Tehran- IRAF- Europe once an active player in nuclear negotiations with Iran, has in the current round of talks in Muscat effectively lost visible agency and has been sidelined from direct participation in shaping the fate of future agreements. Developments such as Europe’s “empty hand” in the Muscat negotiations may be better understood through the lens of neoclassical realism, which helps explain why Europe has become marginalized in major events like the Muscat talks and how, in response, it seeks to regain its position in the emerging global order by expanding its role in other arenas.
Europe’s Empty Hand in the Muscat Negotiations: A Warning for Its Future Standing
Neoclassical realism emphasizes that state behavior is shaped by a combination of structural pressures in the international system and domestic variables such as elite perceptions, decision-making structures, and available resources. At the systemic level, the distribution of power is undergoing significant transformation. The rise of China as an economic and military superpower, the reemergence of Russia as a major actor in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, and—most importantly—Washington’s shift toward an “America First” policy and its reduced engagement in global crises have led Europe to conclude that a U.S.-led security architecture is no longer reliable. These systemic pressures have compelled Europe to reassess its strategic orientation.
This raises an important question: why does Europe feel threatened? Evidence of this perception can be observed across several developments. In the Ukraine crisis, although the United States imposed sanctions on Russia, it refrained from deploying military forces to the region, leaving Europe to shoulder the primary burden of confronting Russian aggression.
Trump’s statements describing NATO as “obsolete,” along with his threats to withdraw from the alliance, generated deep concern among European countries. In 2019, Trump’s proposal to purchase Greenland from Denmark—though seemingly humorous—demonstrated that Washington might be willing to sacrifice allied interests for short-term national gains.
In January 2020, the U.S. strike on Iranian military figure Martyr Qassem Soleimani, carried out without prior consultation with European allies, further deepened the transatlantic rift. The unilateral U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018 and the subsequent intensification of secondary sanctions against European companies trading with Iran dealt a serious blow to Europe’s trust in its ally, Washington.
More recently, in the Muscat negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, the United States has chosen to engage directly with Russia and China rather than cooperate with Europe, effectively sidelining the EU. Europe’s absence from one of the most sensitive regional dossiers has sounded alarm bells in Brussels.
Regarding Iran’s nuclear file, earlier rounds of negotiations leading to the JCPOA were coordinated by the European Union (EU). It was hoped that the agreement would also pave the way for addressing other outstanding issues over which the EU and the United States disagreed with Iran. However, the failure to reduce sanctions—particularly on the part of the EU—and efforts to intensify pressure and exacerbate regional tensions, especially as a result of the U.S. “maximum pressure” campaign, created growing challenges for the EU in maintaining functional relations with Tehran and pursuing its strategic objectives regarding Iran—challenges that would have been difficult even under more favorable circumstances.
While the outcome of the U.S. presidential election in November 2020 influenced subsequent developments related to the JCPOA, the EU concluded that it needed to shape its policy independently of Washington’s return to constructive multilateralism. As a result, Europe sought to further develop its strategic autonomy while playing a more active role in de-escalation and mediation in regional conflicts. This led to policies such as increasing sanctions on Iran—measures that largely followed U.S. policy and could not be considered genuinely independent initiatives.
Overall, while the EU played an active role in the JCPOA in previous years, recent developments—particularly the negotiations held in recent days—have not unfolded in Europe’s favor.
The Muscat negotiations symbolize Europe’s marginalization in contrast to earlier nuclear talks under the JCPOA, in which the EU—alongside the United States, Russia, China, and the three European countries France, Germany, and the United Kingdom , played a key role. In the current round, formed after the U.S. unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA and escalating tensions, the principal actors are the United States, Russia, and China.
The reasons for Europe’s absence—or marginalization—in the new round of negotiations can be traced to several factors. First, the United States, under Trump’s leadership and policies, has shown little interest in involving Europe in key decision-making processes and prefers to reach bilateral understandings with Russia and China. Second, Europe’s economic and security dependence on the United States has constrained its ability to adopt strong independent positions, undermining its credibility as a neutral mediator or autonomous actor. Third, internal divisions among EU member states—such as differing French and German approaches toward Iran—have prevented Europe from presenting a unified and decisive policy.
This marginalization poses a serious risk for Europe, as developments in the Middle East directly affect European security, energy supplies, and migration flows. Concerns that a potential Muscat agreement might be concluded without considering European interests have prompted European elites and policymakers to seek ways to revive their role. Consequently, in recent months, sanctions, strategic autonomy, and active diplomacy have emerged as some of Europe’s initial responses to this perceived threat. On the one hand, these sanctions signal nominal alignment with U.S. pressure to prevent further deterioration of transatlantic relations; on the other, they serve as a tool to maintain leverage over Iran and ensure Europe is taken seriously in future calculations.
In other words, Europe seeks to assert itself as an indispensable actor by maintaining economic and political presence in the region. Earlier initiatives, such as the creation of the INSTEX mechanism to facilitate trade with Iran, reflected this intent, but under U.S. pressure the mechanism failed to achieve meaningful effectiveness.
Overall, Europe’s position in the new Iran–U.S. nuclear negotiations reflect a broader decline in Europe’s role within the U.S.-led Western order.
At a broader level, many analysts argue that Europe is moving toward strategic autonomy. Statements by senior European leaders support this shift. Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel repeatedly emphasized the need for Europe to “rely on itself” and warned against overdependence on U.S. support. French President Emmanuel Macron has likewise advocated the concept of “European strategic autonomy” and called for the creation of a joint European military force. The repetition of these views indicates a transformation in European elite perceptions of the international environment and the EU’s role within it. The United States is no longer seen as a consistently reliable partner; instead, Europe is increasingly convinced that it must take the initiative to secure its own interests and security.
In practice, concrete steps have also been taken. Strengthening Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) to develop joint defense capabilities, increasing defense budgets in countries such as Germany and France, launching the maritime security initiative in the Persian Gulf (Operation AGENOR), and activating multilateral diplomacy in crises such as Libya and Syria all reflect Europe’s efforts to achieve greater autonomy and a more active international role. These measures demonstrate that Europe has clearly recognized the risk of fading from major international and regional developments and—particularly after the Muscat negotiations—is determined to compensate for its “empty hand” by increasing its independent presence.
Conclusion
Europe’s absence from the Muscat negotiations is a clear symbol of its transitional position in the international order. On the one hand, Europe feels threatened by declining U.S. support; on the other, it is attempting to consolidate its status as an influential pole in the emerging multipolar system by strengthening strategic autonomy. These efforts are visible across multiple domains, including defense (PESCO and increased military spending), economics (efforts to reduce dependence on the U.S. dollar), and diplomacy (mediation in regional conflicts).
Nevertheless, internal challenges—such as divisions among EU member states, inefficient supranational governance structures, and historical dependence on the United States—continue to make this path uneven and uncertain.
