Trump leaves Europe in the cold in the Rocky Mountains, and Iran with a stark choice
Trump sought to underline European irrelevance in the Middle East crisis. All now rests on what he proposes
Discussing the dilemma facing western diplomats in confronting Iran’s nuclear programme, Henry Kissinger wrote in 2006: “Diplomacy never operates in a vacuum. It persuades not by the eloquence of its practitioners but by assembling a balance of incentives and risks.”
Rarely has the balance of incentives and risks been placed so starkly in front of Iran’s leaders as now.
Donald Trump, either by design or by stumbling ad hoc towards a strategy, has left Iran with a stark choice: either return to the negotiating table and accept the offer of “a deal”, or see Israel – possibly with US support – pulp Iran’s security apparatus, nuclear programme and economy into the ground in what would be the ultimate exercise in maximum pressure, the term the US president gave to his first-term economic sanctions against Tehran. It is in Trump’s words a demand for unconditional surrender.
Judging by his statements and actions over the past 48 hours, Trump is also trying to demonstrate that any deal is seen to be on his terms, and that he is sole decision-maker. It is an attempted display of raw power not just to Iran, but to Europe.
In a move designed to underline Europe’s irrelevance and indeed his contempt for the multilateralism symbolised by the G7, Trump abandoned the Canadian summit a day early. He has left such G7s early before, but never quite so dramatically.
One senior diplomat, asked if Trump had flown to Washington essentially on a diplomatic mission to secure peace or to join the war against Iran, replied frankly: “We don’t know!”
As Air Force One departed, Emmanuel Macron tried to shape the narrative of the departure by saying that a ceasefire was in the offing, if not close. Trump then, in a tone of some relish, belittled the “the publicity-seeking” French leader in typically stark terms. “Whether purposely or not, Emmanuel always gets it wrong,” he posted on Truth Social. He was after something “much bigger” than a ceasefire, he said.
Indeed US diplomats at the G7 had refused to countenance the call for a ceasefire appearing in the joint communique on the Iran-Israel crisis, the chief raison d’être for issuing a joint statement in the first place.
In the interests of securing any kind of communique, the European leaders retreated, leaving a sparse eight sentences that in effect implicitly endorsed Israel’s actions by saying we “affirm that Israel has a right to defend itself. We reiterate our support for the security of Israel.”
The day after Trump’s exit, the four European leaders left abandoned high in the Rocky Mountains reflected on Trump’s plan, and in so doing revealed differences.
Friedrich Merz, the German chancellor, expressed his utmost respect for the Israelis’ courage, saying they were doing the rest of the world’s dirty work. He added: “It would be good if this terrorist regime was brought to an end.” If Iran did not accept the complete destruction of its nuclear programme, it would be ended with the help of the US, he said.
Keir Starmer and Macron were both much more cautious, speaking of de-escalation, and worrying how this war would end. In the Commons the UK foreign secretary, David Lammy, said Iran’s nuclear programme had to be constrained, but added: “Fundamentally, no military action can put an end to Iran’s nuclear capabilities.” It was for Iran to choose its leaders, he said.
The UK and France privately said it recognised Iran’s right to enrich limited stocks of uranium within Iran, the principle underlying the 2015 nuclear deal, and the sticking point in the US-Iran talks.
Regardless it looks once again as though Europe has been left as the bystander to history, adept at drafting consensual communiques and declarations while the real events are shaped by unilateralists prepared to use destructive force. Rarely has the sword been so much mightier than the pen. Russia happily crowed it had always seen the G7, a club from which it was excluded for invading Crimea, as “pretty useless”.
In fairness to Europe’s leaders, they have tried to play a part in securing a deal. Three European foreign ministers spoke to their Iranian counterpart, Abbas Araghchi, by phone at the request of the US.
The kernel of the proposal that they relayed was that Iran should have to offer in effect an unconditional ceasefire, and end all talk of escalation. Threats by Tehran to remove all UN weapons inspectors needed to be rescinded.
The idea of a motion to the Iranian parliament calling for Iran to leave the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, a precursor to acquiring a nuclear bomb, should be dropped. US assets in the region must not be attacked. De-escalation had to be the priority, since any escalation would lead to a catastrophic conflict, the consequences of which no one could control.
Araghchi, sources said, reverted to his argument that Iran could hardly silence its guns without Israel doing the same.
One western diplomat admitted they had been reduced to sending messages to the Iranians about a US-Israeli strategy about which they had not been consulted let alone approved.
With many reasons to feel aggrieved – and also to be reviled – the Iranian regime appears to have been left with the choice between its destruction and its humiliation, including a complete end to its nuclear programme, once seen as a symbol of its sovereignty.
Greatly diminished, Iran will have to decide if, in the interest of self-preservation, it has to abandon any right to draw red lines. A chastened Europe after this past few days may recognise some of Iran’s dilemma.