We use cookies to help improve and maintain our site. More information.

July 08, 2019

Instex, forever around the corner?

Perhaps the most surprising claim in this story by Politico (US edition) on the standoff between the US and Iran is that the Trump administration actually hopes for Instex, the European special purpose vehicle to facilitate trade with Iran, to work. If there is a method to Donald Trump's diplomatic madness it seems to be to tear up agreements to force other parties to come begging for a renegotiation. As in other cases, Trump has claimed that the JCPOA treaty negotiated by the Obama administration was a bad deal and he will get a better one. In that context there is some logic to the idea that Instex, by facilitating trade in non-sanctioned goods without using sanctioned financial channels, would keep the Iranians just this side of breaking their nuclear commitments altogether. But it is still a shock to see a - however unnamed - US official claim that the US wants Instex to work when other officials are on the record warning that it could never work without falling afoul of regulations against money laundering or terrorism financing. US treasury officials have insinuated the US could designate Instex' necessary Iranian counterpart as a target for sanctions due to its ties to the Iranian revolutionary guard.

If that is the strategy of the Trump administration, it doesn't seem to be working. This weekend Iran announced that it is going one step further in its breach of the nuclear deal. In addition to exceeding the allowed size of its enriched uranium stockpile last week, starting this weekend Iran is claiming that it will enrich uranium beyond the allowed grade. Iran is not impressed by the fact that Instex, for all the Europeans' promises, isn't more than just a claim without any actual transactions to show for it. Kamal Kharrazi, chairman of Iran's strategic council of foreign relations, is quoted by the Tehran times as saying that a credit line worth millions of euros, given to Instex by its state sponsors the E3 (Britain, France and Germany), is not enough to make Instex useful. Iranian officials also insist that, if it doesn't facilitate oil exports, Instex will not be enough for Iran. But oil is subject to US sanctions and the E3 intend for Instex to facilitate trade in non-sanctioned goods only.

Kharrazi is also unimpressed by Bruno Le Maire, France's finance minister, who said Instex would carry out its first transaction within days. After all, it's been over a week since the E3 told a JCPOA oversight committee that Instex' first transactions were being processed. Every week or two some E3 official claims that the first Instex transation will happen in a couple of weeks. In that respect Instex seems to be like nuclear fusion, forever around the corner but forever out of reach. Nevertheless, for all its scepticism, Iran also claims that its own mirror institution to Instex - called STFI, or Satma in Farsi - is operational and has invited Iranian exporters to use it.

While Le Maire provides assurances that Instex will be working any day now, Emmanuel Macron has become involved in the diplomatic effort. In a phone call with Hassan Rouhani, Iran's president, Macron warned of the consequences of Iran breaching its uranium enrichment limits. But both leaders also agreed to explore between now and July 15 the conditions for renewed talks on the Iran deal.

Show Comments Write a Comment

July 08, 2019

Why Rory Stewart is not really what Remainers should be looking for

What should be best tactics for Remainers in the UK? We have argued before that they should accept the withdrawal treaty and then begin a long campaign for re-entry. And they need to dump their leaders and stop obsessing about trade and the single market. That opportunity is possibly gone now. We would not rule out that Boris Johnson returns with an amended deal. If he does, Remainers should vote in favour of it. But their efforts are currently moving in a different direction, which we think is not very promising. We are back to the illiterate debate about stopping a no-deal Brexit.

The Guardian reports this morning that Rory Stewart, the much-hyped Tory leadership contender, plans to counter a hypothetical prorogation of parliament by setting up an alternative parliament - essentially in a pub down the street. We don’t think that prorogation is likely in any case, and so we don’t feel we need to think this through to the end. But we are wondering whether Stewart and other Remainers in the Tory party are well-advised to indulge schoolboy fantasies of staging a rebellion, instead of focusing on the options that are available to them under EU law. The treaties allow for ratification of the withdrawal agreement or unilateral revocation as the only tools to stop a no-deal Brexit. They need to choose. The Remainers' leap into the procedural fog benefits the Brexiters.

The problem is that the Remainers disagree both on what they want - some want revocation, other don’t - and on how to achieve it. The 30 or so Tory rebels are not all going to support a no-confidence vote brought by Jeremy Corbyn. So it is not clear to us how they can proceed. If the government were to lose its majority, then surely there will be elections at some point in the autumn. 

From a strategic point of view, we much prefer the approach suggested by Will Hutton in his Observer column. He is calling on Labour not only to endorse a second referendum but to seek an electoral alliance with the LibDems so that voters have a single pro-Remain candidate on the ticket. We don’t support a second referendum ourselves, and believe the EU has no interest in another year of uncertainty that such a process would produce. But we agree that, from a strategic perspective, it would make sense for the Labour Party to support it. However we think that moderates should support a re-worked withdrawal agreement first, if the new Tory administration were to offer it.

Show Comments Write a Comment

This is the public section of the Eurointelligence Professional Briefing, which focuses on the geopolitical aspects of our news coverage. It appears daily at 2pm CET. The full briefing, which appears at 9am CET, is only available to subscribers. Please click here for a free trial, and here for the Eurointelligence home page.


Recent News

  • October 08, 2019
  • Brexit extension as casus belli?
  • If you appoint a woman, I can appoint a man
  • September 27, 2019
  • Watch out for the shifting politics of Brexit
  • September 17, 2019
  • Beware of the diplomacy of humiliation
  • Germany’s climate hypocrisy
  • September 05, 2019
  • Would Keynes be in favour of Brexit?
  • August 27, 2019
  • Remain’s narrowing pathway
  • Macron's diplomatic masterstroke
  • August 05, 2019
  • No deal first, elections later
  • Free movement of labour? Not for politicians
  • Europe already lost the digital battle
  • July 29, 2019
  • No-deal Brexit is no longer just a scenario
  • No German warships to the Strait of Hormuz
  • July 23, 2019
  • When Europe lacks a strategy
  • LibDems are back, but British liberalism is not
  • July 18, 2019
  • Will Johnson's first action on coming to office be to call elections?
  • EU Commission will monitor rule of law in all member states
  • Dijsselbloem, not Carney, is the European frontrunner for the IMF job
  • July 15, 2019
  • No queues in Berlin for von der Leyen’s succession
  • Mitsotakis moves fast with tax bill
  • The feel-good factor in the pre-Brexit days
  • July 11, 2019
  • Focus on election timetable, not prorogation...
  • ...and not on Darroch either
  • July 09, 2019
  • What the UK polls are telling us - and what not