News
European allies fear a rushed US‑Iran framework deal could backfire
European diplomats fear a superficial agreement could entrench disputes over enrichment and sanctions
A police officer gestures to a vehicle at a check post along a road near Faisal Masjid, as Pakistan prepares to host the U.S. and Iran for the second phase of peace talks in Islamabad, Pakistan April 19, 2026.
Paris: European allies fear US negotiating team is pushing for a swift, headline‑grabbing framework deal with Iran that could entrench rather than resolve deeper problems, diplomats with experience dealing with Tehran said.
They worry Washington, eager to claim a diplomatic win for President Donald Trump, could lock in a superficial agreement on Iran’s nuclear programme and sanctions relief, only to struggle through months or years of technically complex follow‑on talks.
“The concern isn’t that there won’t be an agreement,” said a senior European diplomat, one of eight who spoke to Reuters and have previously worked on the nuclear file or continue to do so. “It’s that there will be a bad initial agreement that creates endless downstream problems.”
Responding to questions from Reuters on negotiating style, team composition, objectives and the risks of a rapid deal, the White House rejected the criticism.
“President Trump has a proven track record of achieving good deals on behalf of the United States and the American people, and he will only accept one that puts America first,” spokeswoman Anna Kelly said.
High‑level deal, light on detail
Diplomats said a skeletal agreement may be achievable, built around a nuclear package and an economic package, but warned the nuclear element remains the most contentious.
“The Americans think you agree on three or four points in a five‑page document and that’s it, but on the nuclear file, every clause opens the door to a dozen more disputes,” a second European diplomat said.
Talks are focusing on Iran’s stockpile of roughly 440 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60%, material that could be used for several nuclear weapons if further enriched.
The favoured option is downblending inside Iran under International Atomic Energy Agency supervision. Another option is a hybrid approach, with some material shipped abroad.
Turkey and France have been mentioned as possible destinations. Even these options would require lengthy negotiations over recovering material potentially buried by airstrikes, verifying quantities and transporting it securely. Iran has also suggested storing material abroad for a fixed period.
“Whatever happens now is only a starting point,” said a Western diplomat previously involved in nuclear talks. “That’s why the 2015 JCPOA ran to 160 pages.”
Beyond stockpiles lies the deeper dispute over Iran’s right to enrich uranium at all. Trump has publicly pushed for zero enrichment, while Iran insists it has the right to enrich uranium for civilian purposes and denies seeking a nuclear weapon.
One possible compromise would involve a temporary moratorium followed by resumption at very low levels under strict conditions.
Europeans stressed that a central role for the IAEA, including intrusive verification and unrestricted access, is essential.
“A negotiation with Iran is meticulous and subtle: every word matters,” said Gérard Araud, France’s chief negotiator from 2006 to 2009. “It’s not something you rush.”