Donald Trump’s efforts to secure a new agreement with Iran are being judged against the 2015 nuclear deal negotiated by former US president Barack Obama. Trump, at the time, famously denounced the pact as “the worst deal ever”. Track live updates
As negotiations continue, the emerging framework bears similarities to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). This does raise questions about whether Trump can present any eventual agreement as a significant improvement on the deal he withdrew from in 2018.
ALSO READ | ‘Had a call with Bibi, all shooting will stop’: Trump says Israel, Hezbollah agree to halt fighting
Trump seeks a deal distinct from Obama’s legacy
The US President is facing pressure from both Israel and conservative Republicans to secure terms that go beyond the 2015 accord. While details of a draft memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Tehran remain under negotiation, reports indicate it could include a further 60-day ceasefire, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and a roadmap for renewed talks on Iran’s nuclear programme.
Washington is reportedly seeking a 20-year moratorium on uranium enrichment and guarantees that Iran will never pursue a nuclear weapon. Trump has repeatedly insisted that Iran must end all uranium enrichment activities, a demand Tehran continues to reject.
Any agreement that resembles the JCPOA could prove politically difficult for Trump, whose withdrawal from the accord was a major foreign policy move of his first term.
About the JCPOA
The JCPOA, commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal, was a landmark agreement reached in 2015 between Iran and the P5+1 powers (US, UK, France, Germany, Russia and China) under then US president Barack Obama.
The deal aimed to curb Iran’s nuclear programme and prevent it from developing a weapon in exchange for relief from international economic sanctions. Under the agreement, Iran agreed to sharply reduce its stockpile of enriched uranium, limit uranium enrichment to 3.67 per cent, dismantle around two-thirds of its centrifuges, redesign its Arak heavy-water reactor to prevent the production of weapons-grade plutonium, and allow extensive inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The 2015 agreement capped Iran’s stockpile at 300 kg. In return, the US, EU and UN lifted nuclear-related sanctions, allowing Iran greater access to global markets and financial systems. The restrictions were designed to extend Iran’s “breakout time”, the period needed to produce enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon, to at least one year.
Trump withdrew from the deal in 2018, during his first term as president. Since then, Iran has expanded its nuclear programme and accumulated a stockpile of uranium enriched to 60 per cent, a level much closer to weapons-grade material.
ALSO READ | Israel continues to bombard Lebanon even as Iran threatens to walk away from US deal, block Bab al-Mandab Strait
Expert comments
“Trump will be very worried about his deal being compared to Obama’s because ripping up the JCPOA was a centrepiece of the early days of his first administration,” said Andrew Moran, professor of politics and international relations at London Metropolitan University, as per iNews. “If that deal had stayed in place, it is unlikely that we would be in the situation that we’re in now.”
According to US media reports, Trump has been consulting advisers on how to ensure any deal can be presented as stronger than the Obama-era agreement. CNN reported that the US President has been “fixated on ensuring the deal can be marketed as stronger than the 2015 Obama-era nuclear deal that he withdrew from”.
Similarities with the JCPOA draw scrutiny
Several elements of the proposed agreement seemingly resemble provisions contained in the JCPOA. Mark Shanahan, associate professor of political engagement at the University of Surrey, said the framework of current negotiations appears heavily influenced by the earlier accord.
“Trump’s deal is looking very similar to the JCPOA,” Shanahan told iNews. “It feels like the whole framework of these negotiations is based on the Obama deal, the only difference being the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, which was open and running freely, until Trump started this war.”
One particularly sensitive issue is the possible unfreezing of Iranian assets. Trump frequently criticised Obama for releasing billions of dollars to Tehran as part of a long-running financial settlement linked to the 2015 agreement. Now, Iran is reportedly seeking sanctions relief and access to as much as $24 billion in frozen assets as part of a new arrangement.
Strait of Hormuz remains a major challenge
A key difference between the current situation and 2015 is Iran’s strengthened leverage over the Strait of Hormuz, the strategic waterway through which roughly one-fifth of global energy supplies normally pass.
Since its closure, Tehran has sought to consolidate control over the route, threatening commercial vessels and signalling that shipping traffic could face additional costs.
Shanahan said that these developments suggest the US has not achieved an outcome from the war. “America had not won this war in any sense. I think the most likely outcome is that the Iranian regime will have lost some people but will be embedded ever more firmly in charge,” he said.
“They will have access to more money, and they may well have a new revenue stream for charging shipping to go through the straits. That will affect the cost of living for the rest of the world for a long time to come. Negotiations are now about trying to get out of a war and preserving some dignity.”
Opposition to a potential agreement is also emerging within Trump’s Republican party. Senator Ted Cruz said he was “deeply concerned” about reports of the negotiations.
“If the result of [the war] is to be an Iranian regime – still run by Islamists who chant ‘death to America’ – now receiving billions of dollars, being able to enrich uranium and develop nuclear weapons, and having effective control over the Strait of Hormuz, then that outcome would be a disastrous mistake,” Cruz said.
Regional ambitions face obstacles
Trump has also attempted to link negotiations with Iran to an expansion of the Abraham Accords, the diplomatic agreements that normalised relations between Israel and several Arab states during his first term.
The President said he had spoken with leaders from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain, Turkey and the UAE, asking them to join the framework.
“I stated that, after all the work done by the United States to try and pull this very complex puzzle together, it should be mandatory that all of these Countries, at a minimum, simultaneously, sign onto the Abraham Accords,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.
The proposal received little enthusiasm from regional leaders. Pakistan reportedly rejected the idea outright.
Shanahan said additional participation in the accords could help Trump portray any agreement as a broader diplomatic achievement but warned that major obstacles remain, particularly the ongoing conflict involving Israel. “It’s hard to see that happening because [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu will likely be a barrier to peace,” he said. “Netanyahu operates in a state of war. As long as Israel is in a state of war, he stays in power. It is dangerous for him if there is peace, especially as he has an election coming up.
“Given the unlikeliness of the Gulf nations joining the Abraham Accords, it is looking like Trump’s deal could actually be weaker than the JCPOA.