A British analyst has said that the three European countries known as the “E3” — the United Kingdom, France, and Germany — were never in a good position to act as neutral referees on the Iran nuclear deal. Speaking in an interview, the analyst explained that these countries have always been too closely tied to U.S. policy and too politically invested to act as independent mediators.
Background on the Nuclear Deal
The Iran nuclear deal, officially called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), was signed in 2015 between Iran and major world powers, including the E3, the United States, Russia, and China. The agreement placed limits on Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for relief from international sanctions.
However, in 2018, the U.S. withdrew from the deal under President Donald Trump and reimposed sanctions on Iran. Since then, attempts to revive the agreement have faced difficulties.
Why the E3 Are Seen as Unfit Referees
According to the British analyst, the E3 cannot be considered neutral referees because:
Alignment with U.S. policy – The UK, France, and Germany often follow Washington’s lead, even when it comes to sanctions or pressure campaigns against Iran.
Political and economic interests – Each of these countries has deep ties with U.S. defense and energy policies, which makes it hard for them to take an independent position.
Failure to protect the deal – When the U.S. left the JCPOA in 2018, the E3 promised to uphold the deal and protect Iran’s right to economic benefits. But in practice, they did little to shield Iran from renewed sanctions.
The analyst explained: “You cannot be a referee if you always lean toward one side. The E3 wanted to act as middlemen, but they lacked both independence and the courage to challenge Washington.”
Current Tensions
Today, the debate over Iran’s nuclear program is once again intense. The U.S. and its allies accuse Iran of moving closer to developing nuclear weapons, while Iran insists its program is peaceful.
The British analyst argued that the E3’s recent moves, including threats to bring back old sanctions, show they are acting more like enforcers than neutral observers. This makes it hard for them to build trust with Iran or encourage compromise.
What Could Work Instead
The analyst suggested that a fairer system would involve a more balanced group of referees. For example, neutral countries or international organizations like the United Nations could play a stronger role in monitoring and mediating disputes. Regional voices from the Middle East should also be included to make the process more legitimate.
“Peace cannot be built if only one side’s friends are making the rules,” the analyst said.
Conclusion
The comments highlight a deep problem with the Iran nuclear talks. While the E3 present themselves as responsible global powers, critics argue they are too close to U.S. policy to be fair referees. As tensions rise, many believe that only a broader and more neutral approach can rebuild trust and give the nuclear deal a real chance to succeed.