Europe Went Leading Iran Diplomacy, Then Lost Influence
Europe helped shape the 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran and backed a strategy of wider engagement. A 2016 European Parliament report won 456 votes, but its…
Europe went leading Iran diplomacy when engagement still shaped its approach to Tehran. A decade later, the European Union has lost economic leverage and diplomatic influence, according to a former foreign policy adviser who helped prepare a European Parliament report on relations with Iran.
The report, adopted on October 25, 2016, followed the 2015 nuclear agreement and called for cooperation across political dialogue, trade, academic exchanges, human rights and regional security. Its author says Europe’s role in addressing regional security crises has since become marginal, as the continent now supports war rather than leading diplomacy.
The account appeared in Responsible Statecraft. The author, whose name is not given in the article, says the shift marks a sharp retreat from a period when the European Union and its member states the United Kingdom, France and Germany played a leading role in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA.
European Parliament backed broader engagement
British member of the European Parliament Richard Howitt led the report’s drafting. The author said they worked closely with Howitt through its preparation and negotiations, including a fact-finding mission to Tehran.
Parliament adopted the report by 456 votes to 174, with 67 abstentions. It set out a strategy for expanding relations with Iran, presenting engagement as a way to advance European security and economic interests, encourage moderation and contribute to stability in the Middle East.
The proposal also offered European expertise to help Iran meet Financial Action Task Force criteria, which the report described as an important step toward economic reform. Its approach contrasted with arguments from hawkish circles in the United States, Israel and some Arab capitals that blamed Iran as the sole source of regional turmoil.
Instead, the report treated Iran as an important participant in efforts to address conflicts in Syria, Iraq and Yemen. It also urged European diplomacy to encourage closer ties between Tehran and Riyadh. The author says Beijing later pursued that rapprochement, rather than Brussels.
The strategy moved beyond Parliament. A few weeks after the report’s adoption, the EU Foreign Affairs Council endorsed its approach to engagement with Tehran and supported establishing an EU delegation there.
Criticism and the limits of diplomacy
The report drew support from the National Iranian American Council, a Washington-based group that favors diplomacy. Its founder and then-president, Trita Parsi, praised the strategy of expanded relations while warning against renewed isolation and military threats, the author wrote.
Critics took a different view. Pro-Israeli groups, including the AJC Transatlantic Institute, the Brussels office of the American Jewish Committee, condemned the report. They argued it did not adequately address Iran’s threats against Israel, its support for Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Assad regime in Syria, or its human rights abuses.
The author rejects the idea that human rights and engagement were mutually exclusive. The report, they wrote, included substantial criticism of Iran’s human rights record, with input from Human Rights Watch.
That debate matters because the report’s approach linked diplomacy to a wider set of European interests, from economic ties to regional security. The author says Europe has since lost much of its economic leverage and seen its diplomatic influence diminish dramatically, leaving it on the sidelines as security crises unfold.
The 2016 report passed with 456 votes in favor.
Source: responsiblestatecraft.org
