Europeans and the larger world greeted the memorandum of understanding between Iran and the United States with relief, if only because it seemed to halt a war that had badly damaged global trade, increased inflation and reduced already paltry economic growth.
But the memo produced little more than an extended period of limbo — 60 days during which real negotiations are to start on the critical issues of Iran’s nuclear program and passage through the Strait of Hormuz.
As those negotiations begin, Europe and the rest of the world will be on the lookout for how three main issues are handled: the fate of Iran’s nuclear program; the Strait of Hormuz; and Iran’s missile program.
They will also be looking to see whether this period of limbo will be extended, in a perpetual holding pattern familiar to anyone who follows negotiations with Iran.
“My worry is that this is all we get,” said Sanam Vakil, director of the Middle East and North Africa program at Chatham House, a research organization in London, referring to the memorandum of understanding.
Iran, she said, may prefer to avoid “a more final arrangement on its nuclear program and regional order.” But for Europe, Israel and the region, she said, if there is no new nuclear agreement with Iran, there is likely to be more war.
No one expects that a detailed nuclear agreement with Iran can be negotiated in 60 days. The 2015 nuclear deal that Mr. Trump disparaged as the worst deal in history took some 20 months and the involvement of scores of experts.
This time around, experts and diplomats will be watching to see how serious the American effort is, measured by the process that is set up. How many working groups will there be? How many experts will be involved and of what kind? What sort of timetable will be established?
“The Europeans want to see if the working groups will be serious, with serious people,” said Ellie Geranmayeh, an Iran expert with the European Council on Foreign Relations. “They want to see if they will stick around and have meetings over the summer.”
Earlier talks in Geneva led by President Trump’s envoys, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, lacked experienced experts and thoughtful consideration of the complex issues at play, she said.
Europeans will also be watching whether Mr. Trump seems to be settling for an accord that is less robust than the 2015 deal. A major question is the fate of Iran’s large supply of enriched uranium, including its 970 pounds of highly enriched uranium, meaning near bomb grade. The deal signed on Wednesday says only that Iran’s stockpile will be diluted to a minimum standard, which is likely to be 3.67 percent, the same as under the 2015 deal.
All that uranium apparently will remain in Iran, not removed as most was in the 2015 deal. And in Iran, it can be enriched once again, either secretly or after a period of suspension of enrichment still to be negotiated.
“For the Europeans and the Saudis, verification is the cornerstone of any deal,” said Ms. Geranmayeh, who runs an Iran nuclear monitor to track the state of play.
That is why negotiations over the role of the U.N. nuclear watchdog will also be important. In the memorandum, the International Atomic Energy Agency is tasked with supervising the dilution of Iran’s enriched uranium, but how that will be done and with what rights of inspection and oversight is critical.
Another big question will be whether Iran allows the agency quick access to its near-bomb-grade material, so that the agency can confirm it is all there and has not been moved or hidden. It will also be important that its inspectors be able to make surprise inspections rather than giving Iran a warning period.
The agency has raised other issues under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty about Tehran’s previous failures to allow inspections of certain sites and to investigate older concerns about militarization of nuclear material. Iran has said it does not regard the agency as neutral and has worked to deceive its inspectors in the past.
Experts point out that the war has produced a different, harder-line government in Iran. So a big concern is whether it will try to put off any final resolution of the nuclear questions.
“Iran has the capacity and maybe even more incentive now to develop nuclear weapons, because it provides the ultimate deterrence against the kinds of attacks Iran has suffered for the last two years,” said Ali Vaez, Iran project director for the International Crisis Group.
Another important question is what will happen in the Strait of Hormuz. Under the memorandum, Iran will allow free passage through the strait for the negotiation period. But the future of the strait, so important for energy exports, is also up for discussion, and Europeans will be closely watching what is agreed upon.
Iran has said that the strait’s status will never be the same and that it intends to charge some sort of fee, in association with Oman, for future passage. That contradicts both international law and traditional practice but seems to be an open issue under the memorandum.
Iran, it says, “will conduct dialogue” with Oman and other Persian Gulf states “to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz.”
European and Asian countries, as well as the United States, have said that they will not allow Iran to impose tolls for passage through the strait. But some sort of “maintenance” or “environmental” fee might emerge.
Oman could benefit, and the Saudis and Emiratis have options to export oil without using the strait, noted Steven A. Cook of the Council on Foreign Relations. But Kuwaitis, Qataris and Bahrainis do not, and “they will be forced to comply with Iranian demands or experience economic dislocation,” he said.
The Saudis say they want to open a regional discussion with Iran about future relations, security guarantees and a nonaggression pact. That’s already a reflection of a postwar Iran’s continuing capacity to exercise military power in the region through its drones and advanced missile program, which the war damaged but did not destroy.
Limiting the range of Iran’s missiles was another aim of the war. While largely directed at Israel and Gulf neighbors, the missiles can reach Europe and are seen as a significant potential threat. So Europeans will be watching closely to see if and how the negotiators talk about them.
Iran’s missiles cannot reach the United States, and they are not even mentioned in the memorandum of understanding, with Mr. Trump shrugging off the topic on Wednesday.
“If other countries” like Saudi Arabia and Qatar have missiles, he said, not mentioning Israel, “it’s a little bit unfair for them not to have some,” he said of Iran.
But the American decision to drop the issue of the missiles and its sanctions on Iran’s oil sales, plus its promise to respect Iran’s territorial integrity, have given new impetus and funds to a government Mr. Trump went to war to dismantle.
What’s more, without a convincing threat of a renewed war, America’s leverage in these negotiations will be less than before the conflict, experts and analysts say.
Frederick the Great of Prussia is credited for saying, “Diplomacy without arms is like music without instruments,” and President Trump, with his eye on November midterm elections and the unpopularity at home of this war, has made it clear that the American military is packing up its instruments.
All that, combined with the uncertainty about coming to a comprehensive deal, has only extended the life of the regime and sent a message to protesting Iranians that they will get “zero support” from Washington in the future, noted Elliott Abrams, who worked on Iran in Mr. Trump’s first term. Such a pledge, he said, “would be a complete abandonment of the democracy movement in Iran” and send a chilling message to traditional allies.
