. to the way sanctions legislation is interpreted and enforced. This would, of course, take time—probably too much time for JCPOA to be saved. But at least using the U.S. legal system to challenge executive overreach is not the kind of hostile action that would justify a trade war. It would be respectful enough and at the same time potent enough to at least try to secure Europe’s economic interests.

Even if the legal challenges fail, the message to Washington will be that U.S. dominance, where it doesn’t serve a greater good, will be challenged. Besides, Europe should exhaust its options before contemplating more forceful, and potentially more costly, pushback against the U.S.—and in any case, it’ll be better than simply turning the other cheek as the EU has done so far despite all the rhetoric to the contrary.

Photo: IRNA

Poll Shows Iranian Attitudes Towards Europe Becoming More Negative

A new survey conducted by research firm IranPoll offers the first insights into Iranian public sentiment following the reimposition of US secondary sanctions on Iran. The representative survey, conducted between December 4 and December 12 of last year, was derived from telephone interviews over 1,000 Iranians and included questions that IranPoll has been asking over a period of several years as part of its “State of Iran” series.

The new wave of polling helps confirm recent reporting from Iran that suggests support for the JCPOA has fallen, with just 51 percent of respondents approving of the deal compared to 55 percent in January 2018. The proportion of respondents who “strongly disapprove” of the agreement has risen to 16 percent, up 2 percent from April of this year. Negative views of the JCPOA can be explained in part by the fact that Iranians do not feel that they have received any benefits from the agreement. A clear 81 percent of respondents say that living conditions have not improved, the highest proportion recorded since June 2016.

However, views of the economy have improved slightly when compared to April 2018, a finding that may reflect the recent stabilization in currency markets after the rial’s sharp slide in the first half of 2018. While most Iranians continue to believe that economic conditions are “getting worse,” the proportion is down to 60 percent from 64 percent in April 2018.

Notably, following the full reimposition of US secondary sanctions on Iran in November 2018, there has been a shift in views regarding which factors are most to blame for Iran’s economic hardships. Iranians continue to believe that “domestic economic mismanagement” has the “greatest negative impact on the Iranian economy,” but the proportion has fallen from 63 percent in January 2018 to 59 percent in the latest survey. Meanwhile, the proportion of those who see “foreign sanctions and pressures” as having the greatest negative impact on the economy has risen from 32 percent to 36 percent.

President Trump’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal has likely contributed to Iranians holding far more negative views of the United States. A significant 72 percent of respondents viewed the United States “very unfavorably,” the highest proportion since July 2014. This proportion is up 5 percent from January 2018 and 14 percent since June 2016, the final survey prior to Trump’s election.

While the deterioration in views of the United States was to be expected, the increasingly negative view of Europe among Iranians is perhaps both more surprising and more concerning.

When asked how confident they are that “European countries will live up to their obligations toward the nuclear agreement,” just 43 percent of respondents expressed confidence, down from 60 percent in January 2018. There remains a belief that Europeans should be able to do more—particularly in economic terms—to save the nuclear deal, with 81 percent of respondents saying that European countries are moving slower than they can to trade and invest in Iran, up from 78 percent in April 2018.

These results suggest that Europe’s inability to keep the United States in the nuclear deal, and the subsequent failure mitigate the effect of secondary sanctions, has become part of Iranian public consciousness. This is further reflected in changes in the favorability ratings of Germany, France, and the United Kingdom—the European parties to the nuclear deal.

Germany continues to be viewed favorably, with 55 percent of respondents reporting positive views, although this proportion is down 6 percent since January 2018. France has reverted to being viewed mostly unfavorably, with just 46 percent of respondents reporting positive views, down from 55 percent in January 2018. Similarly, while in January 2018 negative views of the United Kingdom had fallen to the lowest levels measured across seven IranPoll surveys, the December 2018 results saw unfavorable views rise 6 percent to 73 percent.  

Meanwhile, views of China and Russia are stable—the other remaining parties to the JCPOA registered 55 percent and 63 percent favorability respectively.

Overall, the increasing doubts over the nuclear deal and the credibility of the European parties have pushed a growing number of Iranians to turn their back on the international community, particularly when it comes to Iran’s economic development.

When asked which strategy Iran should adopt if it could only pursue one, 69 percent of respondents answered that the country should “strive to achieve economic self-sufficiency.” This is the highest proportion IranPoll has measured to date and is a remarkable 16 percentage points higher than the level in July 2014 when the nuclear negotiations were first gaining momentum. Today, just 29 percent of Iranians believe that Iran should “strive to increase its trade with other countries.”

For European policymakers, the new polling presents a stark warning that they must refocus their political and economic efforts to save the nuclear deal. Unless European diplomacy can restore trust with the Iranian electorate, it is possible that popular support for the nuclear deal will continue to atrophy even as extraordinary efforts, such as the establishment of the INSTEX special purpose vehicle, are pursued to save the JCPOA. With Iran’s parliamentary elections fast approaching, the embitterment of the Iranian public could become a political liability with long-term implications.

Photo Credit: IRNA

Trading With Iran Via the Special Purpose Vehicle: How It Can Work

This article has been republished with permission from the European Council on Foreign Relations. 

Following weeks of speculation, France, the United Kingdom, and Germany (the E3) have formally registered a special purpose vehicle (SPV) to help facilitate trade with Iran – trade that the return of US sanctions has significantly hampered. This comes after months of technical coordination between member states led by the European External Action Service. While reactions in Tehran have been mixed, this is a significant demonstration of Europe’s commitment to preserving the Iran nuclear deal after President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from it.

The E3’s foreign ministers issued a joint statement with a brief overview of this new mechanism, called the Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges (INSTEX), but have provided little clarity on the details of how it works. This is understandable given that they must finalise several technical aspects of INSTEX before it becomes operational. INSTEX will initially focus “on the sectors most essential to the Iranian population – such as pharmaceutical, medical devices and agri-food goods”. This means that, for now, INSTEX will avoid a direct clash with the White House, since US sanctions permit these categories of trade due to their humanitarian nature.

But the exact method INSTEX uses will be the first instance in which Europe tries to mitigate the effects of US secondary sanctions on what it sees as legitimate trade. Companies in Europe and Iran are eager to know if the system can be of practical use. The assessment below lays out INSTEX’s likely structure.

Sovereign Shield

An important element of the mechanism is its sovereign backing from the E3. The supervisory board of INSTEX will include senior European diplomats such as UK Permanent Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Simon McDonald; Miguel Berger, head of the economic department at the German Foreign Office; and Maurice Gourdault-Montagne, secretary-general of the French Ministry of Europe and Foreign Affairs. The E3 governments are also shareholders of INSTEX.

The E3 have gone to great lengths to create a diplomatic shield around INSTEX and to share risk among the biggest economies in Europe. With the E3 having stuck their necks out, several other European countries are also considering joining the SPV as shareholders. While this does not eliminate the risk of US pressure on the mechanism, it does substantially raise the stakes for Washington should it seek to directly sanction or otherwise coerce a sovereign European entity or its senior management board – as it has with the European private sector.

It is important that the Iranian government now establishes another SPV to mirror INSTEX inside Iran. To persuade European companies to use the SPV, the Iranian entity will need to meet high standards of transparency in anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing regulations. Thus, the E3 would prefer that the Iranian SPV was either a new company or operated under an Iranian bank that has not been subject to US secondary sanctions. This is likely to reduce the risk that the US administration will apply pressure to INSTEX’s operations.

In theory, Iran should establish its SPV more quickly than the E3 did their mechanism, given that Tehran will not need to balance the interests of several countries. However, it is inevitable that this issue will be caught up in extensive political debate in Iran. To speed up this process, Tehran should carefully consider offers from the European Union and the E3 on technical assistance in launching an Iranian SPV.

The Mechanism Behind INSTEX

INSTEX is best understood as an international trade intermediary that provides services to ease trade between Europe and Iran. Although the new company is not a bank, it will have a role in coordinating payments relating to trade with Iran. This coordination is necessary. Iranian importers have struggled to purchase and receive euros from the Central Bank of Iran on time – as is necessary to make payments to European suppliers. Even when they do acquire euros, Iranian importers struggle to make payments to suppliers, as European banks remain hesitant to accept funds originating in Iran. This holds true even for humanitarian trade that is formally exempt from sanctions: several exporters of food and medicine to Iran have reportedly experienced disruptions in recent months, contributing to troubling shortages and sharp price increases.

INSTEX will seek to facilitate Europe-Iran trade while reducing the need for transactions between the European and Iranian financial systems. It will do this by allowing European exporters to receive payments for sales to Iran from funds that are already within Europe, and vice versa. For example:

• A European exporter with an order for medicine from an Iranian importer provides INSTEX with the relevant documentation on the transaction. This will include evidence that the importer has practised reasonable due diligence in relation to the Iranian buyer and the end user. Crucially for European companies, INSTEX will not provide the requisite due diligence service.

• Once it has approved the sale, INSTEX will register it on a ledger of trade.

• INSTEX will examine its ledger to identify an instance in which a European importer has registered a purchase of pistachios from an Iranian exporter.

• INSTEX will then approve a payment from the European importer of pistachios to the European exporter of medicine, meaning that the payment can be made from one European bank to another without using funds that originated in Iran.

• To complete the process of trade intermediation, the Iranian counterpart to INSTEX will coordinate a similar payment from the Iranian importer of medicine to the Iranian exporter of pistachios. These funds will remain within Iran.

While it is novel for European governments to establish a state-owned company that performs this function, the basic mechanism at work here will not be new to international companies active in Iran. The innovative aspects of the new mechanism are its scale and the backing it receives from European countries rather than companies.

These transactions will not always match up perfectly, individually or in aggregate. This is particularly so given the European companies have stopped purchasing Iranian oil. Even companies in Greece and Italy that received US waivers to continue importing Iranian oil have reportedly not used them. Overall, European trade in food with Iran is roughly balanced: according to data from Eurostat, in the first eleven months of 2017, the EU’s food exports to Iran totalled €298m and its imports of similar goods from the country totalled €292m. The bloc’s trade in medicine and medical devices is far more imbalanced, with exports totalling €851m and imports just €27m in the period. As such, there will likely be greater demand for the new mechanism in facilitating sales to Iran than purchases from the country.

INSTEX will need to find a way to balance payments within both overall trade flow and at an operational level, so that payments can be settled in timely fashion – ideally, within 60 days. In balancing overall trade, European policymakers should attempt to maximise Iranian food exports to Europe through the mechanism.

Additionally, as has been suggested by European and Iranian officials, it may be possible to invite non-European countries to join the new mechanism. The SPV is more likely to succeed if it links with revenues related to Iran’s oil exports to countries such as China, India, and Japan.

INSTEX will expand gradually, accepting clients in a way that maintains a general balance in the ledger. At times, INSTEX may need to step in to top up the funds available to pay European exporters. To do so, the mechanism will need working capital. It could raise this capital either through contributions from European countries that are, or are becoming, shareholders in it. INSTEX could also charge a commission fee for the use of its services, thereby creating reserves that it can use to balance trade within a given payment period. Currently, banks that facilitate payments to and from Iran typically charge 2-3 percent of the transaction’s value, a high fee. INSTEX could reasonably charge a similar fee, thereby generating cash flow.

Speedy Implementation Required

It is hard to tell how much trade will flow through the mechanism. Ideally, normal correspondent banking channels should continue to facilitate a large portion of Europe-Iran humanitarian trade. INSTEX will step in to facilitate trade that might otherwise not occur given the currency and banking restrictions outlined above. On this basis, the initial version of the mechanism will have been a success if it eventually facilitates trade in the order of tens of millions of euros each year, perhaps intermediating around 5 percent of the total value of European exports to Iran. In this scenario, Europe could then consider expanding the mechanism to a wider range of trade.

Both Iran and the E3 should expect a teething period while the mechanism adjusts to best serve commercial actors. For European treasury managers and compliance officers tasked with finding workable financial channels with Iran, complexity has long been the norm. If the INSTEX channel proves reliable, companies are likely to use its services.

The E3 should undertake the necessary technical arrangements to operationalise INSTEX as quickly as possible. The new managing director of INSTEX will need to tour Europe to meet business executives and policymakers. They will need to engage in extensive outreach with European operators to persuade them to use the SPV – and, more importantly, with European banks that are instrumental to it – by settling accounts between European companies. The European External Action Service should be closely involved in this coordination effort across Europe.

By acting swiftly, Europe will boost its credibility with Iran, where the government is scrambling to manage the economic fallout of the US withdrawal from the nuclear deal and is increasingly under pressure to reduce compliance with the agreement. This will also increase the E3’s leverage with the US administration by demonstrating that they have substantive resilience against US sanctions.

Photo Credit: AFP

After Trump’s Iran Decision: Time for Europe to Step Up

This article was originally published on the website of the European Council on Foreign Relations.

Despite months of E3-US negotiations to avert an unnecessary crisis over the Iran nuclear deal, President Trump has declared a hard exit from the nuclear agreement. The decision demonstrates that the US has decided that confrontation with Iran is both necessary and inevitable, regardless of what European allies think. The US administration looks set to increase tensions with Tehran and promote an implosion of Iran’s economy in ways that significantly increase risks of greater military escalation in the Middle East. Moreover, in the coming weeks, United States looks set to lead an economic and political assault on European interests.  

The E3 should now acknowledge that its negotiating tactic of accommodation and comprise with Trump has failed. If Europe is to have any influence forthcoming US policy on Iran, European governments should quickly shift tack, unifying behind a more assertive diplomatic strategy aimed at deterring the worst-case scenario of renewed Iranian nuclear program and more instability and violence in a region close to its borders. 

European governments are clearly tempted to think that the delays in implementation of sanctions mean they still have time to persuade the US president to reverse course. But the US president has acted on his promise to fully withdraw from the deal. He is now supported in that view by key advisors who have long advocated a forceful stand against Iran, not just on the nuclear deal but also in terms of encouraging regime change in Iran. It should now be abundantly clear that the current US administration cannot be a partner in salvaging the deal.

In this context the EU and its member states should now prioritize the following action points:

1. European leaders should use the forthcoming May 17 European Council meeting in Sofia to publicly and unanimously condemn the U.S. decision  to withdraw from a multilateral global security arrangement and place the responsibility for any instability that results on the Trump administration.
2. European leaders should reject further negotiation between the E3 and the US administration on a “broader framework” on Iran policy, including the prospect of further EU sanctions targeting Iran, until and unless the Trump administration makes significant adjustments to minimise the enforcement of US secondary sanctions targeting European companies doing business with Iran.
3. European governments should prioritise measures aimed at maintaining Iranian adherence the deal. The E3/EU should meet with Iranian counterparts at foreign ministerial level to agree on contingency plans. European governments should make a case to the Iranian government and public as to why the deal can be sustained and continue to serve Iran’s interest. This should emphasise the immediate economic benefits of continued oil exports (which Europe must vow to maintain as an priority). In this effort to entice Iran, Europe should cooperate with Russia and China, the other parties to the nuclear deal.
4. Europe’s approach should include the formulation of clear legal conditions for strategic sectors of trade with Iran aimed at protecting key European commercial deals seen as barometers of nuclear deal’s success and its ongoing survival (namely in the energy domain, aviation and automotive industries). The E3/EU should prioritise securing exemptions and waivers from enforcement of US secondary sanctions for European energy companies and related financial services to allow continued oil imports from and payments to Iran. Towards this end, EU member states should begin consultations regarding counter-measures against the United States. This should include political and legal threats that the EU will consider reviving the EU Blocking Regulation and even impose new penalties against assets of US companies based in Europe to allow for “claw-back” of unfair and illegal fines imposed on European companies doing business with Iran. European leaders should press this issue very hard with the Trump administration, making clear that this is a critical issue for the transatlantic relationship, as well as ongoing cooperation on regional issues in the Middle East.
5. European governments should also look to find bridging solutions to maintain banking connections with Iran even if at far reduced levels, including by temporarily connecting respective central banks in EU member states to the Central Bank of Iran and creating emergency export credit lines. The EU EAS should accelerate coordination among leading member states, their export credit agencies and state-owned banks to devise novel banking mechanisms allowing a degree of risk-sharing between governments and the financial sector on business with Iran. This effort should aim to facilitate a pan-European approach towards creating special purpose vehicles to finance sector-specific trade and investment with Iran. The EU EEAS should also advance existing proposals for the European Investment Bank to become a lending bank for long-term and medium-sized investments inside Iran.
6. It will now be more critical than ever for Europeans to maintain a dialogue with Iran on regional and ballistic missile issues, given that the US exit from the nuclear deal is already feeding wider regional escalation. This is particularly true given that the Trump administration is likely to work with its key regional allies to accompany the nuclear agreement withdrawal with a wider push against Iran. Germany, France, the UK and Italy should accelerate and formalise recently launched regional talks with Iran, including efforts to advance de-escalation possibilities between Iran and Israel in Syria where the situation is becoming increasingly febrile.

In the end, Europe may not be capable of salvaging the nuclear deal. But if the Europeans want to promote non-proliferation in the region and reduce regional instability, they need to demonstrate to the Americans, the Iranians and others that they are willing to try. Allowing the collapse of the nuclear deal without a proper fight will have immediate and disastrous consequences in the Middle East, while also significantly reducing European relevance on global security. Europe faces a critical and historic choice and must demonstrate its political will to advance its security interests through robust diplomacy.

Photo Credit: HR VP

Europe’s Balancing Act on the Nuclear Deal: Wooing Trump Without Losing Iran

This piece was originally published on the website of the European Council on Foreign Relations. 

For much of Iran’s political elite, and its overwhelmingly young population, the nuclear deal is becoming a story of failure. This situation risks impacting on Tehran’s willingness to engage politically and to reach diplomatic compromises with Western powers. Last week European leaders were in Washington for a last push to keep the United States on board ahead of the 12 May deadline for Donald Trump to issue waivers required under the nuclear deal. During his visit, Emmanuel Macron suggested that the US and Europe could work on a “new deal” with Iran – one which preserves but expands on the 2015 accord. But with Iran kept out of the European-US talks, Hassan Rouhani has questioned the legitimacy of proposals now put forward by Macron and Angela Merkel for Iran to negotiate further deals on its nuclear programme and regional issues. In the process of wooing Washington on this bigger and better deal, Europe must ensure it does not end up losing Tehran, whose buy-in will be essential to succeeding in this effort.

Iran's Rethink on Europe

Despite increasing pressures coming from Trump, Iran has continued to fulfil its part of the deal, as verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency 11 times since the deal was implemented in January 2016. Iran has waited to see what actions Trump would take and carefully assessed the ability and willingness of Europe to safeguard the nuclear deal. In October, Tehran sent out clear signals that it would consider sticking to the deal so long as Europe, China, and Russia could deliver a package that served Iran’s national security interests. But as talks between the US and the EU3 (Germany, France, and the United Kingdom) have stepped up over the last few months, Iranian thinking on European positioning has begun to sour.

Officials and experts from Iran, interviewed on condition of anonymity over the past month, outlined a growing perception inside Tehran that Europe is unable and/or unwilling to deliver on the nuclear agreement without the US. Even those who defend the nuclear deal inside the country are finding it difficult to continue to do so, not just because of Trump but also because of European tactics, which one Iranian official described as “appeasement by Europe to reward the violator of the deal and Iran’s expense”.

This perception has contributed to considerably hardened Iranian rhetoric in recent weeks around a possible US withdrawal. The secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), which includes the most important decision-makers inside the country, warned that Iran may not only walk away from the nuclear deal, but also withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Such public statements from senior figures signal that a rethink may be taking place over Iran’s foreign policy orientation and openness to engaging with the West. Decision-makers in Europe should be alert to the gravity of such political shifts.

Keeping Iran on Board

Iranian officials have repeatedly outlined that Iran will abide by the nuclear deal so long as the US does not violate the agreement. If Europe wants to keep Iran on board with the agreement in the scenario where Trump does not issue the sanctions waivers required, or to even sell a new European-US framework to Iran, it will need to shore up its fast-diminishing political capital with Tehran. While Macron’s hour-long call with Rouhani on Sunday was a good start, greater activity is urgently needed.

First, Europeans should seek to alleviate growing Iranian fears that the price of saving the deal will be a wider “pressure package”, one which returns their relations to the pre-2013 policy of isolation and sanctions. While the focus is understandably now on securing ongoing US support for the deal, the EU3 should not neglect the fact that any new framework agreed will require at least some Iranian buy-in to make it workable. In the current political climate in Iran, this is not a given.

As such, the EU3 should, as a unified coalition, work at the highest level with Iran’s foreign ministry to shore up confidence regarding the nuclear deal. In advance of the 12 May deadline, if it looks increasingly likely that Trump will not waive sanctions, the newly appointed German foreign minister should follow up on Macron’s call to Rouhani with a visit to Tehran to meet with their Iranian counterpart and consider contingencies (some measures for which are outlined below).

Second, EU member states should delay the prospect of new sanctions targeting Iranian regional behaviour, at least until firmer guarantees are in place regarding Trump’s decision on the nuclear deal. The timing of such sanctions has reportedly been the topic of heated debate among the 28 member states. At a minimum, the countries supporting such measures should step up their public messaging to communicate the reasons and the targeted nature of new sanctions, including a commitment that these are not the start of more far-reaching sanctions that will hurt the wider Iranian economy. This is particularly the case with Iran’s private sector, which constantly meets new hurdles placed in its way when seeking to do business with Europe.

Third, European governments should double down on efforts to maintain Iranian compliance to the nuclear deal if Trump fails to renew waivers due on 12 May. Such action by the White House would result in the snap-back of US secondary sanctions and are likely to be viewed in Tehran as significant non-performance of the nuclear deal. Europe will need to coordinate with Russia and China to persuade Iran to continue adhering to its nuclear obligations, at least for a period of time. The exhaustion of the dispute resolution mechanism under the nuclear deal can buy time (estimated to be between 2-3 months) for contingency planning while allowing Iran to save face.  

In this scenario, European governments will need to convince the US that it will be in their mutual interest to agree on an amicable separation on the nuclear deal. Europeans will need to argue that such a settlement would allow Trump to claim victory with his base for withdrawing US participation in the JCPOA, while avoiding deeper damage to transatlantic relations and possibly maintaining Europe’s quiet compliance on regional issues. This path should also allow the US to reverse its course (Europeans should continue to encourage such a reversal, whatever the 12 May decision).

As part of this contingency plan, to keep Iran on board Europeans will need to offer some degree of economic relief. It will be critical to reach a pan-European deal with the Trump administration to limit the extent to which the US secondary sanctions that may snap back are actually enforced by US regulators. This should include a series of exemptions and carve-outs for European companies already involved in strategic areas of trade and investment with Iran, with the priority being to limit the immediate shock to Iranian oil exports.

European governments should further make a strong case to the Iranian government and public as to why the nuclear deal can continue to serve Iran’s security and economic interest even without the US. They should emphasize the immediate economic benefits of continued oil exports to Europe and possible longer-term commitments for investments in the country. Sustained political rapprochement between Europe and Iran could also influence Asian countries that closely watch European actions (such as Japan, South Korea, and India) to retain economic ties with Iran. 

Finally, regardless of the fate of the nuclear deal, Europe should keep the pathway open for regional talks with Iran. Germany, France, the UK, and Italy should establish and formalize a regular high-level regional dialogue with Iran that builds on those held in February in Munich. It is a positive sign that a second round of such talks is reportedly due to be held this month in Rome. Such engagement will become even more important if the US withdraws from the nuclear deal, increasing the risk of regional military escalation that is already surfacing between Israel and Iran in Syria. Europeans should focus these talks on damage limitation and de-escalation in both Yemen and Syria, to help create an Israeli-Iranian and Saudi-Iranian modus vivendi in both conflict theaters (something which the US seems uninterested in).

Ultimately, Iran’s willingness to implement any follow-up measures on regional issues will be heavily influenced by the fate of the nuclear deal and how the fallout over Trump’s actions is managed. Europe may well not be capable of salvaging the deal if the US withdraws from or violates it. But Europe must at least attempt to do so and demonstrate its political willingness through actions that serve as a precedent for the international community. To do otherwise is likely to have an immediate and consequential impact on Iranian foreign policy and significantly reduce Europe’s relevance for the Iranian political establishment. For Iran’s youth, as the largest population bloc in the country, this will be an important experience in how far Europe is willing to go in delivering on its promises to defend the nuclear deal, whose collapse would affect the Iranian psyche and domestic political discourse for years to come. 

Photo Credit: Wikicommons