Will Araqchi’s Trip to Paris Unlock the Nuclear Talks?

According to Rasoul Al-Ha’i, senior Middle East analyst at Al Jazeera, while tensions between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the European Troika (comprising France, the United Kingdom, and Germany) have intensified following the activation of the “snapback” mechanism by these three countries under the 2015 nuclear agreement, Araqchi’s trip to Paris, Iran’s Foreign Minister, is more than a ceremonial visit. It is a calculated and cautious attempt to preserve and repair the remaining dialogue channels and bridges between the two sides. The key question now is whether this visit can create even a limited breach in the frozen wall of Tehran’s nuclear file—a wall that in recent years has left Iran’s relations with Western powers in a state of deep freeze and mistrust.

Araqchi’s Paris Meeting: Testing the Last Capacities of Diplomacy under the Shadow of the Snapback and Tel Aviv

In an effort resembling a test to gauge the willingness and readiness of stakeholders to find a “possible space” for mutual understanding, Abbas Araqchi met two days ago, on Wednesday, with his French counterpart Jean-Noël Barrot. This meeting marks the first engagement at this level between Iran and a member of the European Troika since the activation of the snapback mechanism in September/August of last year.

In Tehran, some political circles remain focused on this “narrow diplomatic window,” hoping that the Paris initiative can act as a barrier against further escalation of the crisis. However, for others, hopes are gradually being eroded under the weight of structural obstacles, accumulated mistrust, and changes resulting from heightened regional tensions. This duality of hope and pessimism reflects the complexity of the current stage and the sensitivity of the intertwined files now on the table in Paris.

Although, according to Tehran, both Iranian and French sides agreed during the meeting on “the necessity of continuing consultations to remove obstacles and facilitate relations,” the visit itself revealed a deep and fundamental rift in the positions of the two countries—a gap especially evident regarding Iran’s nuclear program and the escalating tensions in the Middle East.

Within this framework, the final statement issued from Tehran highlighted Abbas Araqchi’s explicit criticism of “the performance of the three European countries at the UN Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors,” directly holding the European Troika responsible for the current crisis. According to the official IRNA news agency, the Iranian delegation also “expressed deep concern over the increasing violations of international law, the undermining of the fundamental principles of the UN Charter, especially in the West Asia region, and the continuation of crimes and aggressions by the Zionist entity against the Palestinian and Lebanese peoples and other regional countries.”

On the other hand, Abdolreza Farjiy-Rad, former Iranian ambassador to Norway, notes that France officially continues to adhere to the “zero enrichment” policy toward Iran, while Tehran emphasizes its legitimate right to maintain a peaceful nuclear program. This confrontation reveals a fundamental and persistent obstacle in the positions of both sides, particularly as Tehran faces ongoing pressure from Washington while the United States itself seeks, at least in a controlled manner, to keep channels of dialogue open with Iran.

According to him, the Ukraine war file and Iran’s military cooperation with Russia, as a lesser-publicized dimension, play a decisive role in escalating tensions between Tehran and Paris. Farjiy-Rad explains that as this file reached a critical stage, new incentives emerged for France to establish direct contact with the Islamic Republic. Nonetheless, this willingness quickly encounters a range of fundamental disagreements over Iran’s nuclear program, effectively blocking any rapid and tangible breakthrough.

He further refers to the “Israeli factor” as a constant obstacle in the background of any effort to improve Iran-West relations; an actor that, according to him, is always poised to neutralize any diplomatic movement. From his perspective, Tel Aviv is “the staunchest opponent” of any dialogue between Western powers and Tehran, and the “Zionist lobby,” alongside Israeli security institutions, will utilize all its tools and influence in Western political and media circles to thwart any diplomatic progress regarding Iran.

Paris: A Small Spark on the Wall of Iran-West Nuclear Deadlock

Conversely, part of the public and a segment of political elites in Iran believe that despite all these complexities and accumulated obstacles, the Paris talks still represent an effort to test the possibility of breaking the current deadlock. From their perspective, while these consultations cannot be interpreted as a “major shift” in the course of diplomacy, they can be considered a “potential spark”—a spark that may open a narrow window toward a broader horizon.

In this regard, Abolghasem Delfi, former Iranian ambassador to France, describes the Foreign Ministry’s decision to open a new window toward the European Troika as a “bold step” amid a turbulent sea of opposing voices. These critics, following the activation of the snapback mechanism by these countries and their increasingly apparent alignment with U.S. policies, have intensified their criticism and opposition to any attempt to repair communication bridges with Western powers.

Delfi, in an interview with Al Jazeera Net, raises questions about the consequences of cutting relations and closing diplomatic channels, warning of the repercussions of such an approach under current high-tension conditions. In a context where, in his words, a sort of deadlock has been imposed on Iran’s diplomacy, he describes Abbas Araqchi’s trip to Paris as a meaningful effort to demonstrate Iran’s readiness for a “qualitative leap” in the current trajectory—a move that simultaneously counters the narrative some adversary powers seek to propagate, claiming that “Iran is unwilling to negotiate.”

He states that the nuclear file is at the center of Abbas Araqchi’s talks in France, noting that behind these negotiations, a sort of “imposed future” for Iran is being sketched—one that the European Troika, Washington, and Tel Aviv aim to establish through continuous pressure, making the resolution of this file nearly impossible. From Delfi’s perspective, a chain of UN Security Council resolutions and international sanctions has created a vicious circle of tension and confrontation, in which each new step merely makes the next one more difficult and costly.

Delfi believes that the Iranian Foreign Ministry’s choice of a political approach to face this “deadlock wall” is in fact an effort to gauge the seriousness and will of the Europeans before the crisis enters a new phase of escalation—a phase whose consequences may be undesirable for any party. While emphasizing the limitations of this path, he underscores that the success of the diplomatic option between Tehran and Paris depends on France’s ability to convince its European and American partners.

In light of these struggles, the question has become more prominent than ever among observers: Can this round of consultations in Paris break the existing deadlock, or should it ultimately be regarded merely as another station in the long and exhausting path of escalating tensions between Iran and the West?