The US-Iranian deal to end their war and reopen the Strait of Hormuz is inevitably being compared with the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreed with Tehran by then US President Barack Obama.
That deal was fiercely criticized by his successor, Donald Trump, who pulled the United States out of JCPOA in 2018 during his first term of office. Trump has repeatedly said his deal would be better, although the text he signed in Versailles on June 17 is not the final one -- it leaves many issues to be negotiated over the next 60 (or more) days.
SEE ALSO:
Trump, Pezeshkian Sign Deal Aimed At Ending Iran War"If it were easy we would have resolved it, you know, two wars ago," Naysan Rafati, Iran Senior Analyst at the International Crisis Group, told RFE/RL, referring both to the 12-Day War in June last year and to this year's hostilities, that reignited with US and Israeli air strikes on February 28.
"The fundamentals of the Iranian nuclear program since last June have been different to what they were like under the JCPOA," he added.
What Was In The JCPOA?
One thing that is unchanged is that Iran has always denied wishing to develop nuclear weapons but possesses enriched uranium to grades beyond what is needed for civilian purposes.
This was a core problem then and remains so today.
Key elements of the JCPOA were for Iran to ship 98 percent of its enriched uranium stockpile out of the country, accept limits on future enrichment to well below weapons-grade levels, mothball some centrifuges that are used for enrichment, and allow all this to be checked by inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Wrapped in all this was a wealth of technical details, for example on exact levels of enrichment, quantities of enriched material, storage locations, and specific models of centrifuges. In addition, Iran pledged not to develop nuclear weapons.
In return, international sanctions related to the nuclear program (but not other issues such as Iran's support for armed proxy groups across the Middle East, its missile program, or its human rights abuses) would be lifted based on verification that Iran was complying.
SEE ALSO:
Oil Prices Fall, Dollar Steady As US-Iran Deal Eases Supply ConcernsAdditionally, Iran was granted access to overseas frozen assets whose value was greatly disputed (and variously calculated), with claims and estimates varying between $50-$100 billion, as well as payments from the US government totaling $1.3 billion.
The deal had a dispute resolution mechanism and a 2030 sunset clause. It was approved by the UN Security Council.
The agreement faced political resistance in Congress from both sides of the aisle from lawmakers who criticized it for limiting Iran's nuclear program rather than dismantling it completely. Others pointed out that it failed to address the wider issues beyond the nuclear program that had also made Iran an international pariah.
Sanctions on Iran were lifted following IAEA verification in January 2016, with Washington certifying twice in 2017 that Iran was sticking to the deal.
The Road To War
In May 2018, President Trump withdrew from the agreement, which he described as "horrible, one-sided."
From 2020-2021, Iran began ramping up both its numbers of centrifuges and its uranium enrichment, according to IAEA reports. This led Britain, France, and Germany (known as the E3) to say Tehran was no longer complying with the JCPOA.
In June last year, Israel and the United States carried out air strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, warning that Iran was close to developing nuclear weapons. The Pentagon later assessed that operation Midnight Hammer had put back the program by up to two years, though there were conflicting reports about the exact extent of the damage.
"There has been widespread damage both to its facilities and across many of its senior nuclear-related personnel. But we also have not had on-the-ground inspections at the damage sites. The IAEA has been able to go into a couple of facilities, but not the major enrichment facilities that were targeted under Midnight Hammer," said Rafati.
SEE ALSO:
Trump Says US Could Start 'Dropping Bombs' If Iran Doesn't 'Behave'Iran began to restrict IAEA monitoring after the June conflict. Then, in September last year, another JCPOA provision, its so-called snapback clause, took effect.
This meant UN sanctions lifted under the terms of the deal were reimposed following Iranian noncompliance. The E3 initiated the move after Iran refused to meet their demands of full access for IAEA inspectors and transparency regarding enriched material stockpiles.
After the June 2025 conflict, Washington and Iran reengaged in nuclear talks. Those talks were abandoned when US and Israeli air strikes on Iran began on February 28.
What Now?
The memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed by Trump and Iranian President Masud Pezeshkian on June 17 provides for the immediate waiving of US oil sanctions on Iran, while tying the end of wider sanctions and the release of frozen assets to Iran implementing commitments, such as "down-blending" its stocks of highly enriched uranium under IAEA supervision.
"We're not in the trusting business," a senior US official said during a background call with journalists on June 17.
The issue of enrichment is also left to be dealt with in further negotiations, while Iran "reaffirms that it shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons."
As with the JCPOA, the MOU has been criticized, including with rumblings of discontent from Republican lawmakers who suggest Washington has given up too much for too little.
SEE ALSO:
Former US Diplomat Gina Abercrombie-Winstanley On What Will Determine The Iran Deal's SuccessMax Meizlish, a senior analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, voiced concern over the oil sanction waivers.
"What we should be doing, if this is truly a performance-based deal, is tying any sanctions relief to actual conduct by the regime that goes beyond just participating in the negotiation, signing the memorandum of understanding, and opening up the strait," he told RFE/RL.
"The US Congress is not going to give up easily here, absent significant reforms by Iran. And we'll have to see. We'll have to see what the US ultimately pushes for," he added, referring to the talks yet to come.
Meizlish also criticized the lack of any reference to Iran's other "malign activities" such as its missile program and support for groups such as Hezbollah, which is designated a terrorist organization by Washington.
As noted, the JCPOA was criticized on the same grounds.
The situation now, following two wars that have devastated Iran's economy and damaged its nuclear facilities, is very different from 2015. Those conflicts have also substantially eroded trust, further complicating talks.
The JCPOA was not just a bilateral US-Iranian process: Russia, China, Britain, France, and Germany were all involved in negotiations lasting nearly two years. The MOU says negotiators will aim for a deal within 60 days but also that this time period can be extended.
Rafati said the talks will need to be more technical and complex than they have been so far in 2025-26.
"Even when they were in Oman or in Rome, they were this cumbersome process of indirect negotiations in fairly kind of short bursts of time, kind of between brunch and dinner," he said.
"Are they going to be accompanied by expert delegations that are actually going to get into the granularities of the nuclear nonproliferation side of things and the sanctions-relief side of things? Those technical delegations were present at some, but not all of the past negotiations…if there's any kind of aspiration for getting this wrapped up in 60 days, it would have to be a fairly regular and empowered and technically competent set of experts from both sides," he added.