Nuclear Agreement; 'Europe Has No Concerns Like the U.S.'

The New York Times, in an analysis, states that comparing the positions of political circles in the U.S. and Europe regarding the nuclear agreement with Iran, and considering the controversy and millions of dollars dedicated to it in the U.S., it can be said that Europeans have remained completely silent. This silence is particularly noticeable in Britain, France, and Germany, which are themselves signatories of the agreement. In France, which apparently had the strictest position during the nuclear negotiations with Iran, the issue is considered resolved. The newspaper refers to the conditions set by the French Foreign Minister during negotiations to reach the final agreement. However, Camille Grand, director of the Research Center at the Foundation for Strategic Studies and an expert on nuclear issues in Paris, tells The New York Times, 'There is no opposition to this agreement in Europe. No politician or expert, even those who had criticisms of this agreement, has opposed it.' According to this expert, the final agreement is better than what he expected. He adds, 'The precision and depth of this agreement surprised me. Hardliners are satisfied with this agreement, and moderates have no arguments against it.' The New York Times analyst notes that the lack of political debates regarding the nuclear agreement with Iran in Europe has various reasons. The differences between European governments and Iran have never become as hostile as those between that country and the U.S. to the extent that diplomatic relations with Tehran were completely severed. Relations between Tehran and Washington were halted after a group of students known as 'followers of the Imam' attacked the U.S. embassy following the 1979 revolution. Meetings between the foreign ministers of the two countries to advance nuclear talks were a rare occurrence that took place after several decades. Eli Granmaier, a policy expert at the European Council on Foreign Relations, told The New York Times, 'In the U.S., the issue of relations with Iran has always been a permanent discussion because it is part of the domestic political debates of that country.' All European countries, except for Britain, have maintained their diplomatic relations with Iran. Britain also reopened its embassy four years after a group of hardliners attacked its embassy. Camille Grand states, 'No European country has seriously supported military action against Iran, whereas this option has been discussed in U.S. political circles for years.' Another factor influencing the different positions of Europeans is the role that Israel plays in opposing any agreement with the Iranian government. In the U.S., pro-Israel circles have invested heavily in this issue and have held numerous meetings with senior politicians and members of Congress to push them toward opposing this agreement. Among the staunch critics of the nuclear agreement is Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, who has described this agreement as 'a historic mistake.' However, in Europe, according to The New York Times, although the largest Jewish organization in France has expressed concerns about this agreement, these criticisms have not permeated the political atmosphere in France. Camille Grand states, 'Netanyahu's opposition to this agreement was so extreme that it could not practically enter the political discussions in France. Even critics of the agreement did not support the Israeli Prime Minister's stance because it does not provide any constructive solutions.' The New York Times commentator further refers to the factor of money and the role of lobbying groups in the U.S. Opponents of this agreement have spent significantly more money than its supporters, and pro-Israel lobbies heavily influence the direction of political discussions in the U.S. However, Europeans are not accustomed to such policymaking methods. From the European perspective, the heated debate in U.S. political circles can have dangerous consequences. For example, some Republican presidential candidates have spoken about canceling this agreement. From the European viewpoint, sanctions are a diplomatic tool and a means to achieve a specific goal. They are concerned that Americans might use sanctions as an indefinite punishment against Iran. Eli Granmaier states, 'The outcome of this specific discussion may lead to a strategic assessment of the effectiveness of using sanctions as a tool. The U.S. Congress may underestimate the impact of its discussions on the unity of global powers regarding the method and purpose of sanctions against Iran.' The New York Times commentator concludes that even if this agreement can safely navigate the complex corridors of Congress, Camille Grand believes that the harsh tone of discussions in U.S. political circles is concerning. He states, 'These heated political debates in the U.S. go beyond the issue of relations with Iran. The problem is that the partisan nature of U.S. foreign policy creates significant difficulties for its allies and partners. This means that other countries will always be in doubt about whether the decisions of a U.S. President will ultimately be implemented or not.' Within the U.S. government, there are also concerns about the prospect of Congress rejecting the nuclear agreement. Among them, Samantha Power, the U.S. representative to the United Nations, recently warned that if the nuclear agreement is rejected, the United States 'will become isolated in the world and its influence will diminish.'