After UN Showdown, INSTEX Can Help Sustain Iran Nuclear Deal

In return for limits to Iran’s nuclear activities under the 2015 agreement, or the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the other side—the United States, the EU/E3 (France, Germany and the UK), China and Russia—were supposed to lift sanctions on the country. The US opted out of this compromise in May 2018 by withdrawing from the JCPOA. By deterring most private sector actors from Iran-related activities, US secondary sanctions have also prevented other JCPOA parties from living up to their end of the deal. In addition to a deep socio-economic crisis within Iran, US sanctions have undermined Iranian people’s access to basic humanitarian goods--and pushed the country to reduce its nuclear commitments. The EU and E3 efforts to protect the JCPOA under these circumstances have offered a grim lesson about the limits of European autonomy in a dollar-dominated world economy. 

When the Trump administration withdrew from the JCPOA, the EU stressed its commitment to ensuring continued sanctions lifting and to upholding the agreement. This determination was also expressed in practical measures. In summer 2018 the EU included the upcoming US sanctions on Iran in the so-called Blocking Regulation, thus banning EU companies from complying with them. In September 2018 the EU and the E3 announced that they would develop a special trade instrument to facilitate European-Iranian trade, including in oil, which was to be targeted by US secondary sanctions.

However, the Trump administration’s obliviousness to the Blocking Regulation soon exposed the absence of an effective enforcement mechanism to enforce it, and in practice US law took priority over EU law in the private sector’s risk assessments. Apparently recognizing their lack of political and economic leverage over US policy, by January 2019 the E3 had reduced the mission of the trade instrument—then named Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges (INSTEX)— to trade in humanitarian goods.

While its limited focus fell short of previous expectations that the EU could counter or even significantly minimize the negative effects of US sanctions, INSTEX addresses a critical problem created by them. Humanitarian trade, which is in principle exempt from sanctions, has also been hit by the banking sector’s fear of US penalties, leading to a medicine shortage in Iran. In addition to being urgent, addressing this particular area of sanction over-compliance is also practical, as humanitarian trade runs a lower risk of being targeted by US sanctions than other trade areas.

INSTEX seeks to enable the exchange of humanitarian goods or services between Europe and Iran without the transfer of currency, thus minimizing the risk of US penalties. European exporters are to be compensated with funds located in Europe, based on the value commensurate with the value of imports from Iran. INSTEX’ Iranian counterpart, the Special Trade and Finance Instrument (STFI), is similarly tasked to coordinate payments within Iran.

INSTEX can reassure banks and companies through its joint ownership by the E3 and four other European states—Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands and Norway, as well as Finland and Sweden, which are expected to join soon. In addition to providing a high level of trust in the instrument’s due diligence procedures, governmental ownership raises the threshold for the USA to impose sanctions on INSTEX.

Having processed only one pilot transaction thus far, INSTEX still needs to overcome major obstacles to function as intended. One key challenge is that the value of European exports to Iran exceeds the value of Iranian exports to Europe. Potential solutions to the problem include paying European exporters using Iran’s revenues currently frozen in foreign banks, or offering Iran a loan to buy humanitarian goods. However, the US is seeking to block these options.

The chances of striking a functioning trade balance could also be increased through the expansion of INSTEX to non-European companies, and extension of the INSTEX mandate to non-humanitarian trade that are not targeted by the USA but are impeded by fear of secondary sanctions. While INSTEX is unlikely to deliberately go against US sanctions, the E3 might decide to take further steps to protect is economic sovereignty if the instrument is targeted by the USA.

Currently it might seem that INSTEX is being taken over by political events, in particular the 2020 US presidential elections. Democratic Party victory in the elections could open the door for the US re-entry into the JCPOA, which would appear to make INSTEX less relevant. However, restoring the JCPOA or reaching any new agreements with Iran is dependent on sanctions lifting. This is likely to be difficult given the private sector’s disillusionment with the Obama administration’s previous assurances about the safety of engaging with Iran. INSTEX could help address this problem by providing additional guarantees to risk-averse banks and companies fearing the next U-turn in US policy towards Iran. 

Alternatively, the possibility of Trump’s re-election as US president—or a snapback of UN Security Council sanctions on Iran—could lead to the collapse of the JCPOA. While this can be expected to reduce European commitment to INSTEX, its humanitarian mission should be pursued as a matter of ethical necessity, even without the JCPOA.

Clearly, INSTEX alone cannot save the JCPOA, the future of which essentially depends on US-Iranian relations. INSTEX can nevertheless help maintain the nuclear agreement until, or even after, diplomatic solutions are found. In addition to demonstrating solidarity on the JCPOA and commitment to basic humanitarian principles, INSTEX can also been seen as a test case of a more independent European foreign policy.

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

Three Years Later: Europe’s Last Push on the Iran Nuclear Deal

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

The Iran nuclear agreement marked its third anniversary in a gloomy state. Despite repeated attempts to keep him on board, US President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the deal – signed on 14 July 2015 under the formal title the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – and thereby pulled the rug from under Europe’s feet. European policymakers are now focused on salvaging the agreement. For a growing number of European corporate decision-makers, the deal is already dead. In reality, the JCPOA is on life support and the next few months could open either its next or final chapter. Despite the significant challenges they face, European governments have some limited time to avert the deal’s collapse.

In 2015, global powers unanimously hailed the agreement as a historic achievement that proved the effectiveness of multilateral diplomacy. Indeed, the JCPOA provides unprecedented oversight of Iran’s nuclear programme. Furthermore, the agreement states that parties anticipate it will “positively contribute to regional and international peace and security." Many hoped that the resolution of the nuclear dispute would result in a new understanding between the West and Iran, opening a pathway for detente rather than confrontation. Relations between Europe and Iran have certainly made gains in this direction, but the Trump administration’s maximalist stance on Tehran has created an extremely hazardous environment for all remaining stakeholders in the nuclear deal.

Washington's Pressure Package

Since the formal US exit from the agreement in May this year, the Trump administration has sought to sabotage European efforts to sustain the agreement. This has involved a policy of relentlessly threatening and otherwise pressuring any country or company inclined to maintain economic channels with Iran, by weaponising US secondary sanctions. Reportedly, the US administration recently rejected an appeal by the EU foreign ministers to negotiate broad exemptions to such sanctions for European companies. The US clearly intends to specifically target European trade with Iran – although there remain questions about its ability to do so and the reach of US enforcement.

Together with its allies in the Middle East – particularly Israel, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia – the Trump administration is increasing its efforts to squeeze Iran on multiple fronts. As a new report by the European Council on Foreign Relations outlines, this anti-Iran front views the collapse of the JCPOA as the trigger for a wider policy aimed at confronting Iran. The policy seeks to cause a deep economic crisis in the country, creating domestic divisions intended to bring about regime change. As part of this, the Trump administration has signalled its willingness to go further than any previous administration by choking off Iran’s oil exports. 

European Resistance to US Sanctions

European leaders’ have repeatedly stated their commitment to upholding the JCPOA. Policymakers are making genuine efforts to find an economic package that minimises the impact of looming US secondary sanctions to sustain Iranian compliance with the deal. But these efforts have yet to generate an environment in which a reasonable number of European entities can make a firm commercial decision to continue doing business with Iran.

Although the European Union’s leaders remain unified in their support of the JCPOA, divisions are emerging between the 28 member states over how far they are willing to test the limits of US secondary sanctions. Moreover, several proposed ideas for safeguarding European companies against extraterritorial US sanctions would require months or even years to implement, as they require alternative financial mechanisms that are ring-fenced from US exposure. European governments are also falling short in the political momentum needed to salvage the nuclear deal. For instance, Germany and the United Kingdom are now far more preoccupied with challenges at home than they were in 2015, and EU institutions are focused on averting further transatlantic divide on trade and NATO.

Unsurprisingly, many European firms have little confidence that European policymakers will create the conditions necessary to protect them from US secondary sanctions, including by providing alternative mechanisms for doing business with Iran that are compliant with US sanctions. This has resulted in a wave of pre-emptive corporate overcompliance with impending US regulations and a decline in European business with Iran even before sanctions come into force.

Iran's Patience Wearing Thin

This month, the foreign ministers of France, the UK, Germany, Russia, and China (the E3+2) met with Iran to discuss political and economic pathways through which they could safeguard the JCPOA. And Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani, visited Austria and Switzerland to deliver two overarching messages. The first was that Iran’s patience was wearing thin and its full compliance with the JCPOA was only feasible if it continued to receive tangible benefits from the agreement. The second was that Tehran would abandon the agreement if it became unable to maintain oil exports and, accordingly, its share in global energy markets.

Rouhani’s visit followed a tense OPEC meeting, Trump’s call for Saudi Arabia to increase oil production, and weeks of speculation about the extent to which the US could pressure other countries to halt exports of Iranian oil. In Europe, Rouhani stated: “assuming that Iran could become the only oil producer unable to export its oil is a wrong assumption”. 

The leader of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) was quick to emphasise that elite forces were prepared to act on Rouhani’s words, noting: “we will make the enemy understand that either everyone can use the Strait of Hormuz or no one”. Iran has issued such warnings in the past, including during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war and in 2011 in advance of the EU and US embargo on Iranian oil. Iran may retaliate against any US attempts to curb its oil exports by disrupting regional crude shipments in the strait, through which 35% of all seaborne oil exports pass. Such measures seem unlikely for now – given the risk of military escalation with US and regional naval forces, and of damaging relations with China and Russia, which wish to keep energy markets stable.

Rouhani’s statement suggests that Iran is hardening its position. Qassem Suleimani, commander of the IRGC’s Quds Force, unexpectedly welcomed Rouhani’s threat.

Despite the significant political and economic challenges shaping Iranian domestic politics, the Trump administration’s maximalist posture may inadvertently lead to a consensus between the Rouhani government and the military elite on how to respond to national security threats. This may abruptly or gradually prompt the Iranian political establishment to shift away from diplomacy with Europe and towards confrontation with the US. Calculations on whether the JCPOA can be sustained will heavily influence this decision.

Iran is likely to continue implementing the JCPOA and engaging in diplomacy with Europe for at least a few more months, as it assesses the impact of US sanctions on its economic relations with Europe, China, and India (particularly in relation to oil exports), as well as the likely trajectory of US domestic politics in the aftermath of midterm elections.

Necessary European Action

Unless one side backs down, Tehran and Washington will escalate their dispute in a manner that poses real risks to European interests in non-proliferation, security in the Middle East, and global energy supply. It is imperative that in the coming weeks and months European governments redouble their efforts to sustain the nuclear agreement and ease regional tensions.

Firstly, they should continue to explicitly warn the US and their partners in the Middle East that they will not support a strategy aimed at destabilising Iran internally or pursuing regime change in the country. Such an approach risks destabilising a country of 80 million people close to Europe’s border. At the same time, European governments should address their many areas of disagreement with Iran – most urgently, those involving regional security. As ECFR’s new report recommends, this should be done in a strategically careful manner that avoids fuelling further conflict in the Middle East.

Secondly, European governments must strive to fulfil their commitments under the JCPOA. They have made a good start by incorporating US secondary sanctions into the EU Blocking Regulation, due to be amended in August. But they need to quickly implement more practical solutions that will affect companies’ calculations on Iran (for a detailed list of recommendations, see the box below). Otherwise, there will be an exodus of European firms from the Iranian market.

European efforts to keep Iran in the JCPOA will face major challenges, including US attempts at sabotage. The Trump administration will look to use the JCPOA as a bargaining chip in its bilateral negotiations with Europe, China, and Russia on trade policy, tariffs, and sanctions. Therefore, European leaders must make important decisions about how far they are willing to go to secure a nuclear agreement borne out of more than a decade of diplomacy. They can only do so if they act collectively and firmly. Yet they must do so to prevent escalation between the West and Iran that will have disastrous consequences for global security.

Recommendations

1. The EU/E3 should accelerate measures to establish a foundation for sustaining financial channels (including SWIFT) with Iran before November, when the US will introduce secondary sanctions designed to hit Iran’s oil and banking sector. In this, European central and state banks will have act as a bridging mechanism. While there are ways of moving funds to and from Iran, state banks will have to engage in operations that provide settlement and clearing facilities. At the same time, European governments should remind Iran that their banking relationship can only continue if the country follows the Financial Action Task Force’s road map.

2. The EU and member states should devise a financial framework within which European companies (particularly small and medium-sized enterprises) can do business with Iran while complying with US sanctions. Technical experts have called for the creation of special purpose vehicles or “gateway banks” (supported by European state banks). These mechanisms will need to avoid direct links between Iranian entities and European private banks. Cooperation on this should extend into a larger structure that crosses a coalition of willing member states, thereby sharing risk between them.

3. The EU and member states (particularly leading importers of Iranian oil such as France, Greece, Italy and Spain) should increase their coordination with China and Russia on measures to minimise the impact of US secondary sanctions on Iranian oil exports. European countries should firmly reject any proposed US framework for significant oil reduction from Iran in return for waivers to continue limited oil exports. This would amount to legitimising the US secondary sanctions architecture. Russia and Iran are already in talks over significant Russian investment in the Iranian energy market, which could reportedly involve increased purchases of Iranian oil that could be reprocessed for global distribution via Russia. The E3 and China, together with other relevant private sector entities, should investigate whether it is feasible to offset potential reductions in Iranian oil exports through oil-swap arrangements with non-signatories to the JCPOA such as Turkey and Iraq.

4. The European Commission should incorporate clear guidelines for European companies into amendments to the EU Blocking Regulation. The regulation includes a compensation mechanism (Article 6) that allows European entities to seek compensation if they become subject to extraterritorial US financial penalties. As this mechanism has rarely been enforced, its limits remain unclear. The European Commission should work with member states, regulators and the private sector to clarify and facilitate access to compensation, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises that do business with Iran.

5. The European Commission should mandate a competent body to facilitate legitimate European business with Iran. The body should provide comprehensive oversight of the US Treasury’s enforcement of extraterritorial sanctions. This should involve a reporting mechanism that assesses the legal and other tactics the US Treasury adopts against European companies, pursuant to secondary sanctions. The body should also assist European companies subject to US investigations.

6. The European Commission should address discrimination and overcompliance relating to trade and investment with Iran in the European banking sector. As this problem is a direct consequence of US secondary sanctions, European leaders should primarily address it through regulatory measures that set a burden of proof requiring company boards to certify that their decisions are legally grounded under European law. The Blocking Regulation can provide a foundation for such measures. European regulatory bodies should provide greater oversight of European commercial banks’ decisions to block the flow of funds relating to Iran, reducing the likelihood that such decisions will be arbitrary.

7. The E3/EU should not invest heavily in attempts to negotiate with the US administration on exemptions from secondary sanctions, given the Trump White House’s clear lack of interest in treating European allies amicably. The E3/EU should shift to a more firm and robust negotiating posture similar to their stance on US trade tariffs. They should warn the US about the costs for Western energy consumers of reducing purchases of Iranian oil at a time when Libyan, Venezuelan, and Nigerian exports have been disrupted, given that it remains uncertain whether Saudi Arabia and Russia will increase production to offset this disruption. European governments should limit the US Treasury’s space to demonstrate the power of sanctions in Europe. EU member states should urgently engage in private consultations to prepare countermeasures against US attempts to pressure SWIFT and its board members or to target European entities – using specially designated nationals lists – for doing business with Iran deemed legitimate under EU law.

Photo Credit: IRNA

Macron and Merkel Must Flex Muscles to Save Iran Nuclear Deal

This article is adapted from a recent report from the European Leadership Network. 

The fate of the international nuclear agreement with Iran, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), looks increasingly uncertain in light of repeated attacks from U.S. President Donald Trump, who has threatened to walk out of the deal unless Congress and European counterparts agree to “fix it.” The recent appointments of Mike Pompeo and John Bolton—both vocal critics of the JCPOA and widely seen as staunch hawks on Iran—make it less likely that Trump will keep the United States in the deal at his next decision point by 12 May. Faced now with the likelihood of U.S. withdrawal, Europe must decide how far to go to try to preserve the agreement in the face of renewed U.S. sanctions.

Against this backdrop, the forthcoming visits to Washington by French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Markel come at a time of great importance for the nuclear agreement, regional security, and transatlantic relations. Macron’s meeting with Trump will be of particular significance, given the good rapport between the two leaders. Syria will likely feature at the top of the agenda, but the visit will offer an urgent opportunity to remind President Trump of the importance of the nuclear deal for his European allies.

U.S. decision makers can still be influenced. Washington’s position on the nuclear deal is far from monolithic and it is still possible that President Trump could be influenced by congressional opinion, which remains sensitive to European concerns. There is no congressional majority for a unilateral U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA while Iran remains compliant, still less for the re-imposing secondary nuclear-related sanctions on European allies. Even if the United States decides to leave, some main provisions of the deal might still be kept.

This leaves plenty of scope for European intervention. Representatives of the European signatories of the JCPOA, the so-called E3 (Germany, France, and the United Kingdom), are currently engaged in consultations with their U.S. counterparts to save the agreement. This includes discussions on how to accommodate President Trump’s concerns over the deal’s inspection provisions and “sunset clauses,” as well as over Iran’s missile programs and regional activities. But European leaders are also making clear that they will not just fall into line if Washington decides to leave the agreement and re-introduce sanctions.

A re-introduction of sanctions does not necessarily equate to a full re-introduction of all U.S. sanctions without exemptions. American policymakers can calibrate the sanctions they choose to re-instate and the executive powers of the president in matters of national security add to this flexibility. This means that there is plenty for Europeans to negotiate for with their U.S. counterparts about the terms of any U.S. withdrawal. It is possible to envision a transatlantic quid pro quo in which U.S. secondary sanctions are waived even if the United States leaves the agreement.

The risks of a U.S. withdrawal and a comprehensive snap back and enforcement of secondary are nonetheless tangible. As a result, European policymakers are considering credible ways to signal that the EU is willing to take action if confronted with this scenario. This includes reviving EU “blocking regulation” (which seeks to prohibit EU persons from complying with U.S. secondary sanctions or acknowledging the jurisdiction of non-EU courts or authorities with respect to those sanctions) and filing complaints at the World Trade Organization (WTO).

There are significant and inherent risks with these options. These retaliatory measures could easily escalate into an unpredictable and unmanageable tit-for-tat. This would not only impose significant costs on the EU and cause serious friction in the transatlantic relationship but also do damage to the institutions that uphold the free movement of goods, services, and ideas – bedrocks of the multilateralism the EU cherishes. After all, pushing back against the United States requires political will. And while there is undivided support for the JCPOA within the EU, there is little appetite for further confrontations with the United States.

Notably, this could change if Washington is seen as taking further steps to undermine transatlantic relations and European interests. An already fractured partnership is sensitive to further blows – for instance if the United States would go ahead and impose tariffs on European exports after the temporary exemptions on EU steel and aluminum exports expire on May 1.

The wider international context in May is therefore going to matter a great deal for the fate of the JCPOA. So too will the way that the Europeans choose to frame their differences with Washington over the deal. A choice between the JCPOA and good relations with Washington is one thing; the ability of the EU to maintain its security, its autonomy and the values it thinks should define the international order is quite another. The latter would merit a tougher stance.

Still, an inconvenient truth remains—no EU action can completely shield European businesses and investments in Iran. In this sense, there is no bulletproof defense of the JCPOA’s economic benefits in the event of a U.S. withdrawal. The EU and its member states can pursue measures to shield existing links, encourage further business activity and boost investors’ confidence in the Iranian market, but while government can facilitate business, it cannot control it.

Consider the lingering caution of financial institutions despite sanctions relaxation under the JCPOA, which is a sobering reminder of the challenge of steering the private sector through Iranian market obstacles. As the chief legal officer at HSBC noted in response to the Obama administration’s push to encourage European banking activity in Iran, “Governments can lift sanctions, but the private sector is still responsible for managing its own risk and no doubt will be held accountable if it falls short.” In light of the current uncertainty surrounding President Trump’s policy towards Iran, private sector actors will have plenty of reasons to be wary of the Iranian market. This will continue to restrict investment for the foreseeable future.

As a result of struggles with financing, major businesses are canceling or scaling back their planned activities in Iran. Airbus is struggling to complete its sales of Aircraft to Iran; Total, the French energy giant, is deep into contingency planning for its Iranian operations; and Bouguyes, a French industrial group, has decided to put their Iranian plans on the shelf. As noted in a recent Bourse & Bazaar study, this risks dragging the JCPOA into a “zombie state.”

Europe nevertheless has realistic options in the face of a U.S. withdrawal. There is a strong commercial interest in engaging with Iran, and European policymakers can promote policies that help turn interest into action. They need not—indeed, should not—put all their eggs in one basket but should pursue an array of options in parallel. This includes solidifying international support for the JCPOA, demonstrating that re-imposing sanctions unilaterally will come at a cost for the United States, seeking U.S. exemptions for European businesses to continue operating in Iran, and bolstering international business confidence in the Iranian market. Such practical steps, taken now, can bolster European negotiating leverage with Washington, send useful signals to Tehran and strengthen European political will to defend the JCPOA.

Photo Credit: Armando Babani/EPA

Can Blocking Regulations Help Europe Protect Its Iran Business From Trump?

In the last week, European business leaders and policymakers have grown more vocal about the possibility that the European Union would employ blocking regulations to protect European businesses from the reach of US secondary sanctions on Iran. These regulations would penalize European companies for complying with secondary sanctions, which may snapback if the Trump administration decides to withdraw from the Iran nuclear agreement.

Total CEO Patrick Pouyanné became the first high-profile European executive to publically call for such measures to be considered, disclosing that Total has been in discussions with French and European authorities about “means to protect investments already made in Iran, even in the case of the return of sanctions.”

Speaking at a conference in Paris last week, Denis Chaibi, head of the Iran Task Force of the European External Action Service, stated that the EU was “looking at a number of possibilities” regarding the regulations.” In his assessment, “it is not complicated to do it legally in that the legal instrument exists, but it doesn’t require a huge internal debate,”

These public statements come as European concerns grow regarding the Trump administration's ultimatum to “fix” the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. The critical deadline is May 12, when the United States will need to once again waive its secondary sanctions on Iran. Failure to do so would see secondary sanctions “snapback,” exposing European companies to extraterritorial penalties for their commercial activities in Iran.  

But even if the European Union finds the political will to reinstitute blocking regulations in the event of snapback, it is unclear whether they fully effective as a standalone measure to protect European trade and investment in Iran. Blocking regulations are a legal mechanism which seeks to mitigate the extraterritorial effects of sanctions under Public International Law (PIL), the body of law that governs relations between sovereign states and their unions, such as the European Union.

International trade attorney, Edward Borovikov, managing partner at the Brussels office of Dentons, a global law firm, notes that under international law “Sovereign states are expected to exercise moderation and restraint if their legal acts may affect vital economic and commercial interests of another state. But sometimes states violate the principle of restraint for their own national security considerations.” The snapback of secondary sanctions by the Trump administration would represent once such case. In such situations, “there is no efficient and universal legal avenue under PIL to challenge such non-compliance,” says Borovikov.

While the World Trade Organization (WTO), which was established under the authority of PIL, may seem a venue to challenge extraterritorial sanctions which restrict trade in goods and services, it is unlikely Europe would be able to successfully challenge the snapback of U.S. sanctions under the WTO’s legal authority.

Article XXI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (1994) declares that nothing in WTO rules will “prevent any contracting party from taking any action which it considers necessary for the protection of its essential security interests.” Borovikov explains that this exemption “means that member states can depart from WTO commitments on trade in goods and services” and points out that while there have been several attempts to bring to WTO adjudication disputes on the application of national security exemptions, “none of the cases ended with conclusive guidance.”

In 1996, the European Union began a dispute process against the United States with regard to extraterritorial sanctions against Cuba. This dispute reached the state of WTO consultations. But ultimately, the EU and US reached a political solution in which the US assured that its secondary sanctions would not be enforced upon European companies. The WTO case was suspended.  

The political solution was necessary for a simple reason. “Even if the WTO had found in the favor of the EU, deciding that the national security exemption did not apply, the United States was never going agree with a WTO’s interpretation of its national security requirements,” observes Borovikov. “The idea that the United States would comply with WTO recommendations in such a situation is hard to believe.”

Given the dead end presented by the WTO dispute avenue, the EU has sought legal mechanisms that rely on the legal authority of the union and its member states. The legal act is the 1996 EU Blocking Regulation. This regulation was established in response to US sanctions on Iran, Cuba, and Libya. The regulations prohibit EU entities and courts from complying with foreign legal acts, such as sanctions laws, listed in an annex. Borokivov explains that “in principle any new extraterritorial laws of any third country may be added to the Annex and indeed help EU persons to continue business with a sanctioned third country.” However, the past success of such regulations in enabling European companies to continue conducting business in these jurisdictions such as Iran was the result of political rather than legal influence.

Borovikov warns that these blocking regulations “cannot provide full protection from secondary sanctions because if the EU persons doing business in the US start economic activities in the Iran, they are at risk of being penalised under the US sanctions regime.” Even if the European Union seeks to penalize its companies for complying with US sanctions, “it is clear that a lot of EU companies would simply face a dilemma between doing business in the US or Iran and where to accept the penalty,” he says.

Given the fact that the US market both frequently offers more attractive economic opportunities and poses more severe penalties and consequences for non-compliance with US law, most companies are likely to wind down their Iran operations and pay any penalties that the EU or their national governments may levy under the blocking regulations.

However, the discussion about blocking regulations is nonetheless worthwhile. Borovikov notes that the prospect of such regulations has in the past played “an important role in bringing about an acceptable solution. The regulations are secondary to the political process between the US and EU and its member states that will hopefully lead to an understanding on Iran business.”

Ellie Geranmayeh of the European Council on Foreign Relations, echoes this assessment: "The threat of reviving the EU blocking regulation in itself can be a useful political tool for Europe to create a cost for the Trump administration and make it think twice about its actions." Moreover, while the blocking regulations may only be partially effective for major multinationals, they can "provide an avenue for smaller-medium sized companies in Europe and Asia that have little or no US exposure to continue conducting business in Iran in non-dollar currencies," says Geranmayeh. 

Multinational executives seem to agree. In a recent survey conducted by Bourse & Bazaar and commissioned by International Crisis Group, a substantial 54 percent of senior executives indicated that “assuming Iran remains committed to the nuclear deal,” blocking regulations, which would protect companies from U.S. penalties, would positively affect the “decision to invest in Iran.” 

Blocking regulations can serve an important role as part of the suite of political, legal, and commercial measures that can be employed by European governments to protect their businesses from the consequences of snapback. At a time when the economic quid-pro-quo that underpins the nuclear deal is under threat, each and every such measure ought to be considered. 

Photo Credit: WTO