Geneva Without the E3: Why the MoU Is a Bilateral Instrument

The instrument Vice President JD Vance is reportedly preparing to sign in Geneva on Sunday is bilateral. The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was not. That structural difference is not an oversight, and it tells us more about what the memorandum is meant to do — and what it is not meant to do — than any single line of the leaked draft.

This is an analysis of the diplomatic architecture around the Geneva memorandum, not an assessment of its substance.

What the design says

The JCPOA was a P5+1 instrument. The five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany were co-parties to the document, the European Union acted as coordinator, and the IAEA was the verification body. The structure was load-bearing. It gave the agreement multilateral legal weight, distributed sanctions-relief obligations across jurisdictions, and provided a default ratification path through Security Council Resolution 2231 that bypassed the US Senate’s two-thirds bar.

The Geneva memorandum, as the WSJ and Reuters reporting describes it, has none of that. The named parties are the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. The host is Switzerland. The follow-on venue is Islamabad. The E3 — the UK, France and Germany — are not in the picture. Russia is not in the picture. China is not in the picture. The IAEA, on the available reporting, is not a signatory.

A diplomatic instrument shapes the legal and political claims that can later be made about it. A bilateral memorandum can be renegotiated, reframed, or repudiated by either signatory without triggering an international-law mechanism. That is a feature of the design, not an accident of the calendar.

The Swiss role is narrower than the EU’s was

Switzerland is the protecting power for US interests in Iran and the host for the frozen-funds mechanism the Reuters MoU draft contents now under review in Tehran envisage. That role is logistical and fiduciary, not coordinative. The Federal Council in Bern does not write the substance, host follow-on technical talks beyond the signing ceremony, or hold a documented dispute-resolution role.

That is materially different from the function the European External Action Service performed under the JCPOA, where the EU High Representative was the standing coordinator of the Joint Commission, the body that ran the agreement’s dispute-resolution mechanism. Switzerland’s role is to host a signing and to move money. The diplomatic responsibility for what the memorandum produces sits entirely with the two named signatories.

The E3 absence is deliberate

The UK, France and Germany were architects of the original nuclear track and have remained, through the snapback period and after, the most active European voices on Iran’s program. Their absence from the Geneva picture is not a scheduling artefact.

Two factors are doing the work. The first is that the post-accord nuclear sequencing the US official described to Middle East Eye explicitly defers the nuclear file. The instrument being signed in Geneva is not a nuclear agreement. It is a political memorandum to suspend the immediate war track, with the nuclear file routed to a later technical process. The E3’s standing claim to a seat is rooted in the nuclear file, and the nuclear file is not in the room.

The second is the administration’s preference for instruments that do not require a Senate ratification vote. A multilateral agreement is structurally harder to characterise as an executive arrangement. A bilateral memorandum is the cleanest form of the instrument that can be signed and implemented without congressional concurrence, and the E3 architecture would have pushed against that frame.

Russia and China are on parallel tracks

Russia and China have running bilateral relationships with Tehran that the Geneva memorandum does not touch. Beijing’s oil-import volumes, Moscow’s drone-and-missile cooperation track, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation framework all continue regardless of what is signed in Switzerland.

The administration appears to have accepted that decoupling. The Islamabad technical track is where naval-posture changes, verification mechanics, and sanctions scope get translated into operational language — and Islamabad is not Beijing or Moscow. The choice of Pakistan as follow-on venue routes the technical conversation through a state that has working channels with both Tehran and Washington and that is not a P5+1 party.

The practical effect is that the memorandum’s implementation cannot be vetoed by Russia or China, because they were never invited to underwrite it. The trade-off is that the agreement cannot draw on a Security Council resolution for international legal weight either.

The durability question

The bilateral frame is the source of the memorandum’s speed and the source of its fragility. A two-party instrument can be signed in days and implemented in weeks. It can also be repudiated in a single executive order or a single supreme-leader directive. The region’s most durable de-escalation arrangements through this cycle have run through bilateral side channels rather than through multilateral institutions, and the Geneva architecture is consistent with that pattern.

That pattern is the policy choice. The administration has decided that multilateral instruments are too slow, too coalition-dependent, and too easily blocked to be the default form of Middle East diplomacy in the current cycle. The Geneva memorandum is the operational expression of that judgement.

Ratification without the E3

The memorandum’s path to durability runs through the Islamabad technical track and through Treasury and OFAC implementation. There is no Security Council vote in the design. There is no Senate ratification vote on the calendar. The instrument’s enforceability is a function of whether both signatories continue to find it in their interest to honour it.

What that means in practice is that the Geneva ceremony, if it lands, will produce an outcome that lives or dies on month-to-month bilateral performance. The E3 will not be in a position to invoke a dispute-resolution mechanism, because there is no mechanism in which they have a seat. That is the design choice the architecture makes visible, and it is the one the next phase of the file will be litigated against.

---

David Mitchell covers diplomacy and US foreign policy for the America Strikes Desk.