Follow us on social

google cta
Shutterstock_1676790931-scaled

How to avoid the ‘you first’ quandary on reentering the Iran nuclear deal

A simple goodwill gesture would likely get the ball rolling.

Analysis | Middle East
google cta
google cta

After years of bludgeoning during Donald Trump’s presidency, the Iran nuclear deal, or JCPOA, the most intrusive and comprehensive nuclear inspection regime imposed on any nation, is on life support.

Although both the Iranian government and the new Biden administration are eager for the deal to survive, neither side appears willing to take the crucial first step towards ensuring its survival.

Despite the real security and economic benefits that Iran can hope to gain from the deal’s full revival, it remains, for very good reasons, unenthusiastic about taking the first steps towards compliance before U.S. sanctions are lifted.

From Iran’s vantage point, it was the United States under Trump that withdrew from the JCPOA in the first place, despite the International Atomic Energy Agency’s repeated verification of Iran’s full compliance with the deal’s provisions. This breach was then compounded when Trump illegally reimposed on Iran some of the most ferocious sanctions ever imposed on any nation.

But despite being denied the financial and diplomatic dividends it was promised under the deal, Iran would continue to show good faith by remaining in compliance for some time after Trump’s withdrawal. It only began to gradually reduce its compliance after the remaining signatories to the deal (Britain, France, Germany, China, and Russia) fell in line behind Trump’s ravaging sanctions to avoid the secondary sanctions punishment for continuing to do business in Iran. Even as it reduced compliance, Iranian leaders continued to signal their readiness to return to full compliance if the other parties, chief among them the United States, returned to fulfilling its obligations under the deal.

To add insult to injury, Trump, committed to snuffing the faintest scintilla of life out of the deal, ordered the assassination of Iran’s top general Qassem Soleimani. The assassination of Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, widely believed to be an Israeli hitjob, would entomb any last hope of reviving the deal under a Trump presidency.

For the last four years, the United States has been an unmitigatedly bad faith actor towards Iran. Today, the onus of proving good faith rests squarely on its shoulders, not on Iran’s. From the Iranian perspective, moving towards compliance while under sanctions is to establish a dangerous precedent: under the right amount of pressure, Iran can and will buckle.

For the American side of the equation, lifting the Trump-era sanctions will yield a palpable security benefit, since it will force Iran to scale back its nuclear program. This is not mere conjecture. Both Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Javad Zarif have expressed their unequivocal commitment to an immediate return to full compliance as soon as the sanctions have been lifted. Iran, whose economy, as well as its fight against COVID-19, have been severely impaired by Trump’s sanctions, does not need to be enticed or pulled into compliance with the JCPOA; a faint nudge should more than suffice.

The Biden administration’s stated interest in the JCPOA’s revival notwithstanding, it has shown reluctance to cut the first turf. Instead, it has made its return to the JCPOA conditional on Iran’s full compliance with the deal’s provisions.

But there may be a way for the Biden administration to untangle the deadlock without going against its stated position. This would entail looking beyond the security framework and, instead, using humanitarian language and action as a stepping stone for reviving the JCPOA.

President Biden has already ordered the highest levels of his administration to “promptly review existing United States and multilateral financial and economic sanctions to evaluate whether they are unduly hindering responses to the COVID-19 pandemic” and to give him recommendations “for any changes in approach.” It is hard to imagine a report wherein Iran does not occupy a prominent position.

By imposing sanctions on Iran, cutting it off from the global financial system, and preventing the International Monetary Fund from granting it an emergency loan to combat COVID-19, the Trump administration hindered Iran’s access to medical supplies and hobbled the government’s ability to shut down the economy, necessary measures for containing the pandemic.

Biden will have a unique opportunity to respond to the recommendations that will likely come before him with utmost generosity, thereby lifting some of the most crippling sanctions imposed on Iran, but under the guise of humanitarian concerns.

The lifting of some sanctions, albeit for humanitarian reasons, will make it easier for Iran to reciprocate this expression of good faith by scaling back, albeit slightly, its nuclear program. Indeed, even when U.S.-Iran relations were at their most acrimonious in the past, humanitarian considerations have succeeded in overriding the usual rules of engagement between two sides.

A notable precedent is the Bush administration’s humanitarian aid to Iran during the 2003 earthquake in Iran’s ancient city, Bam. For the first time in decades, U.S. military personnel and transport planes were allowed to enter Iranian territory to assist with aid efforts. To the Bush White House’s admission, during this time the U.S. government “work[ed] with Iranian authorities … to help the people of Iran during this challenging time.”

Given both governments’ vested interest in preserving the JCPOA, there already exists a fertile political environment for such a humanitarian gesture to trigger a reciprocal Iranian response, which can lock the involved parties in a spiral of de-escalation and ultimately salvage the JCPOA.

A rapprochement framed in humanitarian terms will allow both sides to move closer to compliance with the JCPOA without requiring them to backtrack on their stated opposition to laying the first stone. They will have participated in saving a deal they are both keen to preserve while saving face.

To traverse beyond the current impasse, the U.S. and Iranian governments may take a leaf out of Sun Tzu’s timeless wisdom: “Build your opponent a golden bridge to retreat across."

For the United States and Iran, that golden bridge is today a humanitarian one.


Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn’t cleave to the mainstream orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily. Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraftso that we can continue this quality coverage — which you will find nowhere else — into 2026. Happy Holidays!

Image: TonelloPhotography via shutterstock.com
google cta
Analysis | Middle East
Trump
Top image credit: President Donald Trump addresses the nation, Wednesday, December 17, 2025, from the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Trump national security logic: rare earths and fossil fuels

Washington Politics

The new National Security Strategy of the United States seeks “strategic stability” with Russia. It declares that China is merely a competitor, that the Middle East is not central to American security, that Latin America is “our hemisphere,” and that Europe faces “civilizational erasure.”

India, the world's largest country by population, barely rates a mention — one might say, as Neville Chamberlain did of Czechoslovakia in 1938, it’s “a faraway country... of which we know nothing.” Well, so much the better for India, which can take care of itself.

keep readingShow less
Experts at oil & weapons-funded think tank: 'Go big' in Venezuela
Top image credit: LightField Studios via shutterstock.com

Experts at oil & weapons-funded think tank: 'Go big' in Venezuela

Military Industrial Complex

As the U.S. threatens to take “oil, land and other assets” from Venezuela, staffers at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank funded in part by defense contractors and oil companies, are eager to help make the public case for regime change and investment. “The U.S. should go big” in Venezuela, write CSIS experts Ryan Berg and Kimberly Breier.

Both America’s Quarterly, which published the essay, and the authors’ employer happen to be funded by the likes of Lockheed Martin and ExxonMobil, a fact that is not disclosed in the article.

keep readingShow less
ukraine military
UKRAINE MARCH 22, 2023: Ukrainian military practice assault tactics at the training ground before counteroffensive operation during Russo-Ukrainian War (Shutterstock/Dymtro Larin)

Ukraine's own pragmatism demands 'armed un-alignment'

Europe

Eleven months after returning to the White House, the Trump administration believes it has finally found a way to resolve the four-year old war in Ukraine. Its formula is seemingly simple: land for security guarantees.

Under the current plan—or what is publicly known about it—Ukraine would cede the 20 percent of Donetsk that it currently controls to Russia in return for a package of security guarantees including an “Article 5-style” commitment from the United States, a European “reassurance force” inside post-war Ukraine, and peacetime Ukrainian military of 800,000 personnel.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.