Follow us on social

Shutterstock_1152300314-scaled

Biden's 'no Iran deal, no crisis' policy is unsustainable

With Tehran's nuclear program advancing rapidly in absence of the JCPOA, the president has options, if he stops ignoring the issue.

Analysis | Middle East

In May 2018, Donald Trump withdrew from the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA) and President Joe Biden has yet failed to revive it. The Biden administration has not reached a clear political decision to complete the negotiations. On the one hand it insists “diplomacy is the best option,” while, on the other, it says that the JCPOA is “not on the agenda.” This is a mistake.

Since September 2022, negotiations over JCPOA have been stalled. Suspected export of Iranian weapons to Russia for use in Ukraine and unrest in Iran following the killing of Mahsa Amini for not wearing a headscarf turned the U.S. and European focus away from reviving the JCPOA.

In August 2022, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, Josep Borrell, said that a final agreement to revive the Iran nuclear deal was ready to be signed. Although Iran’s government did not agree at the time, during recent months it has indicated that it is ready to do both that and a prisoner deal.

Iran and the United States have agreed on the details of a prisoners exchange but Washington is likely nervous about the domestic political reaction because that deal would involve the release of approximately $7 billion of Iran's funds that have been locked up abroad. Moreover, the Key “sunsets” for JCPOA limits on Iran’s nuclear and missile program and arms trade range from 2023 to 2041. Based on the JCPOA, in October 2023, the UN Security Council is supposed to lift restrictions on Iran’s missiles and drones with a range of greater than 300 kilometers. The Biden administration is required to seek congressional legislation that ends some of the U.S. sanctions in this area.

Such sanction lifting could be grist for Republican political attacks on the Biden administration during an election season. But further delay brings its own dangers. Iran’s nuclear program has already reached the point where the country could within two weeks produce enough weapon-grade uranium for one nuclear bomb.

In the face of this complex situation, the Biden administration is dithering. It may be considering a "temporary agreement" as a middle way for the U.S. to contain this situation. This would be consistent with the Biden administration’s recent policy of "No Deal, No Crisis" with Iran in which the administration is also trying to avoid a major military conflict. In March, there was a  clash between Iranian and U.S. forces in Syria.

The United States and Europe are therefore faced with three policy options.

The first is this aforementioned "temporary agreement" or plan B. Most probably, the U.S. would demand a freeze on critical parts of Iran’s nuclear program, including no more enrichment of uranium to near weapon grade, and reductions in Iran's stockpile of highly enriched uranium in exchange for limited relaxation of U.S. sanctions. Iran has already rejected this option because it would lose the bargaining leverage provided by its stock of highly enriched uranium in exchange for limited sanction relief in an unsustainable temporary agreement.

A more realistic version of this option would be a more-for-more alternative. Iran would like to see sanctions lifted on both its financial institutions and oil exports. The U.S. and Europe are concerned about Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium and reestablishing Iran’s voluntary compliance with the Additional Protocol to its safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Inspections allowed by the Additional Protocol would help the IAEA determine whether Iran has built any secret nuclear facilities during the period it suspended its transparency.

A temporary agreement would not be a sustainable solution, however, and it is unlikely in any case that the Biden administration would agree on lifting sanctions on Iran financial institutions and oil exports as part of a temporary agreement. 

The second option that is under consideration by European parties to the JCPOA would be activation of the "trigger mechanism" in the UN Security Council Resolution 2231 backing up the JCPOA. This would restore all of the sanctions suspended by the JCPOA. France, UK, and Germany have recently held a meeting with 10 non-permanent members of the UN Security Council to discuss the "trigger or snap back mechanism."

This scenario could have major risks as Iran may respond by withdrawing from the Nonproliferation Treaty which allows the IAEA to monitor its nuclear materials. Any U.S. or Israeli military strike would dramatically change Iran’s calculus of immediate security threats and therefore, would most likely push Iran towards building a nuclear weapon. The consequences of a war with Iran would be well beyond those resulting from the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan, at the same time the U.S. and Europe are engaged in a proxy war with Russia in Ukraine. Moreover, while current relations between the EU and Iran already are experiencing unprecedented tensions, any EU initiative to activate the snap back mechanism would be a nail to coffin of bilateral historical relations with Europe and the West.

The third and best option would be for Iran and the United States to resume direct negotiations, compromise on some confidence-building measures to contain tensions, revive the JCPOA based on the August 2022 draft agreement and carry out the prisoner exchange. Recently, in a modest step in this direction, on May 1, the IAEA began reinstalling cameras at certain nuclear facilities in Iran under an agreement the agency reached with Tehran in March 2023. Such confidence building measures are helpful if proportionality reciprocated by the U.S. and other world powers.

Simultaneously, to address regional issues, a dialogue should be started between Iran other Persian Gulf countries. The recent agreement to reestablish diplomatic relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia has created a golden opportunity to start a regional dialogue on collective security. Such a dialogue could result in agreements to cooperate on security of energy and maritime issues in the Persian Gulf, Arab-Persian rapprochement, and resolving the regional crises in Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq.

“The JCPOA is widely regarded as a cornerstone of nuclear non-proliferation, and an example of what dialogue and diplomacy can achieve,” said United Nation Under-Secretary-General Rosemary DiCarlo. The JCPOA should be considered as a pathway toward rebuilding a peaceful regional security system in the Persian Gulf and the broader Middle East.

Five years after Trump’s strategic mistake of withdrawal from the JCPOA, President Biden should not let the quixotic quest for a better deal kill the JCPOA — which is most comprehensive non-proliferation agreement in history — thereby blocking opportunities for creating a new security and cooperation mechanism in the Persian Gulf enhancing sustainable peace and facilitating the path to a regional zone free of all weapons of mass destruction.


Image: danielo via shutterstock.com
Analysis | Middle East
Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare
Top photo credit: Seth Harp book jacket (Viking press) US special operators/deviant art/creative commons

Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare

Media

In 2020 and 2021, 109 U.S. soldiers died at Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the country and the central location for the key Special Operations Units in the American military.

Only four of them were on overseas deployments. The others died stateside, mostly of drug overdoses, violence, or suicide. The situation has hardly improved. It was recently revealed that another 51 soldiers died at Fort Bragg in 2023. According to U.S. government data, these represent more military fatalities than have occurred at the hands of enemy forces in any year since 2013.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: President Donald Trump hosts a bilateral dinner for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Monday, July 7, 2025, in the Blue Room. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The case for US Middle East retrenchment has never been clearer

Middle East

Is Israel becoming the new hegemon of the Middle East? The answer to this question is an important one.

Preventing the rise of a rival regional hegemon — a state with a preponderance of military and economic power — in Eurasia has long been a core goal of U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, Washington feared Soviet dominion over Europe. Today, U.S. policymakers worry that China’s increasingly capable military will crowd the United States out of Asia’s lucrative economic markets. The United States has also acted repeatedly to prevent close allies in Europe and Asia from becoming military competitors, using promises of U.S. military protection to keep them weak and dependent.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Top image credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com

Do we need a treaty on neutrality?

Global Crises

In an era of widespread use of economic sanctions, dual-use technology exports, and hybrid warfare, the boundary between peacetime and wartime has become increasingly blurry. Yet understandings of neutrality remain stuck in the time of trench warfare. An updated conception of neutrality, codified through an international treaty, is necessary for global security.

Neutrality in the 21st century is often whatever a country wants it to be. For some, such as the European neutrals like Switzerland and Ireland, it is compatible with non-U.N. sanctions (such as by the European Union) while for others it is not. Countries in the Global South are also more likely to take a case-by-case approach, such as choosing to not take a stance on a specific conflict and instead call for a peaceful resolution while others believe a moral position does not undermine neutrality.

keep readingShow less

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.