The analysis examines two agreements involving Iran, one addressing nuclear matters and the other focused on different issues. Following President Donald Trump's signing of a memorandum of understanding with Iran, analysts have drawn comparisons between this agreement and the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action negotiated under President Obama, which Trump withdrew from during his initial term in office.
The JCPOA represented a completed accord between Iran, the United States, China, Russia, France, the United Kingdom, Germany, and the European Union to restrict Tehran's nuclear activities in return for lifting economic sanctions. No finalized nuclear accord with Iran has been reached by the administration at this time.
The agreement concluded the ongoing conflict, established a framework for subsequent nuclear discussions, and secured Iran's reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, with provisions for partial sanctions reduction and termination of the naval blockade. The arrangement focuses on halting hostilities rather than addressing atomic weapons programs. Negotiators have 60 days to reach an agreement on the nuclear program's trajectory. The agreement includes Iran's commitment not to develop nuclear weapons, mirroring its earlier pledge under the JCPOA, though verification measures remain under discussion.
The most substantial distinction lies in the approaches taken to reach these accords. The administration under Obama pursued diplomatic negotiations spanning 20 months. Following months of diplomatic engagement, officials determined that the risk posed by Iran necessitated a shift in approach.
In July 2025, airstrikes conducted against Iran's nuclear infrastructure set the program back by up to two years, analysts reported. Several months afterward, the United States and Israel jointly initiated a military operation designated Epic Fury, targeting nuclear facilities and weakening Iran's armed forces. Iran retaliated by blocking the oil passage through the Strait of Hormuz and initiating attacks on bases and nations in the Gulf region. During this period, Israel conducted military operations against forces in Lebanon aligned with Iran. The conflict known as Epic Fury resulted in the deaths of 13 service members from the United States, while financial expenditures related to the war have surpassed $25 billion.
Each agreement delivered considerable economic assistance to Iran through the easing of restrictions. The most notable distinction between the two agreements concerns the concessions obtained in return for providing that relief.
The JCPOA released tens of billions in frozen Iranian assets and removed economic sanctions that had been in place by the U.S., European Union and United Nations. The agreement enabled Iran's central bank to participate in international financial systems and removed constraints on the country's petroleum sales. The arrangement encompassed the return of confiscated funds totaling $1.7 billion. The combined measures produced a substantial economic benefit for Iran.
Under the agreement, Iran consented to decrease its number of centrifuges by two-thirds, pledged not to construct additional enrichment sites for 15 years, substantially diminished its reserves of enriched uranium, deactivated a prominent heavy-water facility, and accepted monitoring by the IAEA. Opponents argued that the verification measures lacked sufficient depth and noted the arrangement had an expiration date instead of offering a lasting resolution.
The memorandum of understanding with the administration additionally removed petroleum-related restrictions, included provisions to assist in establishing a $300 billion fund for reconstruction with regional partners, and offered potential comprehensive sanctions relief contingent upon achieving a more extensive nuclear agreement. However, the majority of penalty reductions depend on talks that have not yet taken place.
Iran agreed to reopen the Strait of Hormuz as part of an arrangement that included ending the naval blockade and other concessions. This represents a restoration of conditions that existed before the conflict began. Indeed, stability may remain elusive in that important shipping route, which handles a fifth of global oil transport. The fifth provision of the 14-point memorandum of understanding indicates that no tolls will be charged in the strait for a 60-day period, following which Iran and Oman intend to establish arrangements for administration and maritime services there. This indicates tolls remain a possibility in the future.
When the nuclear accord was unveiled more than ten years ago, the then-sitting president characterized it as a particularly strong mechanism to curtail atomic weapons development, though he acknowledged dissenting perspectives and observed that easing economic restrictions would grant Tehran access to considerable funds. He also noted that some people favoured military action or targeted strikes instead of the agreement he pursued. He maintained his proposal had flaws yet represented the most viable alternative available.
Following his remarks at the G7 summit in France on Wednesday, Trump indicated the deal met its intended goals, while observing that the arrangement was required to avert considerable economic consequences. Having previously maintained that Iran held little negotiating power, he recognised the financial dangers posed by the oil situation as too large to disregard, noting that prolonging the impasse might have produced such a result. However, he stated that whenever peace negotiations were discussed, financial markets experienced rapid increases, and expressed concern about potentially triggering an economic downturn that might draw comparisons to Herbert Hoover, the president associated with the 1929 economic collapse.
