The E3’s diplomacy has collapsed into theater as the US sets the agenda and Tehran stops pretending to listen.
Europe still talks like a power – but it no longer acts like one. The recent meeting in Istanbul between Iran and the E3 nations – the UK, Germany, and France – was less a negotiation than a diplomatic performance. Though cloaked in formal statements and procedural optimism, the gathering resembled a carefully staged simulation of diplomacy, aimed more at signaling activity than achieving substance.
For all their rhetorical commitment to dialogue, the E3 nations have long ceased to be meaningful actors in the Iranian nuclear file. Their insistence on maintaining a mediating role is no longer backed by either institutional capacity or political will. The talks in Istanbul offered no new proposals, no breakthroughs, and no signs of strategic coherence. Instead, they epitomized a pattern of “negotiations for the sake of negotiations” – a ritualized diplomacy that conceals, rather than resolves, the underlying geopolitical rift.
This was not the first time. A similar meeting held in Istanbul on May 16, 2025, produced the same optimistic rhetoric, only for the situation to unravel weeks later. By mid‑June, Israel had launched a series of strikes against Iran, and for the first time in history, the United States directly attacked Iran’s Fordow nuclear facility during the “12‑day war.” That escalation demonstrated in stark terms the limits of Europe’s ability to influence outcomes – and the acceptability of force in a conflict where Europe is now largely a bystander.
Europe’s problem is not just marginalization by the US, but voluntary irrelevance. While Paris, Berlin, and London posture as bridge‑builders between Tehran and Washington, in practice they operate within the parameters defined in Washington and West Jerusalem. The result is not constructive engagement, but an elaborate pretense – diplomacy without agency.
From INSTEX to Fordow: Europe’s strategic autonomy collapses
The collapse of Europe’s credibility in the Iranian nuclear file began long before these days. After Donald Trump’s 2018 withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the E3 promised to shield Tehran from the shock of renewed US sanctions. Their flagship solution was the INSTEX financial mechanism – a supposed alternative channel for trade with Iran.
But INSTEX never fulfilled that promise. Over its entire existence, it conducted only a single transaction – a humanitarian shipment of medical supplies in 2020 – and even that fell squarely within the categories of goods already exempt from US sanctions. There was no real test of Europe’s willingness to defy Washington’s restrictions, no challenge to the financial chokehold imposed on Iran’s oil and banking sectors. The episode exposed INSTEX for what it was: a symbolic gesture designed to project strategic autonomy, not exercise it. By 2023, the mechanism had been quietly dismantled.
This failure was not merely technical. It sent Tehran a clear message: when Washington applies pressure, Europe folds. Even the Biden administration’s declared willingness to revive the JCPOA failed to change the dynamic. By March 2022, EU‑led talks in Vienna had stalled over US terrorism designations against the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and other unresolved issues. European officials vaguely cited “external factors” as the reason, but the deeper problem was an unwillingness to confront Washington on Iran’s core demands.
A “final compromise draft” circulated that summer, but by September, the E3 were publicly blaming Iran for the collapse of negotiations, accusing Tehran of introducing new conditions regarding its Non‑Proliferation Treaty (NPT) commitments. For Iran, the pattern was unmistakable: Europe had the rhetoric of diplomacy but lacked the leverage to deliver.
The consequences became brutally clear in June 2025, when Israel launched a series of strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities – and the US directly struck Fordow. Europe, once imagined in Tehran as a potential mediator (with France once considered a direct channel to Washington), was reduced to issuing statements of “concern.” Trust that Paris, Berlin, or London could act independently evaporated.
For Iran, these episodes confirmed what INSTEX had already exposed. Again, the pattern is the same: when the stakes rise, the E3 has neither the instruments nor the will to defend its commitments.
Not a mediator, but a proxy: E3’s alignment with US strategy
By 2024, any lingering illusion that the E3 could mediate independently between Washington and Tehran had collapsed. The European powers were no longer attempting to balance interests; they were enforcing Washington’s strategy. Sanctions on Iran’s aviation sector and civilian fleet, adopted by the EU in November 2024, were a clear signal that Brussels had aligned itself fully with the US “maximum pressure” campaign.
Even earlier that year, a high‑profile meeting with Iranian officials on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in September 2024 underscored Europe’s inability to deliver tangible results. The talks produced the usual optimistic statements but no progress. For Tehran, the message was again clear: European diplomacy was about optics, not outcomes.
At the same time, the E3 pushed a series of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) resolutions censuring Iran for alleged violations of its international obligations. The latest, passed on June 12, 2025 – just one day before Israel’s attacks and the unprecedented direct US strike on Fordow – was perceived in Tehran as a green light for escalation. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi publicly warned that the resolution would destabilize the region, but European leaders pressed ahead, seemingly oblivious to the consequences.
In reality, the Europeans were not oblivious; they were irrelevant. Paris, Berlin, and London had ceased to shape events and had instead become instruments for applying pressure on Iran. As one Iranian diplomat observed privately, European leaders may initially criticize US decisions, but they ultimately align themselves unconditionally and even present those policies as the “European position.” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has gone further, openly supporting any decision made by Donald Trump.
Diplomatic gatherings such as the Istanbul meeting served less as platforms for negotiation than as reconnaissance missions: opportunities to “test the waters” of Tehran’s demands and feed intelligence back to Washington. By mid‑2025, the E3’s so‑called diplomacy was no longer about building bridges. It was about delivering ultimatums.
With negotiations going nowhere, Europe and the United States set an August 2025 deadline for reaching a new agreement with Iran. The implicit threat was clear: if Tehran refused, London, Paris, and Berlin would activate the “snapback” mechanism embedded in UN Security Council Resolution 2231, restoring pre‑JCPOA sanctions.
For Tehran, this was not a legal step but an act of coercion. Iranian officials have long argued that the E3 forfeited their moral and legal authority to invoke snapback when they failed to uphold their own commitments under the 2015 nuclear deal. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi’s warning could not have been more explicit: if Europe proceeds, Iran will consider withdrawing from the Treaty on the Non‑Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). In a letter to the UN secretary‑general and the Security Council, Araghchi accused the Europeans of aligning themselves politically and militarily with the US and Israel – even to the point of tacitly endorsing direct US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
The snapback procedure itself is legally contentious. Since the US unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018, many international lawyers argue that Washington forfeited the right to trigger the mechanism. But in today’s geopolitical landscape, that debate is academic. Under snapback rules, permanent Security Council members have no veto; only nine votes are required to reimpose sanctions. The outcome would be predetermined.
And for the E3, the activation of snapback would seal a transformation already underway: from nominal mediators to open enforcers of US policy.
The Istanbul meeting, then, was never about diplomacy. It was about pressure. Europe still sits at the table, but the conversation happens elsewhere. Diplomacy is dead; what remains is an ultimatum delivered on behalf of Washington – and Iran is unlikely to mistake it for anything else.
