Couple of days ago, it was announced that the 4th round of Iran-US nuclear talks that was scheduled for May 3 in Rome was postponed. Several reasons were raised for it by experts among them was European's destructive role particularly France.
How do you see France's destructive role in postponing the talks by raising false claims?
There may be several reasons for France's toxic behavior. However, the main reason is that France fears that if Iran and the United States succeed in signing a new agreement, Paris will not become a major beneficiary of the deal, and French companies will not be given a free rein as was the case in the immediate post-JCPOA era.
European troika claims it fulfilled its commitments under JCPOA after the US withdrawal from JCPOA, while they didn't do anything positive in fact. And now, when the talks are going on positively, they are threatening to activate the snapback mechanism. Why?
What the European troika claims is not only patently false but shameful. The Iranian JCPOA negotiating side made an egregious error by agreeing to include the snapback mechanism. But that is water under the bridge, and it is too late to undo what was done a few years ago. Unfortunately, the snapback mechanism has given the European troika an undeserved spoiler role as long as the JCPOA is around, at least on paper.
Considering the Europeans' weak weight in the current world and their negative, destructive role in the past, do you think that they should be given a role in the talks?
If they are given any role in the U.S.-Iran talks, it should only be a secondary or tertiary role. The European troika is a failed entity and should be treated as such.
France and some other old European colonial powers have always played destructive roles in different parts of the world, including the Middle East, and have always been behind separatist elements in the region. How do you see their state and influence in the region in the future?
Although the European colonial heyday is long gone, European countries like France still suffer from illusions of grandeur. Thus, they will try to salvage their remaining influence by any means possible.
How do you see the internal differences in the White House in postponing the talks with Iran?
If Donald Trump decides to sign a new deal with Iran, he can overcome internal divisions in his foreign policy team. Trump's modus operandi and his personality cult are very different from recent US presidents. So far, Trump has not decided what he really wants. That is why one day he echoes the sentiments of the ultra-anti-Iran hawks in his administration, and another day he sounds conciliatory in his remarks. Trump's unpredictability remains the stumbling block in this whole process and will ultimately determine the fate of the Tehran-Washington negotiations.
Despite all problems, how do you see the future of the Iran-US talks? Can any possible agreement be affected by the Europeans' possible destructive measures?
It is very difficult to predict the outcome of the Iran-US talks. The Iranian side has been reticent in divulging meaningful details about the negotiations or Tehran's long-term goals. The American side has been sending contradictory signals, mixing threats with occasional positive utterances. However, if an enforceable agreement is reached between Iran and the United States, Europe's potential role as a spoiler will be minimized.
