Jump to content

Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Iran Nuclear Deal)

Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
Officials announcing the agreement
Created14 July 2015
RatifiedN/A (ratification not required)
Date effective
  • 18 October 2015 (adoption)[1]
  • 16 January 2016 (implementation)[2]
LocationVienna, Austria
SignatoriesCurrent
 China
 France
 Germany
 Iran
 Russia
 United Kingdom
 European Union

Withdrawn

 United States (2018)[3]
PurposeNuclear non-proliferation

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA; Persian: برنامه جامع اقدام مشترک, romanizedbarnāmeye jāme'e eqdāme moshtarak (برجام, BARJAM)),[4][5] commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal or Iran deal, is an agreement to limit the Iranian nuclear program. The agreement was reached in Vienna on 14 July 2015, between Iran and the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the United Nations S.C.—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, U.S.—plus Germany)[a] together with the European Union.

Formal negotiations began with the adoption of the Joint Plan of Action, an interim agreement signed between Iran and the P5+1 countries in November 2013. Iran and the P5+1 countries engaged in negotiations for the next 20 months and, in April 2015, agreed on an "Iran nuclear deal framework" for the final agreement. In July 2015, Iran and the P5+1 confirmed agreement on the plan, along with the "Roadmap Agreement" between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).[8]

The negotiations centered around imposing restrictions on Iran's nuclear facilities, including the Arak IR-40 reactor, Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, Gachin Uranium Mine, Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, Isfahan Uranium Conversion Plant, Natanz Uranium Enrichment Plant, and the Parchin Military Research complex.

The agreement was formally activated on 20 January 2014.[9] It was criticized and opposed in the U.S., Israel, Saudi Arabia, and by Iranian principlists.[10][11]

The U.S. withdrew from the pact in 2018 and sanctions were imposed under the policy of "maximum pressure". The sanctions applied to all countries and companies doing business with Iran and cut it off from the international financial system, rendering the nuclear deal's economic provisions null.[12]

Timeline

[edit]

The agreement included a series of provisions describing actions that Iran would undertake for specified periods of time. Iran agreed to eliminate its stockpile of medium-enriched uranium, cut its stockpile of low-enriched uranium by 98%, and reduce by about two-thirds the number of its gas centrifuges for 13 years. For the next 15 years, Iran agreed to enrich uranium only up to 3.67%. Iran agreed not to build heavy-water facilities in the same period. Uranium-enrichment activities would be limited to a single facility using first-generation centrifuges for 10 years. Other facilities would be converted to avoid proliferation risks. The IAEA would have regular access to all Iranian nuclear facilities to monitor compliance.

In return for verifiably abiding by those provisions, Iran would receive relief from U.S., European Union, and United Nations S.C. nuclear-related sanctions.

The JCPOA forms part of U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231. The Security Council (S.C.) enacted it on 20 July 2015 and adopted it on 18 October. It took effect on 16 January 2016. The JCPOA was to remain in effect for eight years or until receipt by the S.C. of an IAEA report stating that IAEA had reached the Broader Conclusion that all nuclear material in Iran remained in peaceful activities, and terminates ten years from Adoption Day.

On 12 October 2017, U.S. President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. would not make the certification provided for under U.S. domestic law, but stopped short of terminating the deal.[13]

In 2018, IAEA inspectors spent an aggregate of 3,000 calendar days in Iran, installing seals and collecting surveillance camera photos, measurement data, and documents for further analysis. In March 2018, IAEA Director Yukiya Amano said that the organization had verified that Iran was implementing its nuclear-related commitments.[14] On April 30, the U.S. and Israel said that Iran had not disclosed a past covert nuclear weapons program to the IAEA, as required.[15][16]

On 8 May 2018, Trump announced the U.S. withdrawal from JCPOA, pledging to negotiate a better deal (which did not happen).[17][18][19]

Following the U.S. withdrawal, the E.U. enacted an updated blocking statute on 7 August 2018 to defeat U.S. sanctions on countries trading with Iran.[20] In November 2018, U.S. sanctions came back into effect, intended to force Iran to alter its policies, including its support for militant groups in the region and its development of ballistic missiles.[21]

In May 2019, the IAEA certified that Iran was abiding by the main terms, though questions were raised about how many advanced centrifuges Iran was allowed to have, as that was only loosely defined in the deal.[22]

On 1 July 2019, Iran announced that it had breached the limit set on its stockpile of low-enriched uranium,[23] which the IAEA confirmed.[24]

On 5 January 2020, in the aftermath of the airstrike that targeted and killed Iranian general Qasem Soleimani, Iran declared that it would no longer abide by the deal's limitations but would continue to coordinate with the IAEA, leaving open the possibility of resuming compliance.[25] In December 2020, Iranian officials expressed further willingness to rejoin the deal, provided that U.S. officials did the same and made assurances regarding lifting sanctions.[26][27]

Background

[edit]

Nuclear technology

[edit]

A fission-based "atomic" nuclear weapon uses a fissile material to cause a nuclear chain reaction. The most commonly used materials are uranium 235 (235
U
) and plutonium 239 (239
Pu
). Both uranium 233 (233
U
) and reactor-grade plutonium have also been used.[28][29][30] The amount of uranium or plutonium needed depends on the sophistication of the design, with a simple design requiring approximately 15 kg of uranium or 6 kg of plutonium and a sophisticated design requiring as little as 9 kg of uranium or 2 kg of plutonium.[31] Plutonium is almost nonexistent in nature, and natural uranium is about 99.3% uranium 238 (238
U
) and 0.7% 235
U
. Therefore, to make a weapon, either uranium must be enriched or plutonium must be produced. Uranium enrichment is required for nuclear power, although not to the same degree. For this reason, uranium enrichment is a dual-use technology suitable for both civilian and military purposes.[32] Key strategies to prevent proliferation of nuclear arms include limiting the number of operating uranium enrichment plants and controlling the export of nuclear technology and fissile material.[30][32]

Iranian nuclear activity, conflict with IAEA and Western countries, 1970–2006

[edit]

Iranian development of nuclear technology began in the 1970s, when the U.S. Atoms for Peace program began providing assistance to Iran, then led by the Shah.[33] Iran ratified the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in 1970.[33]

In 1979 the Iranian Revolution deposed the Shah. Iran's nuclear program fell into disarray as "much of Iran's nuclear talent fled the country in the wake of the Revolution".[33] Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, initially opposed nuclear technology.[33]

In the late 1980s Iran reinstated its nuclear program, with assistance from China (which entered into a bilateral agreement with Iran in 1990), Pakistan (which did the same in 1992), and Russia (which did the same in 1992 and 1995), and from the A.Q. Khan network.[33] Iran "began pursuing an indigenous nuclear fuel cycle capability by developing a uranium mining infrastructure and experimenting with uranium conversion and enrichment".[33]

In August 2002 the Paris-based National Council of Resistance of Iran, an Iranian dissident group, publicly revealed the existence of two undeclared nuclear facilities, the Arak heavy-water production facility and the Natanz enrichment facility.[33][34] In February 2003 Iranian President Mohammad Khatami acknowledged the existence of the facilities and asserted that Iran had undertaken "small-scale enrichment experiments" to produce low-enriched uranium for power plants.[33] International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors visited Natanz.[34] In May 2003 Iran allowed IAEA inspectors to visit the Kalaye Electric Company, but refused to allow them to take samples.[34]

In June 2003, an IAEA report concluded that Iran had failed to meet its obligations under the safeguards agreement,[34] and Iran, faced with the prospect of being referred to the U.N. S.C., entered into negotiations with France, Germany, and the United Kingdom (the E.U. 3).[33][34] The U.S. took no part in these negotiations.[34] In October 2003 the Tehran Declaration was reached between Iran and the E.U. 3. Iran agreed to cooperate fully with the IAEA, sign the Additional Protocol, and temporarily suspend all uranium enrichment.[33][34] In September and October 2003 the IAEA inspected several facilities.[33] This was followed by the Paris Agreement in November 2004, in which Iran agreed to temporarily suspend enrichment and conversion activities, "including the manufacture, installation, testing, and operation of centrifuges, and committed to working with the EU-3 to find a mutually beneficial long-term diplomatic solution".[33]

In August 2005, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accused the Iranian negotiators of treason.[34][35] Over the next two months, the E.U. 3 agreement fell apart as talks over the Long Term Agreement broke down; the Iranian government "felt that the proposal was heavy on demands, light on incentives, did not incorporate Iran's proposals, and violated the Paris Agreement".[33][34] Iran notified the IAEA that it would resume enrichment at Esfahan.[33][34]

In February 2006 Iran ended its implementation of the Additional Protocol and resumed enrichment at Natanz, prompting the IAEA to refer Iran to the S.C..[33][34] After the vote, Iran announced it would resume enrichment.[34] In April 2006 Ahmadinejad announced that Iran had nuclear technology for power generation, not weapons.[34] In June 2006 the E.U. 3 joined China, Russia, and the U.S., to form the P5+1.[34] That July, the S.C. passed its first resolution (nr. 1696), demanding Iran stop uranium enrichment and processing.[36][34] S.C. resolution 1737 followed in December; followed by others.[37] The legal authority for the IAEA referral and the S.C. resolutions derived from the IAEA Statute and the United Nations Charter.[37] The resolutions demanded that Iran cease enrichment activities, and imposed sanctions, including bans on the transfer of nuclear and missile technology to the country and freezes on the assets of certain Iranian individuals and entities, in order to pressure the country.[33][34]

In July 2006, Iran opened the Arak heavy water production plant, which led to a S.C. resolution.[33]

Conflict between Iran and western countries, 2007–2015

[edit]

Four more S.C. resolutions followed: 1747 (March 2007), 1803 (March 2008), 1835 (September 2008), and 1929 (June 2010).[37] In Resolution 1803 and elsewhere the S.C. acknowledged Iran's rights under Article IV of the NPT, which provides for "the inalienable right... to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes".[37][b]

In a February 2007 interview with the Financial Times, IAEA director-general Mohamed ElBaradei said that military action against Iran "would be catastrophic, counterproductive" and called for negotiations.[43] ElBaradei specifically proposed a "double, simultaneous suspension, a time out" as "a confidence-building measure", under which sanctions and enrichment would be suspended.[43] ElBaradei also said, "if I look at it from a weapons perspective there are much more important issues to me than the suspension of [enrichment]," naming his top priorities as preventing Iran from "go[ing] to industrial capacity until the issues are settled"; building confidence, with "full inspection" involving Iranian adoption of the Additional Protocol; and "at all costs" preventing Iran from "moving out of the [treaty-based non-proliferation] system".[43]

A November 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate assessed that Iran "halted its nuclear weapons program" in 2003; that estimate and subsequent U.S. Intelligence Community statements assessed that the Iranian government at the time was "keeping open the 'option' to develop nuclear weapons".[44]

In September 2009 U.S. President Barack Obama revealed the existence of an underground enrichment facility in Fordow, near Qom, saying, "Iran's decision to build yet another nuclear facility without notifying the IAEA represents a direct challenge to the basic compact at the center of the non-proliferation regime."[45] Israel threatened to take military action.[34]

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry shakes hands with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif after the P5+1 and Iran concluded negotiations about Iran's nuclear capabilities on November 24, 2013

In March 2013 the U.S. and Iran began talks in Oman, led by William J. Burns and Jake Sullivan on the American side and Ali Asghar Khaji on the Iranian side.[34][46] In June 2013 Hassan Rouhani was elected president of Iran.[34][47] Rouhani was described as "more moderate, pragmatic and willing to negotiate than Ahmadinejad". In a 2006 negotiation with European powers, Rouhani said that Iran had used the negotiations to dupe the Europeans, saying that during the negotiations, Iran mastered the conversion of uranium yellowcake at Isfahan. Yellowcake conversion is an important step.[48] In August 2013, three days after his inauguration, Rouhani called for negotiations with the P5+1.[49] In September 2013 Obama and Rouhani spoke by telephone, the first high-level contact between U.S. and Iranian leaders since 1979, and Secretary of State John Kerry met with Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, signaling openness to cooperation.[34][49] Former officials alleged that, in order to advance the deal, the Obama administration shielded Hezbollah from the Central Intelligence Agency and from the Drug Enforcement Administration's Project Cassandra investigation regarding drug smuggling.[50][51] As a result of the Politico report, Attorney General Jeff Sessions ordered an investigation.[52]

On 24 November 2013, after several rounds of negotiations, the Joint Plan of Action, an interim agreement on the Iranian nuclear program, was signed between Iran and the P5+1 countries in Geneva, Switzerland. It consisted of a short-term nuclear program freeze in exchange for decreased economic sanctions.[53] The IAEA began "more intrusive and frequent inspections" under this interim agreement.[49] The agreement was formally activated on 20 January 2014.[54] That day, the IAEA issued a report stating that Iran was adhering to the terms of the interim agreement, including stopping enrichment of uranium to 20%, beginning the dilution process (to reduce half of the stockpile of 20% enriched uranium to 3.5%), and halting work on the Arak heavy-water reactor.[49][54]

A major focus of the negotiations was limitations on Iran's key nuclear facilities: the Arak IR-40 heavy water reactor and production plant (which was under construction, but never became operational, as Iran agreed as part of the November 2013 Joint Plan of Action (interim agreement) not to commission or fuel the reactor); the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant; the Gachin uranium mine; the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant; the Isfahan uranium-conversion plant; the Natanz uranium enrichment plant; and the Parchin military research and development complex.[55]

In 2015, the U.S. enacted the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015.[c] It passed the Senate by a 98–1 vote and the House by a 400–25 vote, and was signed by President Obama on 22 May 2015.[57] Under the Act, once a nuclear agreement was negotiated with Iran, Congress had 60 days in which to pass a resolution of approval, a resolution of disapproval, or do nothing.[58] The Act included time beyond the 60 days for the president to veto a resolution and for Congress to vote on whether to override the veto.[59] Congress could invalidate the deal only if two-thirds of both houses overrode an expected veto by Obama of any resolution of disapproval.[58][60]

A July 2015 Congressional Research Service report said, "statements from the U.S. intelligence community indicate that Iran has the technological and industrial capacity to produce nuclear weapons at some point, but the U.S. government assesses that Tehran has not mastered all of the necessary technologies for building a nuclear weapon."[44]

Negotiations (2013–2015)

[edit]
Foreign Ministers from the P5+1 nations, the European Union, and Iran in Vienna, Austria, on November 24, 2014

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was the culmination of 20 months of negotiations.[61][62]

The parties agreed to extend their talks, with a first extension deadline of 24 November 2014[63] and a second extension deadline of 1 July 2015.[64]

A framework was agreed on 2 April 2015 at Lausanne. Under this framework Iran tentatively agreed to accept restrictions, all of which would last for a decade or longer, and to submit to increased inspections. Marathon negotiations continued, ending in Vienna at the Palais Coburg after 17 days.[9] On 14 July 2015, all parties agreed.[65]

The agreement's complexity reflects the impact of a public letter written by a bipartisan group of 19 U.S. diplomats, experts, and others in June 2015, written while negotiations were ongoing.[66][67] The letter outlined concerns about several provisions in the then-unfinished agreement and called for a number of improvements to strengthen the prospective agreement and win their support for it.[66] After the agreement was reached, one of the early negotiators, Robert J. Einhorn, a former U.S. Department of State official later at the Brookings Institution, said of the agreement: "Analysts will be pleasantly surprised. The more things are agreed to, the less opportunity there is for implementation difficulties later on."[66]

An analysis by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace claimed that the final agreement was based upon (and buttresses) "the rules-based nonproliferation regime created by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and including especially the IAEA safeguards system".[68]

Participants

[edit]

According to U.S. State Department Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs Julia Frifield, "The JCPOA is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document. The JCPOA reflects political commitments between Iran, the P5+1, and the EU."[69]

Souvenir signatures of lead negotiators on the cover page of the JCPOA document. The Persian handwriting on top left side is a homage by Javad Zarif to his counterparts' efforts in the negotiations: "[I am] Sincere to Mr. Abbas [Araghchi] and Mr. Majid [Takht-Ravanchi]."[70]

Provisions

[edit]

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) covered 109 pages, including five annexes.[62] The major provisions are:[62][71][72]

Nuclear

[edit]
Enrichment-related provisions[73][74]: 29 
Capability Before JCPOA After JCPOA
(for 10-year period)
After 15 years
First-generation
centrifuges installed
19,138 capped at 6,104 Unconstrained[U 1]
Advanced centrifuges installed 1,008 0
Centrifuge R&D Unconstrained Constrained
Stockpile of
low-enriched uranium
7,154 kg 300 kg
Stockpile of
medium-enriched uranium
196 kg 0 kg
The physical limits phase out over 10 to 15 years[74]
  1. ^ According to the JCPOA, "The sequence and milestones set forth above and in Annex V are without prejudice to the duration of JCPOA commitments stated in this JCPOA."

Stocks

[edit]

Over 15 years, Iran would reduce its stockpile of low-enriched uranium by 97%, from 10,000 kg to 300 kg,[75][62][76][77][78] and limit enrichment to 3.67%, sufficient for civilian nuclear power and research, but not for weaponry.[76][77][79] This represented a "major decline" in Iran's nuclear activity. Iran had produced stockpiles near 20% (medium-enriched uranium).[76][77][78] Stocks in excess of 300 kg enriched up to 3.67% would be diluted to 0.7% or sold in return for uranium ore, while uranium enriched to between 5% and 20% was to be fabricated into fuel plates for the Tehran Research Reactor or sold or diluted to 3.67%. P5+1 agreed to facilitate commercial contracts.

After 15 years, all limits on enrichment would be removed, including limits on the type and number of centrifuges, Iran's stocks of enriched uranium, and enrichment sites. According to Belfer, at this point Iran could "expand its nuclear program to create more practical overt and covert nuclear weapons options".[74][80]

Centrifuges

[edit]

Iran initially possessed centrifuges sufficient for one nuclear weapon, but not for nuclear power.[81] Over ten years, Iran would secure over two-thirds of its centrifuges in storage, reducing active units to 6,104 centrifuges, with only 5,060 allowed to enrich uranium.[62][76] Enrichment would be restricted to the Natanz plant. The centrifuges there were limited to IR-1 centrifuges, Iran's oldest and least efficient; Iran would warehouse its advanced IR-2M centrifuges during this period.[55][77][78] Non-operating centrifuges would be stored in Natanz and monitored by IAEA, but could be used to replace failed centrifuges.[82][83] Iran agreed to build no enrichment facilities for 15 years.[76]

Research

[edit]

Iran could continue research and development work on enrichment only at the Natanz facility and had to respect specific limitations for eight years.[55] The intent was to maintain a one-year breakout interval.[76]

Reactors

[edit]

With cooperation from the "Working Group" (the P5+1 and possibly other countries), Iran was permitted to modernize the Arak heavy water research reactor based on an agreed design. Arak was to be limited to 20 MWt to support allowed research and production, while minimizing plutonium production and avoiding weapons-grade plutonium.[84] Spent fuel was to be sent out of the country.[55] All heavy water beyond Iran's reactor needs was to be exportable. In exchange, Iran imported 130 tonnes of uranium ore in 2015 and in late 2016 was approved to import 130 tonnes in 2017.[85] For 15 years Iran agreed not to research or engage in spent fuel reprocessing,[86] build additional heavy-water reactors, or accumulate heavy water.[55]

Fordow would stop researching and enriching uranium for at least 15 years. The facility was to be converted into a nuclear physics and technology center. For 15 years Fordow would maintain no more than 1,044 IR-1 centrifuges in six cascades in one wing. Two of the six cascades would be transitioned for stable radioisotope production for medical, agricultural, industrial, and scientific use. The other four would remain idle. Iran agreed to keep no fissile material there.[55][76][78]

An Additional Protocol extended the monitoring and verification provisions for as long as Iran remained a party to the NPT.[87]

Inspections

[edit]

A comprehensive inspections regime would monitor and confirm Iranian compliance.[76][77][d]

The IAEA was to have multilayered[98] oversight "over Iran's entire nuclear supply chain, from uranium mills to its procurement of nuclear-related technologies".[99] For sites such as Fordow and Natanz, the IAEA was to have 24-hour access to nuclear facilities and to maintain continuous monitoring (including via surveillance equipment).[99][100] The agreement authorized the IAEA to use sophisticated monitoring technology, such as fiber-optic equipment seals that could send the IAEA information; satellite imagery to detect covert sites; sensors to detect minute nuclear specimens; and tamper- and radiation-resistant cameras.[66][101] Other tools included software to gather information and detect anomalies, and datasets on imports.[98] The number of inspectors tripled to 150.[66]

Inspectors could request access, informing Iran of the basis of the request, to verify the absence of prohibited activities and nuclear materials.[100] The inspectors were to come only from countries with which Iran had diplomatic relations.[102] Iran could either allow the inspection or propose alternatives that satisfied the IAEA's concerns.[100] If the inspectors were not satisfied, a 24-day process would ensue.[100] Iran and the IAEA were to have 14 days to reach agreement.[100] For the following week a majority of the Commission could require Iran to take specific actions within three more days.[103][104] This allowed the U.S. and its allies to insist on responses that Iran, Russia or China could not veto.[103][105] After three days of non-compliance, sanctions would be automatically reimposed.[104]

Breakout

[edit]

These provisions were intended to extend the "breakout time"—the interval during which Iran could prepare enough material for a single nuclear weapon—from two to three months to one year.[62][76][106][e] Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs[74] and Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation[108][109] supported these estimates. By contrast, Alan J. Kuperman, coordinator of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Project at University of Texas at Austin, disagreed, arguing that the breakout time would be only three months.[110]

After ten years or more, the breakout time would gradually decrease.[62][106] By the 15th year, U.S. officials said the breakout time would return to the status quo ante of a few months.[62][106] The Belfer Center report stated: "Some contributors to this report believe that breakout time by year 15 could be comparable to what it is today—a few months—while others believe it could be reduced to a few weeks."[74]

Exemptions

[edit]

Iran was granted exemptions prior to 16 January 2016. Their reported purpose was to enable sanctions relief and other benefits to start by that date. The exemptions allowed Iran to:[111]

  • exceed the 300 kg of 3.5% LEU limit;
  • exceed the zero kg of 20% LEU limit;
  • keep operating 19 "hot cells" that exceed the size limit;
  • maintain control of 50 tonnes of heavy water that exceeded the 130-tonne limit by storing the excess at an Iran-controlled facility in Oman.[112]

Sanctions

[edit]

Iran had to submit a full report on its nuclear history before it could receive any sanctions relief.[113] At the time of the agreement, Iran was subject to a variety of sanctions imposed by an array of organizations. Once IAEA verified compliance with the nuclear-related measures, U.N. sanctions would terminate. Some E.U. sanctions would terminate and some would suspend. That would allow Iran to recover approximately $100 billion of its assets frozen in overseas banks.[114] No U.N. or E.U. nuclear-related sanctions or restrictive measures were to be imposed.[115]

Additional E.U. sanctions would be lifted after eight years of compliance, including some on the Revolutionary Guards.[116]

The U.S. agreed to suspend its nuclear-related secondary sanctions.[117][118] This was not tied to a date or compliance but was expected to occur "roughly in the first half of 2016".[117][119][120] Some sanctions would continue: those on conventional weapon sales for five years; those on ballistic missile technologies for eight.[62][121] But sanctions related to human rights, missiles, and support for terrorism remained in effect.[78][122] Many U.S. sanctions apply worldwide; E.U. sanctions apply only in Europe.[116]

Snapback

[edit]

Any of the P5+1 could invoke a "snapback" provision, under which sanctions would be reimposed.[76][77][115] Snapback sanctions would not apply retroactively to previously allowed contracts.[82]

Dispute resolution

[edit]

Any party could refer allegations of non-compliance to the Joint Commission monitoring body.[78][123] Complaints by a non-Iran party that were not resolved to the complainant's satisfaction within 35 days would allow the complainant to cease performing its commitments, notify the S.C., or both.[123] The S.C. would then have 30 days to adopt a resolution to continue the sanctions relief. Absent such a resolution, nuclear-related U.N. sanctions would automatically be reimposed. Iran said it would then cease performing its nuclear obligations.[124][123] This would allow any permanent S.C. member (U.S., United Kingdom, China, Russia or France) to veto sanctions relief.

This procedure implied that the U.S., U.K., or France could reinstitute sanctions if it concluded that Iran was non-compliant,[123] though since that might cause Iran to withdraw from the agreement, they might be reluctant to do so.[125]

Expiration

[edit]

After 15 years, many provisions of the JCPOA would expire, including most enrichment provisions.[126]

International reaction

[edit]
Pictured here, Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs Mohammad Javad Zarif and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry shaking hands at the end of negotiations on 14 July 2015, Vienna. They shook hands on 26 September 2013 in the United Nations Headquarters for the first time.[127]

The JCPOA received a mixed international reaction. Many countries expressed hope that it could achieve its goals,[128][129][130] while Iranian adversaries in the Middle East, including Israel and Saudi Arabia,[10][11] and some U.S. lawmakers saw it as defective and appeasing Iran.[131][132][133]

Unique elements

[edit]

JCPOA was the first of its kind in the annals of non-proliferation.[134][135][136][137][138] The 159-page JCPOA document and its five appendices is the longest text of a multinational agreement since World War II, according to BBC Persian.[139]

It was the first time that the S.C. had recognized a developing country's nuclear enrichment program[139][140] and backed a multinational agreement within the framework of a resolution (2231).[139][141] For the first time in U.N. history, a country—Iran—was able to rid itself of 6 U.N. resolutions—1696, 1737, 1747, 1803, 1835, 1929—without abiding by them for a single day.[139] Sanctions against Iran were lifted for the first time.[139]

Iran was the first country subject to Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter that ended its case by diplomacy.[139][142][143] All other cases ended by regime change, war, or acquiescence.[144]

Gary Sick said that during the history of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), no country other than Iran had ever voluntarily agreed to such restrictions.[145]

John Kerry with Hossein Fereydoun, the brother of 7th President of Iran Hassan Rouhani and Mohammad Javad Zarif during the announcement of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

During the final negotiations, Kerry stayed in Vienna for 17 days, the longest interval a Cabinet official had devoted to a single international negotiation in more than four decades.[146] Zarif broke the record for an Iranian Foreign Minister staying far from home with an 18-day stay in Vienna,[139] and set the record of 106 days of negotiations over 687 days, more than any other chief nuclear negotiator in 12 years.[147] The negotiations became the longest continuous negotiations with the presence of all five foreign ministers of the permanent S.C. members.[139]

The negotiations included "rare events" in Iran–U.S. relations over their entire history. Kerry and Zarif met on 18 different dates—sometimes more than once per day—and in 11 different cities.[148] On 27 April 2015, Kerry visited the official residence of the Permanent Representative of Iran to the United Nations to meet his counterpart. The encounter was the first since the Iran hostage crisis.[148][149] On the sidelines of the 70th session of the United Nations General Assembly, President Obama shook hands with Zarif, the first such greeting in history. The event was unique in the form of diplomatic ranks, as a head of state shook hands with a minister.[150] Obama said, "Too much effort has been put into the JCPOA and we all should be diligent to implement it."[151]

Process

[edit]

Incorporation into international law by the Security Council

[edit]

The S.C. formally endorsed the agreement on 20 July 2015.[152][153][154]

On 15 July, the American ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power, circulated a 14-page draft to Council members.[153] On 20 July, the S.C. unanimously approved resolution 2231[155] by a 15–0 vote.[154] The resolution delayed implementation for 90 days to allow for U.S. Congressional consideration under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015.[156][154]

Speaking immediately after the vote, Power told the S.C. that sanctions relief would start only when Iran "verifiably" met its obligations. Power also called upon Iran "to immediately release all unjustly detained Americans", specifically naming Amir Hekmati, Saeed Abedini, and Jason Rezaian, who were detained at the time, and Robert A. Levinson, who had been missing in the country.[154][157] Hekmati, Abedini, and Rezaian were released in a January 2016 prisoner exchange, which Kerry said the nuclear agreement had accelerated.[158]

European Union

[edit]

On the same day that the S.C. approved its resolution, the E.U. formally approved the JCPOA via a vote of the E.U. Foreign Affairs Council (the group of E.U. foreign ministers) meeting in Brussels. This set into motion the lifting of certain E.U. sanctions, including those prohibiting the purchase of Iranian oil.[154][159] The E.U. continued its sanctions relating to human rights and prohibiting the export of ballistic missile technology.[154]

Review period in the U.S. Congress

[edit]
Secretary of State John Kerry, Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, and Secretary of the Treasury Jack Lew defending the JCPOA at a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on 23 July 2015

The agreement's legal status in the U.S. was disputed.[f] Under U.S. law, the JCPOA is a non-binding political commitment.[166][167] According to the State Department, it specifically is not an executive agreement nor a treaty (as defined in U.S. law).[citation needed] In contrast to treaties, which require two-thirds of the Senate to consent to ratification, executive commitments require no Congressional approval and are not legally binding as a matter of domestic law, but in some cases they may be considered such and bind the U.S. under international law.[168][g]

On 19 July 2015, the State Department officially transmitted the JCPOA to Congress.[176] The referral included the Unclassified Verification Assessment Report on the JCPOA and the Intelligence Community's Classified Annex to the Verification Assessment Report.[176] The 60-day review period began on 20 July[176][177][58] and ended on 17 September.[178] A resolution of disapproval was brought to the Senate floor but failed. A resolution of approval was brought to the House floor, and also failed. As a result, the agreement went into effect after the congressional review period.[179]

Congress and the administration
[edit]

Obama repeatedly urged Congress to support the agreement, noting the inspections regime's vigor and criticizing opponents for failing to offer a viable alternative.[180] Vice President Joe Biden met with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Democrats, seeking their support.[181]

Republicans generally rejected the deal. Cruz said that under the agreement "the Obama administration will become the financier of terrorism against America in the world."[182] Former Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, a candidate for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, called Obama "naive".[183] Obama cited the support of Democrats typically associated with strong defense backgrounds, saying, "This is a deal that has been endorsed by people like Brent Scowcroft and Sam Nunn... historic Democratic and Republican leaders on arms control and on keeping Aerica safe.".[184]

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell promised that Republicans would discuss the agreement respectfully in September.[185][186] Democrat Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer distinguished the nuclear and non-nuclear aspects. His conclusion was: "when it comes to the nuclear aspects of the agreement within ten years, we might be slightly better off with it. However, when it comes to the nuclear aspects after ten years and the non-nuclear aspects, we would be better off without it."[187]

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said that JCPOA "puts U.S. in a far better place in terms of insight and access" than no agreement.[188]

Public discussion
[edit]

The discussion extended to the wider public.[189] Major campaign donors took sides, with opponents (Sheldon Adelson, Paul Singer, and Haim Saban) outspending supporters (Ploughshares Fund, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, George Soros, S. Daniel Abraham, Tim Gill, Norman Lear, Margery Tabankin, and Arnold Hiatt) by millions of dollars.[190][191]

Some groups welcomed the JCPOA,[192] such as the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), and Iranian American Bar Association.[193]

Public letters of support abounded (often bipartisan):

Public letters from opponents included:

U.S. pro-Israel lobby groups were divided.[212] American Israel Public Affairs Committee spent millions opposing it.[213][212][214][215] J Street came out in support, and planned a $5 million advertising effort.[216][217] In the first week of August J Street launched a $2 million, three-week ad campaign in support of the agreement, with TV ads in Colorado, Maryland, Michigan, Oregon, and Pennsylvania.[218][219]

Leaders of the Reform Jewish movement stayed neutral.[220][221]

Conversely, in late August a group of 900 rabbis signed an open letter by Kalman Topp and Yonah Bookstein calling upon Congress to reject the agreement.[222] The Orthodox Union and American Jewish Committee also announced opposition to the agreement.[223][224]

Anti-JCPOA bus advertisement in New York City. The bus ad was sponsored by New York Assemblyman Dov Hikind, an opponent of the agreement.[225]

United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) opposed the deal,[191][226] although the group's president and co-founder, nonproliferation expert Gary Samore, disagreed.[191][227] Foundation for American Security and Freedom and Veterans Against the Deal ran opposing ads.[228]

Supporters included MoveOn.org, Americans United for Change, and Global Zero.[228] Iran Project, and the United Nations Association of the U.S.supported the agreement.[229] Colin Powell expressed support.[230]

Retired U.S. Senators Carl Levin and John Warner published a supporting op-ed.[231] Retired Republican Richard Lugar and Democrat J. Bennett Johnston wrote in support of the agreement.[232]

Foreign diplomats joined the debate. Israeli ambassador to the U.S. Ron Dermer was an opponent. European ambassadors including Sir Peter Westmacott supported it.[233]

The Roman Catholic Church expressed support, led by Bishop Oscar Cantú.[234][235]

Michael Mandelbaum claimed that nonproliferation ultimately depended on deterrence, not agreements.[236] Alan Dershowitz claimed that the involvement of Russia and China made the deal irrelevant.[237]

Committee hearings
[edit]

A Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing took place on 23 July. Kerry, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, and Moniz testified.[238][239] Chair Bob Corker said the agreement codified rather than dismantled the Iranian program.[240][241] Ranking member Benjamin Cardin remained neutral.[242] Other Democrats, led by Barbara Boxer, expressed support. Corker and Cardin requested to review the IAEA-Iran document.[243] Kerry, Lew, and Moniz said that without JCPOA, international sanctions would collapse.[238] Republican senators gave vociferous speeches denouncing the deal.[243]

The three also testified before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.[244] Republican Committee chair Ed Royce claimed that the deal traded permanent sanctions relief for temporary restrictions[244][245] and criticized the inspection regime.[246] Ranking member Eliot Engel was not in support.[246][247]

Senators John McCain (Republican of Arizona), the committee chair, and Jack Reed (Democrat of Rhode Island), the committee ranking member, at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee on the JCPOA, 29 July 2015.

Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Kerry, Moniz, and Lew appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee.[248] Carter and Dempsey had been invited to testify by Republican Chair John McCain, who opposed the deal.[249] Ranking member Jack Reed stressed the need to independently validate the deal.[250][251]

Carter assured the committee that the U.S. could employ military force if needed and that he did not expect other Iranian misbehavior to stop,[252] another reason to limit its nuclear program.[253][254] Dempsey testified that the agreement reduced the chances of a near-term military conflict.[248]

IAEA has confidential technical arrangements with many countries.[113][255][256] Some Republican lawmakers called such agreements "secret side deals" that restructured the deal.[255] Cruz introduced an unsuccessful resolution seeking a delay in the review period, arguing that the review period should begin upon receipt of all relevant documents.[257][258]

State Department spokesman John Kirby responded the P5+1 had been fully briefed and that related questions could be addressed in a classified setting.[256] Various experts lined up on both sides of the controversy.[113][95][95][259][260]

Congressional reactions
[edit]

The Washington Post listed 12 issues raised by U.S. senators including Corker, Bob Menendez, Jim Risch, Marco Rubio, and Ron Johnson, including the efficacy of inspections at undeclared sites; the effectiveness of the snapback sanctions; the significance of limits on enrichment; the significance of IAEA side agreements; the effectiveness of inspections of military sites; the consequences of walking away from an agreement; and the effects of lifting sanctions.[261][h]

Republican leaders vowed to kill the agreement.[269][270]

One area of disagreement was the consequences of walking away, and whether renegotiation was a realistic option.[261] Schumer, an opponent, called for retaining and strengthening sanctions, and to continue negotiating.[187] President Obama argued that renegotiation was unrealistic, that the Iranian people would see further concessions as "total surrender of their sovereignty",[271] and that other countries would not continue to support the existing sanctions regime.[271] Senator Al Franken accepted the claim that no better deal was feasible.[272][i] Representative Sander M. Levin announced his support.[276] Senator Cardin said that if the agreement were implemented, the U.S. should increase military aid to Israel and friendly Gulf states.[60] Senator Bill Nelson and Foreign Relations Committee members Tim Kaine and Barbara Boxer announced their support.[277]

The Associated Press reported that the classified U.S. Intelligence Community assessment concluded the agreed inspection regime would diminish Iran's ability to conceal a covert weapons program.[278][279] Ten active and former Democratic members of the House Select Committee on Intelligence (including Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Intelligence Committee ranking member Adam Schiff) cited this assessment, which was available for members of Congress to read, as a reason to support the agreement.[279][280]

Congressional votes
[edit]

A resolution of disapproval was initially expected to pass both the House and Senate.[281][282]

Two-thirds of both houses are required to override a presidential veto.[283][284] On 20 August 2015, Pelosi claimed that House Democrats had the votes to sustain a veto of a resolution of disapproval.[285] By 20 August, about 60 House Democrats had announced their support,[286] versus about 12 opponents.[285]

By early September 2015, 34 senators had confirmed their support, ensuring that the Senate could sustain a veto.[287] This proved to be moot, since by 8 September, all senators had announced their commitments, with 42 in support (40 Democrats and two independents) and 58 opposed (54 Republicans and four Democrats).[287] Without 60 votes on either side, the other could filibuster any resolution.[287] A key part of obtaining even limited support came during an August 2015 meeting at which top diplomats from the UK, Russia, China, Germany, and France told 10 undecided Democratic senators they had no intention of returning to negotiations.[288]

Initially, the House leadership planned to vote on a resolution of disapproval.[289][j] Speaker John Boehner instead chose to advance a resolution of approval to force Democratic supporters to formally register their views.[292] On 11 September 2015 the resolution of approval failed on a 162–269 vote; 244 Republicans and 25 Democrats voted no, while 162 Democrats and no Republicans voted yes.[292][293] The same day, Congress passed resolutions claiming that the requirements of a congressional review period were not met (by party-line vote) and that that would prevent the U.S. from lifting any sanctions[292][294] (all Republicans and two Democrats in favor).[292][294][295]

Iranian review

[edit]

Khamenei gave Rouhani guidelines for how to proceed.[296][297] On 21 June 2015, the Iranian Parliament (Majlis) formed a committee to study the JCPOA and decided to wait at least 80 days before voting.[298] Zarif and Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) chief Ali Akbar Salehi defended the deal in Parliament.[298]

In televised remarks on 23 July 2015, Rouhani rejected domestic criticism by Iranian hardliners, such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.[299] He claimed a popular mandate to make an agreement based on his election in 2013 and said the alternative was suffering under continued sanctions.[299] A two-page, top-secret directive from Iran's Supreme National Security Council instructed newspapers to avoid criticism or giving any impression of disagreement at the highest levels of government.[300]

On 3 September, Khamenei said that the Majlis should make the final decision.[301] The same day, Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani voiced his support.[301] Former presidents Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami and moderates within parliament announced their support.[302] Most prominent opposition leaders, including Mir-Hossein Mousavi, a 2009 presidential candidate under house arrest for his role as a leader of the Green Movement, also announced their support.[302]

The anti-agreement coalition included former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, former head of AEOI Fereydoon Abbasi, ex-nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili, and various conservative clerics and IRGC commanders.[302] This group claimed that Iranian negotiators caved on many key issues and were outmaneuvered.[302]

Anti-JCPOA representatives of Islamic Consultative Assembly protested Ali Akbar Saheli and made death threats toward him[303] Iranian defense minister Hossein Dehqan said on 2 September that Iran would not allow the IAEA to visit every site or facility that it wishes.[304]

The Majlis commission for examining the JCPOA invited Ali Shamkhani, as well as members of a former nuclear negotiation team including Ali Bagheri and Abbasi, to a hearing.[305] During the session, ex-chief negotiator Saeed Jalili said that "approximately 100 absolute rights" of Iran had been conceded and that the deal turned Iran's right to adopt nuclear technology under the NPT into mere permission.[306] He claimed that the deal violated the terms Khamenei set. Commission members Masoud Pezeshkian and Abbas Ali Mansouri Arani criticized Jalili's testimony.[307] In another session, negotiators Abbas Araqchi and Majid Takht-Ravanchi defended the deal.[308]

The leading reformist newspapers, Etemad and Shargh, supported the deal.[309] The leading conservative papers, Ettelaat and Kayhan, criticized its terms.[309]

Many Iranian dissidents, including Nobel Peace Prize laureate, human rights activist, and Iranian exile Shirin Ebadi and former political prisoner Akbar Ganji came out in support.[302] Others opposed the agreement, including Ahmad Batebi, Nazanin Afshin-Jam, and Roozbeh Farahanipour.[310]

On 13 October the Iranian Parliament approved the JCPOA supplemented by text unilaterally added by Iran and not agreed to by the P5+1, with 161 votes in favor, 59 against and 13 abstentions.[311][312][313][314]

Adoption Day

[edit]

On 18 October 2015 E.U. High Representative Mogherini and Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif jointly announced "Adoption Day".[315]

On 20 September 2015, Director-General Yukiya Amano of the IAEA went to the Parchin missile production facility, along with Director of Safeguards Tero Varjoranta, to obtain clarifications on the site's nuclear activities.[316][317][318] The next day, Amano professed satisfaction with the samples submitted by the Iranians to the IAEA. IAEA experts were not physically present during the sampling, but Amano said the procedure met "strict agency criteria".[319] In June 2016, IAEA investigators reported that they had reported traces of uranium found at the Parchin facility in December 2015.[320]

Implementation Day

[edit]
Last meeting between diplomatic teams of Iran and the U.S., at the Palais Coburg Hotel in Vienna

After the IAEA certified that Iran had met the relevant JCPOA requirements, all nuclear sanctions were lifted by the UN, the E.U. and the U.S. on 16 January 2016, "Implementation Day".[321]

That day Washington imposed sanctions on 11 companies and individuals for supplying Iran's ballistic missile program.[322][323] According to Kerry, $1.7 billion in debt with interest was to be paid to Tehran. But some Iranian financial institutions, including Ansar Bank, Bank Saderat, Bank Saderat PLC, and Mehr Bank, remained on the SDN List[324] and U.S. sanctions with respect to Iran, including existing terrorism, human rights and ballistic missiles-related sanctions, remained in effect.[325]

Status in U.S. law

[edit]

In a letter sent to then Representative Mike Pompeo, the State Department said that the JCPOA "is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document".[326]

According to the Congressional Research Service, different definitions of "treaty" are used in international and U.S. law. According to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, "The term 'treaty' has a broader meaning under international law than under domestic law. Under international law, 'treaty' refers to any binding international agreement.[327] Under domestic U.S. law, 'treaty' signifies only those binding international agreements that have received the advice and consent of the Senate."[328]

Deterrence

[edit]

Michael Eisenstadt, Director of the Military and Security Studies Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, wrote that deterrence must remain the "core imperative" for U.S. policy.[329] Einhorn wrote that maintaining a credible deterrent was essential.[330]

Obama stated that the U.S. would continue its policy of deterring any Iranian efforts to develop nuclear weapons, including via military force.[331][331] Flexibility meant that Obama rejected specifying "the penalties for smaller violations of the accord" in advance.[332]

Dennis Ross and David Petraeus claimed that deterrence including military force was essential to preventing Iran from nuclear weapons and called on Obama to clearly state that policy.[333][334]

Khamenei claimed that his fatwa and not JCPOA was the reason Iran would not acquire nuclear weapons.[335]

U.S. withdrawal (2017–)

[edit]

The U.S. certified in April 2017 and in July 2017 that Iran was complying with the deal.[336][337]

On 13 October 2017 President Trump announced that he would not make the certification required under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, accusing Iran of violating the "spirit" of the deal and calling on the U.S. Congress and international partners to "address the deal's many serious flaws".[338]

Trump left Congress to decide whether to reimpose sanctions. Trump's aides sought to enact rules indicating how the U.S. could reimpose sanctions. Trump listed three items that could provoke the U.S. to reject deal: intercontinental ballistic missile development, Iranian refusal to extend the constraint period, and evidence that Iran had reduced the time needed to manufacture a bomb to fewer than 12 months.[339]

Rouhani said that exiting JCPOA would "carry a high cost" for the U.S.,[340] and that no President could do so.[341]

Theresa May, Emmanuel Macron, and Angela Merkel supported the deal in a joint statement. Federica Mogherini, the European Union's foreign policy chief, said that the agreement was working well and that no one country could break the deal. Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov confirmed that Iran was in compliance.[341]

U.S. withdrawal (May 2018)

[edit]
Trump announces U.S. withdrawal on 8 May.

On 8 May 2018 the U.S. officially withdrew after Trump signed a Presidential Memorandum ordering sanctions reinstatement,[342] opting instead to seek a comprehensive and lasting solution working allies.[343] The IAEA continued to certify Iranian compliance.[344] Other signatories state that they would work to preserve the deal even absent the U.S..[345]

Consequences of U.S. withdrawal

[edit]

The U.S. policy of "maximum pressure" involved global sanctions.[12][346][347]

The Iranian rial fell by some 20%,[348] 35,000 to the dollar to 42,000 in 2021.[349] International banks that traded with Iran paid large fines.[350] The American flag was set on fire in Iran's Parliament.[351] According to IDF sources, IRGC Quds Forces based in Syria launched rockets at Israeli military targets the next evening, the first time Iran had directly targeted Israel.[352] All major European companies abandoned doing business with Iran out of fear of U.S. punishment.[353]

Khamenei's conditions for Europe to preserve the JCPOA

[edit]

Following the U.S. withdrawal, Khamenei presented seven conditions for Europe to sustain JCPOA. Among them was that European powers must take steps to preserve business relations with Iranian banks and purchase Iranian oil. He rejected the need to hold discussions about Iran's ballistic missile program and regional activities.[354]

Defection of Iran (2019)

[edit]

One year after the U.S. withdrawal, Iran took countermeasures. Iran halted sales of excess enriched uranium and heavy water to other countries. Rouhani said that Iran would resume enrichment of uranium beyond 3.67% if other parties could not let Iran benefit from JCPOA's economic provisions.[353]

In May 2019, the IAEA certified that Iran was abiding by the deal's main terms, but raised questions about the limits on advanced centrifuges, as that was only loosely defined in the deal.[22] In a meeting with senior officials, Khamenei described negotiations with the U.S. on another nuclear deal as "poison".[355]

On 8 May, Iran announced it would suspend implementation of some parts of JCPOA, threatening further action in 60 days unless it received protection from U.S. sanctions.[356]

On 7 July, Iran announced that it had started to increase uranium enrichment beyond the agreed 3.67% limit.[357] IAEA stated that its inspectors would verify Iran's announcement.[357] Zarif sent a letter to his European counterpart Federica Mogherini notifying her about Iran's noncompliance.[357]

On 4 November, Iran doubled the number of advanced centrifuges it operated. Iran was enriching uranium to 4.5%. On 5 November 2019, Iranian nuclear chief Ali Akbar Salehi announced that Iran would enrich uranium to 5% at the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, adding that it already had the capability to enrich uranium to 20%.[358]

Diplomatic conflict (2020–)

[edit]

In 2020, Trump and Pompeo asserted that the U.S. remained a "participant" in the agreement, despite having formally withdrawn, in an effort to persuade the S.C. to reimpose pre-agreement sanctions on Iran for its breaches of the deal after the U.S. withdrew. The agreement provided for a resolution process among signatories in the event of a breach.[359]

After the Iranian regime's arrest of human rights activist Farhad Meysami, the U.S. State Department supported him in a statement.[360] Meysami then rejected their support over the U.S. withdrawal.[361]

President Biden stated his intention to rejoin the Iran deal.[362] Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, advised against this, saying that stopping Iran's regional aggression and preventing Iran from building nuclear weapons should be the priority.[363]

Re-entry negotiations

[edit]

2021

[edit]

In April, talks between the original parties took place in Vienna. The president put the meetings on hold in June. Enrique Mora, E.U. coordinator for reviving negotiations with Iran, attended President Ebrahim Raisi inauguration in August. Iran sought E.U. assurances that the unilateral U.S. withdrawal would repeat. On 14 October, Iran and the E.U. agreed to further negotiations in Brussels. Iranian deputy foreign minister Ali Bagheri reiterated Mora's statement that "the E.U. was ready to collaborate with Iran and the other parties". U.S.[364]

A joint statement by French, German, U.K., and U.S. leaders on 30 October welcomed "President Biden's clearly demonstrated commitment to return the U.S. to full compliance with the JCPOA and to stay in full compliance, so long as Iran does the same."[365] Talks resumed in Vienna on 29 November, with representatives from Iran, China, France, Germany, Russia, and the U.K. present.[366]

A European diplomat said that in June, 70% to 80% of a draft deal had been agreed upon.[367][368] Bagheri called everything discussed so far merely a “draft” and presented Iran's draft.[369] Western negotiators called Iran's proposals unacceptable. Iranian negotiators insisted that the U.S. first lift all sanctions before Iran would scale back its nuclear program, contradicting the previous understanding of "compliance for compliance."[370] On 9 December, negotiations continued as Russia and China pushed Iran to revise its stance.[371]

2022

[edit]

On 20 February, 250 members of the 290-member Iranian parliament, which had been controlled by hardliners since 2020, issued a statement urging Raisi to comply with their requirements.[372]

The U.S. engaged in indirect talks with Iran in Vienna, mediated by China, Russia and E.U. JCPOA revival became a priority for the Biden administration when the Russian invasion of Ukraine spiked global energy prices. About a million barrels/day of Iranian oil would be added to the international market, which would lower crude oil prices and reduce the threat of nuclear war.[373]

On 5 March, Iran claimed it had reached an agreement with the IAEA to resolve all outstanding question about undeclared materials from three nuclear sites by late June. IAEA chief Rafael Grossi, who visited Iran in early March, was to present those findings to the governing body by July. Russian demands to explicitly protect its economic relations with Iran were a stumbling block for the U.S.[374] Later, Russia received U.S. guarantees to protect its trade with Iran from international sanctions. Meanwhile, Iran confirmed the removal of IRGC from a U.S. terror blacklist to be another demand.

By May, talks to revive the JCPOA had stalled.[375] On 7 May, Mora visited Iran to restart the talks.[376]

Iran demanded that the U.S. delist the IRGC from its terror blacklist in exchange. The Biden administration replied that the original deal did not involve this listing and that the two matters were "separate",[377] and that if Iran wanted sanctions relief beyond the original deal, it would have to make additional commitments.[378] On 24 April, after a phone call with Bennett, Biden decided to keep the IRGC on the blacklist, backed by a bipartisan majority of U.S. Senators.[379] In a contradictory statement, Iran Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian said the listing was not the "main hurdle".[380] In June Tehran said that it was removing 27 U.N. surveillance cameras.[381] Rafael Grossi said the move could be a “fatal blow” to negotiations.[382] On 16 June, the Biden administration announced sanctions against Iran's petrochemical industry.[383] In a 5 July interview, U.S. Special Envoy for Iran Robert Malley said that Iranian negotiators had added demands, such as the IRGC delisting, that were outside the JCPOA scope. Iran insisted the listing was a unilateral U.S. action.[384]

On 6 July, the U.S. announced sanctions targeting the Iranian petrochemical industry, while initiating legal proceedings against entities based in Singapore, Vietnam and the United Arab Emirates. The sanctions were announced after a round of indirect talks between the U.S. and Iran in Qatar. Biden and his team expressed their commitment to reviving the deal through mutual compliance, but the U.S. tightened sanctions against Iran after Trump withdrew from the agreement. While E.U. officials showed continued interest, U.S. officials warned that the negotiating window was closing.[385]

After indirect talks between the U.S. and Iran failed, British sources expressed skepticism that Khamenei wanted to revive a deal. Iran accused French, British and U.S. diplomats of stalling. Iran grew more critical of Grossi. According to Iran's foreign ministry, the accord's finalization was up to the U.S.[386]

In August, Iran demanded closure of a multiyear IAEA probe as a condition for restoring the JCPOA.[387][388] European negotiators presented a "final" text, after another round.[389] The draft did not include Tehran's demand that the U.S. lift the IRGC's terrorism designation, according to a senior U.S. official, who also claimed that Iran had dropped its call for IAEA to end the investigation into traces of uranium at three undeclared sites.[390]

On 2 September, Iran's Foreign Ministry said that it had responded to U.S. proposals, but the U.S. State Department demurred.[391] According to EU's chief negotiator Josep Borrell, the parties had initially issued a series of "reasonable requests", notably that Iran had dropped its demand to delist the IRGC. Iran insisted on more guarantees about unilateral withdrawals from the agreement. Later Borrell said that the process was "in danger".[392]

On 10 September, France, Britain, and Germany released a statement that they had "serious doubts as to Iran's intentions and commitment". Iran's Foreign Ministry dismissed the criticism.[393][394] Hopes faded, while the price of WTI crude increased by 2%. Iran increased its oil exports to China, circumventing economic sanctions.[395] During a 16 September interview before his talk at the United Nations, Ebrahim Raisi said that Iran saw no differences between the Trump and Biden administrations."[396]

At a 12 October Washington news conference, U.S. State Department spokesperson Ned Price said that reviving the JCPOA was "not our focus".[397]

On 17 October, former U.S. diplomat Richard N. Haass wrote on Twitter, "Iran's support for Russia & crackdown on protests has ended any chance the U.S. will rejoin the JCPOA anytime soon".[398]

On 31 October, Malley said that the U.S. supported restoring the JCPOA, but that talks were not the focus at the time.[399] In November, Italy's Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani stated that Europe should "do its utmost" to revive the nuclear deal.[400][401]

On 15 December, IAEA announced that it would send a delegation to Tehran on 18 December to clarify outstanding issues with regard to nuclear material discovered at three sites. The Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) cited Mohammad Eslami, head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, as saying that this interaction would hopefully remove obstacles and ambiguities. Earlier Iran reported it had enriched uranium to its highest level of 60%, one step away from weapons grade. IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi confirmed the invitation by Tehran, where a technical team would address outstanding safeguard issues. Despite political unrest in Iran after the death of a young Kurdish woman in police custody in September and additional sanctions on Iranian entities, "the definitive death of the JCPOA is not a foregone conclusion", according to Near East Policy experts, assuming Tehran abandoned its position on IAEA probes. Iran also participates in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which implements safeguards for fissionable materials in all peaceful nuclear activities.[402]

On 20 December, a meeting was held in Amman, Jordan, to further discuss details of a possible deal. Josep Borrell noted the bloc did "not have a better option than the JCPOA to ensure that Iran does not develop nuclear weapons". According to the Iranian foreign ministry, Hossein Amirabdollahian said the talks are "based on a draft that is a result of months of difficult and intensive negotiations".[403]

In a 29 December interview with Russian media, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that the JCPOA had "no reasonable alternative" and that the transition to Plan B would lead to "escalation, an arms race, open conflict with irreversible consequences." Politico reported that Grossi would again visit Iran in January for further discussions on Iran's nuclear program and cooperation with the agency, according to two European diplomats. Earlier, Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian commented during a meeting with Oman's Sultan Haitham bin Tariq in Muscat that Iran was still open to negotiations to revive a nuclear deal.[404][405][406]

2023

[edit]

In early February, Director General of the IAEA Rafael Grossi warned against "a defeatist approach to the signatories' sluggish efforts to revive the JCPOA". He asserted his strictly non-political role and stressed that an alternative to the 2015 nuclear deal might be another way forward. Grossi was criticised for giving the international community a false sense of security by saying Iran does not have nuclear weapons. The IAEA report on the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, a sensitive Iranian uranium enrichment site, found that two cascades of IR-6 centrifuges were configured in a way "substantially different" from what Iran had previously declared. Iran had claimed the difference was due to a human error. On 31 January, the U.S. State Department authorized a waiver to the sanctions, which allows Russia to develop the profitable enrichment site, a move that some criticised because it allows Iran to develop its nuclear program with Russian-state controlled firms. Earlier Grossi had denied suggestions that Russia's growing alliance with Iran could somehow block the IAEA's work to monitor Iran's nuclear programme. A visit by the IAEA chief to Tehran is scheduled for February to continue the negotiations.[407]

On 4 March, IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi met with Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi and other top officials in Tehran. Earlier the IAEA detected uranium particles enriched up to 83.7% at the underground Fordo site. In the meantime, Iran had given assurances that it would reinstall monitoring equipment at a number of sensitive locations, a move viewed as a vast improvement after years of stonewalling on the issue. A recent IAEA report said, "Iran expressed its readiness to... provide further information and access to address the outstanding safeguards issues". Grossi later said he "looks forward to... prompt and full implementation of the Joint Statement". The IAEA censured Iran twice in 2022 for failing to cooperate.[408]

In early April, the IAEA confirmed that Iran would allow a 50% increase in inspections at the Fordow facility. In the meantime, reports had surfaced that the U.S. would be ready for a nuclear deal, with a limited reduction of economic sanctions in return for a partial freeze on further nuclear activities by Iran. The U.S. and its allies had favored such an approach since January. Iran had rejected such a partial deal initially, and Iran's foreign minister had pointed out that some members of the Iranian parliament would seek a timeline to freeze all further negotiations. An interim deal was in focus again on 3 April, according to the Jerusalem Post, but actual talks on the deal remained stalled, according to the source.[409][410]

At a meeting with Iran's Foreign Ministry on 20 May, Khamenei said that entering the JCPOA was taqiyah.[411][412] Later, he said he had no objection to a newly negotiated deal as long as Iran could keep its nuclear infrastructure.[413]

In early June, European powers resumed internal talks about Iran's nuclear capabilities. Preliminary negotiations with France, Germany, the U.K., and Ali Bagheri Kani were again taking place in Oslo. A U.S. State Department official also acknowledged that direct connections had been concurrent, a first since President Trump abandoned the plan in 2018.[414] An Israeli newspaper confirmed that the U.S. and Iran are working on an agreement to stop Iran from making highly enriched uranium. Iran and Western powers had been approaching each other by releasing prisoners accused of espionage and terrorism. Hardliners on both sides criticized any interim agreement.[415]

On 18 June, further indirect talks between Iran and the U.S. were advancing in Oman, after the U.S. allowed the release of blocked Iraqi payments to Iran.[416] According to Al Jazeera, details of the talks were not made public, even though Iranian foreign minister spokesperson Nasser Kanani acknowledged the negotiations, saying "Muscat negotiations were not secret". The U.S. also concluded that if an agreement was negotiated, more American citizens held in Iran could be released and additional assets unfrozen. But Middle East experts remained skeptical about a partial deal. An interim agreement would not require the U.S. Congress's approval, but many representatives oppose such a deal. On 4 July, Iran-Iraq Joint Chamber of Commerce chairman Yahya Ale Eshaq confirmed the release of assets in Iraq worth $10 billion, used for non-sanctioned goods. This will give Iran the freedom to double its trade volume with Iraq to $20 billion in the coming years, boosting its regional standing.[417] As a consequence, the IAEA will impose no more punitive measures on Iran, as European allies see no advantage in it, according to the same source. Israel said earlier that it opposes "mini-agreements" with Iran, and the original agreement as well.[418]

In late August, after months of secretive negotiations first in Oman and then with Qatari officials in New York for a possible release of American prisoners, agreements between the U.S. and Iran led to a gradual easing of sanctions on Iranian oil sales, particularly for eastern markets such as China. Despite the unlikelihood of a newly negotiated JCPOA, data showed that the sale of Iranian oil had reached a maximum since the Trump administration withdrew from the nuclear deal five years earlier, resulting in a significant price drop of crude, to below $85 a barrel. Some analysts suspected this development was intentional, to keep the rising prices of U.S. gasoline in check for the 2024 election year. The U.S. State Department insisted on continued enforcement of sanctions, but at the same time, some reports indicated that Iran was slowing its uranium enrichment. Concurrently a possible release of $6 billion worth of frozen Iranian oil assets stuck in South Korea was made public. According to the International Energy Agency, Iranian oil production reached 3 million barrels a day in July, with a further increase to at least 3.4 million barrels in August, levels matching those before the deal was canceled in May 2018.[419]

In the first week of September, the U.S. State Department officially released the $6 billion of frozen assets in South Korea to Qatar and signed the deal to finalize the prisoner exchange of five U.S. prisoners in Iran for five Iranian detainees in U.S. prisons. The funds will be paid to Qatar through a Swiss-based intermediary and can be used by Iran only for non-sanctioned goods. The White House acknowledged the difficult agreement but stressed the importance of an immediate release of the detainees.[420]

In late August, the IAEA confirmed that Iran has slowed down its program to enrich uranium to 60%. This move has been interpreted as increasing the chance that some sanctions could be lifted. Iran has always said that its uranium stockpile is intended for peaceful purposes. With the expected exchange of prisoners between the U.S and Iran and the release of frozen funds, recent direct communications indicate an improved diplomatic climate between Iran and Western nations that would increase the chance that an agreement could be negotiated. But with significant opposition from both political parties in the U.S., the Biden administration appears to seek an informal agreement to avoid backlash from the deal's opponents. Concurrently, the sale of Iranian crude is peaking to levels that have not been seen since sanctions were reintroduced in 2018. Recent trade data shows that some economic sanctions on the Iranian petroleum industry have been lifted.[421]

The IAEA report in early September indeed confirmed a slowdown in Iran's uranium enrichment, but it also ascertained that "no progress" has been made with regard to Iran's reporting and that there is still no access to the camera equipment at the enrichment site. IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi expressed his disappointment about that issue.[422][423]

In mid-September, the relationship between the IAEA and Iran further deteriorated when Iran announced its rejection of the IAEA's most experienced nuclear inspectors. While this is formally permitted by Iran's safeguards agreement, Grossi condemned it as "disproportionate and unprecedented". Iran said its action was made in response to Western countries' "misuse" of the IAEA Board of Governors "for their own political purposes". Grossi called Iran's decision "another step in the wrong direction" and said it "constitutes an unnecessary blow to an already strained relationship between the IAEA and Iran."[424]

On 18 September, Iran's president Ebrahim Raisi spoke at the 77th session of the U.N. General Assembly (UNGA) and said that Iran would never give up its right "to have peaceful nuclear energy". He also said the American withdrawal from the deal trampled on U.S. commitments and was "an inappropriate response" to Iran’s dedication to fulfill the conditions of the JCPOA. He urged Western powers to return to the nuclear deal. The presentation was controversial, and Israel left the assembly hall in protest. On the sidelines of the meeting, Raisi and Grossi expressed their commitment to restore communications and planned an official visit by Grossi in Tehran in the following weeks.[425][426]

In October, Qatar and the U.S. put Iran's access to these funds on hold due to the Israel–Hamas war, although Iran denied any involvement in Hamas's attacks.[427] According to a news statement, the funds are not frozen and remain untouched in a Qatari financial institution based on a quiet agreement between Qatar and the U.S. Iran's permanent U.N. mission in New York said in a statement, "the money rightfully belongs to the people of Iran, earmarked for the government to facilitate the acquisition of all essential and sanctioned requisites for Iranians." The funds are under close supervision by the U.S. Treasury and are intended for goods that support humanitarian efforts in Iran.[428] In November, a bill passed the U.S House of Representatives in an attempt to permanently block the funds that were paid to free five Americans detained in Iran, but the measure is unlikely to pass the U.S. Senate. The funds were blocked in reaction to brutal attacks by Hamas fighters against mostly Israeli civilians on 7 October although Secretary of State Antony Blinken later acknowledged that "we have not yet seen evidence that Iran directed or was behind this particular attack".[429]

2024

[edit]

As of September 2024, Iranian President, Masoud Pezeshkian, and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi appear to be open to negotiations with all JCPOA parties despite deteriorating relations between Israel, Western nations, and Iran due to conflict with Hamas and other Iranian proxies. After additional sanctions were imposed on the Iranian aviation sector due its involvement with exports of missile components to Russia, Iran expressed concern and denied it delivered such missile parts to the region. An E.U. spokesperson confirmed that E.U. foreign policy chief Josep Borrell is actively engaged in reviving nuclear negotiations with Iran in an attempt to keep diplomatic channels open. The latest IAEA report confirms the expansion of the Iranian uranium enrichment program. The Fordow facility now routinely enriches uranium to 60% purity. The IAEA report also says that Iran informed the agency that eight clusters of advanced IR-6 centrifuges have been installed at the site but not brought online. The larger site at Natanz saw the addition of 15 cascades, with an enrichment purity of 5%. IAEA head Rafael Grossi expressed hope for a meeting with Pezeshkian in the "not too distant" future. Recent IAEA board resolutions require Iran to cooperate with the investigations into uranium traces and call for a reversal of the decision to bar official inspectors from nuclear sites.[430][431]

On the sidelines of the 68th General Conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna, Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) spokesman Behrouz Kamalvandi said on 18 September that his country regularly undergoes inspections by the IAEA and its nuclear program is "transparent". Kamalvandi also met with representatives of Russia's Joint Institute for Nuclear Research to exchange technical details and assure continued cooperation. On 17 October the Iranian news agency ISNA reiterated Kamalvaldi's position, saying, "Tehran is ready to restore the JCPOA, but its realisation requires serious negotiations."[432][433]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ The P5+1 are also sometimes referred to as the "E3+3", for the "EU three" countries (France, the UK, and Germany) plus the three non-EU countries (the U.S., Russia, and China). The terms are interchangeable; this article uses the "P5+1" phrase.[6][7]
  2. ^ The meaning of Article IV of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, and its application to Iran, is a matter of dispute.[38][39] Gary Samore writes, "Whether the NPT guarantees signatories a right to enrichment is a long-standing dispute among the parties to the treaty."[40] Iran and other countries (such as Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Japan, and South Africa) assert that signatories to the NPT have a right to enrich uranium under Article IV of the NPT.[41][42] Professor William O. Beeman of the University of Minnesota, as well as Henry D. Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, agree with this interpretation of the NPT.[41] The U.S. position was unclear before 2006, but after that time the U.S. has taken the position that Iran does not have the right to uranium enrichment because this activity is not specifically cited in the NPT.[39][41] In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in October 2013, Sherman stated, "the U.S. position that that article IV of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty does not speak about the right of enrichment at all [and] doesn't speak to enrichment, period. It simply says that you have the right to research and development. And many countries such as Japan and Germany have taken that [uranium enrichment] to be a right. But the United States does not take that position. ... We do not believe there is an inherent right by anyone to enrichment."[41] The U.S. officials has also made the additional argument that whatever Iran's rights under the NPT might be, they were superseded by a series of UN Security Council resolutions demanding "that Iran suspend enrichment and reprocessing activities until 'confidence is restored in the purely peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program.'"[39][40][41] U.S. Secretary of State Kerry has said: "We do not recognize a right to enrich. It is clear ... in the nonproliferation treaty, it's very, very (clear) that there is no right to enrich. [The Iranians] have the ability to negotiate it, but they could only gain that capacity to have some enrichment as some countries do, if they live up to the whole set of terms necessary to prove its (sic) a peaceful program."[38] In March 2011 testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, then-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed a similar position, indicating that Iran should be permitted to enrich uranium under IAEA supervision once the international concerns over its nuclear program are resolved.[42]
  3. ^ The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, Pub.L. 114–17, was an amendment to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.[56]
  4. ^ At the same time that the JCPOA was agreed to, Iran and the IAEA signed a separate document, the Roadmap for Clarification of Past and Present Outstanding Issues.[88] The roadmap includes "the provision by Iran of explanations regarding outstanding issues" and provides "for technical expert meetings, technical measures and discussions, as well as a separate arrangement regarding the issue of Parchin", an Iranian military research and development site.[88] "The specific measures that Iran is committed to take with respect to technical expert meetings and discussions and access to Parchin are contained in two separate documents between Iran and the IAEA that are not public."[88] On 19 August 2015, the Associated Press reported that an anonymous official had given the AP an unsigned, preliminary draft of one of the confidential bilateral IAEA-Iran agreements. This draft indicated that Iran would be allowed to use its own inspectors to investigate the Parchin site.[89] (The AP reported that two anonymous officials had told it that the draft does not differ from the final, confidential agreement between the IAEA and Iran).[90] The AP said that the draft "diverges from normal procedures".[89] Several hours after posting the article, the AP removed several details of the story (without issuing a formal retraction), and published another article that noted, "IAEA staff will monitor Iranian personnel as they inspect the Parchin nuclear site."[91] The AP restored the contentious details the next morning and said it was standing by its entire story. It further published the full document it had transcribed.[92] The following day, IAEA Director-General Yukiya Amano issued a statement stating: "I am disturbed by statements suggesting that the IAEA has given responsibility for nuclear inspections to Iran. Such statements misrepresent the way in which we will undertake this important verification work ... the arrangements are technically sound and consistent with our long-established practices. They do not compromise our safeguards standards in any way. The Road-map between Iran and the IAEA is a very robust agreement, with strict timelines, which will help us to clarify past and present outstanding issues regarding Iran's nuclear programme."[93] The IAEA did not elaborate on the provisions of the confidential agreement, but the Arms Control Association has noted, "under managed access procedures that may be employed the IAEA, the inspected party may take environmental swipe samples at a particular site in the presence of the IAEA inspectors using swabs and containment bags provided by the IAEA to prevent cross contamination. According to former IAEA officials, this is an established procedure. Such swipe samples collected at suspect sites under managed access would likely be divided into six packages: three are taken by the IAEA for analysis at its Seibersdorf Analytical Lab and two to be sent to the IAEA's Network of Analytical Labs (NWAL), which comprises some 16 labs in different countries, and another package to be kept under joint IAEA and Iran seal at the IAEA office in Iran a backup and control sample if re-analysis might be required at a later stage. The process ensures the integrity of the inspection operation and the samples for all parties."[94] Mark Hibbs of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Thomas Shea, a former IAEA safeguards official and head of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory described a similar protocol in an article titled "No, Iran is not allowed to inspect itself."[95] Hibbs and Shea wrote that the claims that Iran would be in charge of inspections at Parchin were "wholly specious" and "unfounded".[95] Arms control expert Jeffrey Lewis of the Monterey Institute of International Studies stated that the procedures referred to in the AP report were consistent with expert practice: "There are precedents for just providing photos and videos. When the South Africans disabled their nuclear test shaft, they video-recorded it and sent the IAEA their video. I don't care who takes a swipe sample or who takes a photograph, so long as I know where and when it was taken, with very high confidence, and I know that it hasn't been tampered with."[91] Lewis expressed the opinion that "the point of the leak was to make the IAEA agreement on Parchin sound as bad as possible, and to generate political attention in Washington."[91] On 21 September 2015, both the Associated Press and Reuters noted that under the arrangement between Iran and the IAEA, Iranian technicians, instead of the IAEA's experts, would take environmental samples. Reuters also reported that a spokesman for Iran's atomic energy agency said Iranian nuclear experts have "taken environmental samples from Parchin without U.N. inspectors present".[96][97]
  5. ^ Ali Vaez, the senior analyst on Iran at the International Crisis Group, notes that breakout time is not precisely measurable and is "estimated rather than calculated", depending on various assumptions and factors. Vaez notes, "Breakout estimates ... usually assume that an Iranian dash for the bomb would face none of the technical challenges that have plagued the program over the past decade."[107]
  6. ^ The extent to which the JCPOA is legally binding on the United States—i.e., whether a future president could lawfully repudiate the JCPOA once it goes into effect—is a matter of dispute. Legal scholars Bruce Ackerman of Yale Law School and David Golove of the New York University School of Law argue that the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 had the effect of making the agreement (once implemented) into a congressional-executive agreement.[160] Golove states that the president cannot "ignore commitments [made by him or by a past president] in congressional-executive agreements without congressional authority to do so", and believes that the agreement is binding under international law, irrespective of any White House declaration, because it contains no provision saying otherwise.[160][161] Ackerman agrees, arguing, "Presidents do not have the power to repudiate congressional-executive agreements without strictly following the procedures laid out by Congress in its original authorizing legislation."[160] Others, such as Michael Ramsey of the University of San Diego School of Law, argue that unless Congress expressly approves of the agreement via a resolution of approval (which is unlikely), the agreement is nonbinding under domestic law, so that "this president can implement to the extent of his statutory and constitutional authority [and] future presidents can refuse to follow."[160] Ramsey points out, however, that even if the agreement is a nonbinding executive agreement under domestic law, it may still be binding under international law, since domestic invalidity is not a defense to failure to follow an international agreement.[160]
    The position of the U.S. government is different. Secretary of State Kerry stated in a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, "with respect to the talks, we've been clear from the beginning. We're not negotiating a, quote, 'legally binding plan.' We're negotiating a plan that will have in it a capacity for enforcement."[162] (Kerry also said that a future president is, as a practical matter, unlikely to "turn around and just nullify it" given the international agreement from the other P5+1 powers.[163]) Several legal scholars support this argument. John B. Bellinger III argues: "The next president will have the legal right under both domestic and international law to scrap the JCPOA and reimpose U.S. nuclear sanctions on Iran."[164] Bellinger states that "such an action would be inconsistent with political commitments made by the Obama administration and would likely cause a major rift with U.S. allies and Iran to resume its nuclear activities," but that "would not constitute a violation of international law, because the JCPOA is not legally binding".[164] Orde Kittrie of Arizona State University similarly writes that the JCPOA is a kind of "nonbinding, unsigned political" agreement considered "more flexible than treaties or other legally binding international agreements".[165]
  7. ^ The "vast majority of international agreements" negotiated by the United States, especially in recent decades, have been executive agreements, rather than treaties.[168][169] In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court held in American Insurance Association v. Garamendi, "our cases have recognized that the President has authority to make 'executive agreements' with other countries, requiring no ratification by the Senate or approval by Congress, this power having been exercised since the early years of the Republic."[170][171] Various opponents of the JCPOA, including David B. Rivkin Jr., Lee A. Casey, and Michael Ramsey have criticized the form of the agreement, arguing that it should be considered a treaty rather than an executive agreement.[172][173] Other commentators disagree; the constitutionality of the executive agreement form of the JCPOA has been defended by Jack Goldsmith, who called arguments for the illegality of the agreement "weak",[174] and by John Yoo, who wrote that the executive agreement form of the JCPOA is consistent with the Treaty Clause of the Constitution.[175]
  8. ^ "Much of the criticism of the deal" from opponents in the U.S. Congress and from the Israeli government "derives from the fact that slowing and shrinking Iran's nuclear program this way falls well short of the original diplomatic goal, which was to end entirely Iran's ability to enrich uranium—the 'zero enrichment' goal".[262] Before the JCPOA, there was "a preference on the part of the United States and many of its allies for zero enrichment in Iran (indeed, opposition to the spread of any uranium enrichment capability to any additional countries has been long-standing U.S. policy and an important nonproliferation principle)", although "the potential to discuss with Iran the conditions under which it could continue enrichment is not new" and was "built into the proposals that the P5+1 have offered Iran since 2006, spanning the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations".[263]
    Some commentators, such as Michael Singh of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (writing in 2013), argued for a "zero enrichment" approach: i.e., that no agreement contemplating any enrichment by Iran should be made.[264] This was also the position of Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey, who introduced the Nuclear Weapons Free Iran Act, a proposed bill (not enacted) which would require that Iran reduce its uranium enrichment to zero before an agreement is made.[265]
    Other commentators have said that "zero enrichment" has long been an implausible goal, including R. Nicholas Burns of Harvard's Belfer Center, the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs and leading figure on Iranian nuclear matters during the second Bush administration, said that this was implausible given that Iran has 19,000 centrifuges, stating: "If I could get an ideal solution, or you could, where the Iranians submitted to every demand we had, I would take that. In a real world, you have to make real-world decisions."[262] Similarly, Michael A. Levi of the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations argued in the August–September 2011 edition of the journal Survival, "it is far from clear that zero enrichment is a realistic goal" and stated, "the goal of current U.S. policy, even if it is not typically articulated this way", is "limited enrichment, in which Iran has some non-trivial enrichment capability, but is unable to produce a bomb (or small arsenal) without risking strong international retaliation, including military destruction of its enrichment infrastructure".[266] Similar arguments have been advanced by Mark Jansson, adjunct fellow at the Federation of American Scientists (who wrote in October 2013 in The National Interest, "there is nothing clear-eyed or realistic about the demand for zero enrichment" and "nor is it technically necessary" to prevent proliferation)[267] and George Perkovich, director of the Nonproliferation Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (who argued in January 2014 in Foreign Affairs, "the complete elimination of Iran's nuclear fuel cycle program" is not "an achievable goal" and what is needed is "not the cessation of Iran's nuclear enrichment but its capacity to create a nuclear weapon quickly").[268]
  9. ^ Scholars differ on whether a "better deal" from the American point of view is realistic. Stephen M. Walt of Harvard, writing an article titled "The Myth of the Better Deal" in Foreign Policy magazine, argued that the idea of an achievable better deal is "magical thinking" that is at odds with the facts and "ignores Diplomacy 101".[273] Albert Carnesale of Harvard's Belfer Center wrote, "there is no real alternative that would serve the interests of the United States and our allies and friends as well as the deal that is now before Congress. A 'better deal' is unachievable; a military solution is unrealistic (and probably would be counterproductive); and an international agreement without U.S. participation is less attractive than an agreement in which the United States has a strong voice in resolving of issues that might arise."[274] Conversely, Robert Satloff of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy argues, "a better deal with Iran is possible," and that congressional rejection of the agreement would not immediately result in the collapse of the JCPOA or military action,[275] and law professor Orde Kittrie of Arizona State University argued that Congress could send the JCPOA back for renegotiation.[165]
  10. ^ A similar resolution of disapproval was introduced on 16 July by Representative Peter Roskam, Republican of Illinois, who announced on 3 August that he had obtained 218 cosponsors (a majority of the House).[281][290][291] But Roskam's resolution "is not the formal disapproval measure that the House is expected to take up in September";[281] and it was expected that it is the resolution by Royce, as the relevant committee chair, will be the one ultimately voted upon.[290] Ultimately, neither resolution was voted upon.[292]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ "EU officially announces October 18 adoption day of JCPOA". Islamic Republic News Agency. 18 October 2015. Archived from the original on 9 April 2019. Retrieved 20 October 2015.
  2. ^ "UN chief welcomes implementation day under JCPOA". Islamic Republic News Agency. 17 January 2016. Archived from the original on 9 April 2019. Retrieved 18 January 2016.
  3. ^ Holpuch, Amanda (8 May 2018). "Donald Trump says US will no longer abide by Iran deal – as it happened". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 10 May 2019. Retrieved 8 May 2018.
  4. ^ pronounced [bæɾˈdʒɒːm]
  5. ^ "Zarif: We've never claimed nuclear deal only favors Iran". Tehran Times. 22 July 2015. Archived from the original on 14 June 2016. Retrieved 17 September 2015.
  6. ^ Joshua Keating, "You say P5+1, I say E3+3" Archived 8 November 2017 at the Wayback Machine, Foreign Policy (30 September 2009).
  7. ^ Jeffrey Lewis, "E3/EU+3 or P5+1" Archived 11 August 2015 at the Wayback Machine, Arms Control Wonk (13 July 2015).
  8. ^ Daniel, Joyner (2016). Iran's nuclear program and international law : from confrontation to accord (First ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780190635718. OCLC 945169931.
  9. ^ a b Karen DeYoung & Carol Morello, "The path to a final Iran nuclear deal: Long days and short tempers" Archived 17 July 2015 at the Wayback Machine, The Washington Post (15 July 2015).
  10. ^ a b Sharon, Itamar; Beck, Jonathan; Lewis, Avi (14 July 2015). "Netanyahu: Israel 'not bound' by Iran deal, will defend itself". The Times of Israel. Archived from the original on 14 July 2015. Retrieved 14 July 2015.
  11. ^ a b "Poll: Israelis overwhelmingly certain Iran still wants nukes". The Times of Israel. 16 July 2015. Archived from the original on 25 December 2018. Retrieved 25 December 2018.
  12. ^ a b "Trump tightens the screws on Iran's oil". Brookings. Archived from the original on 11 May 2024. Retrieved 15 April 2024.
  13. ^ Bucher, Chris (13 October 2017). "LIVE STREAM: President Trump Announces Iran Nuclear Deal Strategy". Heavy.com. Archived from the original on 13 June 2018. Retrieved 6 January 2018.
  14. ^ Amano, Yukia (5 March 2018). "IAEA director general: Introductory remarks at press conference" Archived 9 May 2018 at the Wayback Machine, International Atomic Energy Agency
  15. ^ "Trump Hints He Plans to Quit the Iran Nuclear Deal". Bloomberg.com. 30 April 2018. Archived from the original on 15 May 2018. Retrieved 30 April 2018.
  16. ^ Tibon, Amir; Landau, Noa (30 April 2018). "Trump: Netanyahu's Speech on Iran Deal Proves That I Was 100% Right on Iran Deal". Haaretz. Archived from the original on 1 May 2018. Retrieved 30 April 2018.
  17. ^ Multiple sources:
  18. ^ Landler, Mark (8 May 2018). "Trump Announces U.S. Will Withdraw From Iran Nuclear Deal". MSN. Archived from the original on 9 May 2018. Retrieved 8 May 2018.
  19. ^ Landler, Mark (8 May 2018). "Trump Withdraws U.S. From 'One-Sided' Iran Nuclear Deal". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 14 June 2019. Retrieved 8 May 2018.
  20. ^ "Updated Blocking Statute in support of Iran nuclear deal enters into force". Europa.eu. European Commission Press Release Database. 6 August 2018. Archived from the original on 7 August 2018. Retrieved 7 August 2018.
  21. ^ "US targets arms program with strongest sanctions since scrapping Iran deal". ABC News. 3 November 2018. Archived from the original on 14 December 2018. Retrieved 18 December 2018.
  22. ^ a b Murphy, Francois (31 May 2019). "Iran Stays Within Nuclear Deal's Main Limits While Testing Another". Reuters. Retrieved 1 June 2019.
  23. ^ "Iran says it has breached stockpile limit under nuclear deal". AP News. 1 July 2019. Archived from the original on 1 July 2019. Retrieved 1 July 2019.
  24. ^ "Iran's stock of enriched uranium exceeds nuclear deal's limit, IAEA says". Reuters. 1 July 2019. Archived from the original on 20 May 2020. Retrieved 1 July 2019.
  25. ^ "Iran rolls back nuclear deal commitments". BBC. 5 January 2020. Archived from the original on 5 January 2020.
  26. ^ Wintour, Patrick (3 December 2020). "Iran says it will comply with nuclear deal if Biden lifts all sanctions". The Guardian. Retrieved 15 December 2020.
  27. ^ Wintour, Patrick (14 December 2020). "Iran says it would rejoin nuclear deal within an hour of US doing so". The Guardian. Retrieved 15 December 2020.
  28. ^ Holdren, John; Bunn, Matthew (1997). "Managing Military Uranium and Plutonium in the United States and the Former Soviet Union". Annual Review of Energy and the Environment. 22: 403–496. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.22.1.403.
  29. ^ Barnaby, Frank (5 March 2014). Barnaby; Holdstock, Douglas (eds.). Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Retrospect and Prospect. Routledge. p. 25. ISBN 9781135209933.
  30. ^ a b Bunn, Matthew; Holdren, John P. "Managing military uranium and plutonium in the United States and the Former Soviet Union" (PDF). pp. 403–409. Archived from the original (PDF) on 30 March 2014. Retrieved 23 August 2015.
  31. ^ Union of Concerned Scientists. "Weapon Materials Basics (2009)". Archived from the original on 7 September 2015. Retrieved 23 August 2015.
  32. ^ a b Schneider, Jonas; Thränert, Oliver (April 2014). "Dual Use: Dealing with Uranium Enrichment" (PDF). CSS Analyses in Security Policy. Archived (PDF) from the original on 23 September 2015. Retrieved 24 August 2015.
  33. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q "Country Profiles: Iran: Nuclear" Archived 7 August 2014 at the Wayback Machine, Nuclear Threat Initiative (last updated July 2015).
  34. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t Lyons, Kate (14 July 2015). "Iran nuclear talks: timeline". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Archived from the original on 21 January 2021. Retrieved 3 November 2024.
  35. ^ Hadley, Stephen. "Iran Primer: The George W. Bush Administration". Archived from the original on 18 October 2017. Retrieved 2 September 2017.
  36. ^ "S/RES/1696(2006) – E – S/RES/1696(2006)". undocs.org. Archived from the original on 3 July 2019. Retrieved 26 January 2020.
  37. ^ a b c d Paul K. Kerry, "Iran's Nuclear Program: Tehran's Compliance with International Obligations" Archived 5 September 2015 at the Wayback Machine, Congressional Research Service (25 June 2015).
  38. ^ a b Daniel Politi, "Does Iran Deal Include Right to Enrich Uranium? Depends on Whom You Ask" Archived 11 July 2015 at the Wayback Machine, Slate (24 November 2013).
  39. ^ a b c Fredrik Dahl, "Q&A: Is there a 'right' to enrich uranium? Iran says yes, U.S. no", Reuters (23 November 2013).
  40. ^ a b Gary Samore, "Nuclear Rights and Wrongs: Why One Legal Term Stalled Negotiations With Iran", Foreign Affairs (14 November 2013).
  41. ^ a b c d e William O. Beeman, "Does Iran Have the Right to Enrich Uranium? The Answer Is Yes" Archived 12 July 2015 at the Wayback Machine, The Huffington Post (31 December 2013).
  42. ^ a b Kelsey Davenport, "Myths and Misconceptions: The Right to Enrich" Archived 14 October 2014 at the Wayback Machine, Arms Control Association (18 September 2014).
  43. ^ a b c Daniel Dombey, Transcript of the Director General's Interview on Iran and DPRK, Financial Times (19 February 2007).
  44. ^ a b Kenneth Katzman & Paul K. Kerr, "Report: Iran Nuclear Agreement", Congressional Research Service (30 July 2015).
  45. ^ "A Growing Concern that Iran is Refusing to Live Up to Those International Responsibilities". whitehouse.gov. 25 September 2009. Archived from the original on 20 April 2019. Retrieved 9 July 2019 – via National Archives.
  46. ^ Laura Rozen, "Three days in March: New details on how US, Iran opened direct talks" Archived 12 January 2014 at the Wayback Machine, Al-Monitor (8 January 2014).
  47. ^ "Optimism as Iran nuclear deal framework announced; more work ahead". CNN. 3 April 2015. Archived from the original on 1 May 2017. Retrieved 3 April 2015.
  48. ^ Sciolino, Elaine (14 March 2006). "Showdown at U.N.? Iran Seems Calm". The New York Times.
  49. ^ a b c d "Timeline of Nuclear Diplomacy With Iran" Archived 19 February 2020 at the Wayback Machine, Arms Control Association (July 2015).
  50. ^ Obama Administration Reportedly Shielded Hezbollah From DEA and CIA to Save Iran Nuclear Deal Archived 21 May 2020 at the Wayback Machine, Haaretz, 18 December 2017
  51. ^ "The secret backstory of how Obama let Hezbollah off the hook". POLITICO. 18 December 2017. Archived from the original on 17 December 2017. Retrieved 3 November 2024.
  52. ^ "Sessions wants review of Obama-era Hezbollah investigations". The Washington Post. Associated Press. 22 December 2017. Archived from the original on 23 December 2017. Retrieved 6 January 2018.
  53. ^ Gearan, Anne; Warrick, Joby (23 November 2013). "World powers reach nuclear deal with Iran to freeze its nuclear program". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 7 January 2018. Retrieved 3 April 2015.
  54. ^ a b Dahl, Frederick; Pawlak, Justyna (3 April 2015). "West, Iran activate landmark nuclear deal". Reuters. Archived from the original on 21 January 2014. Retrieved 21 January 2014.
  55. ^ a b c d e f "Iran's key nuclear sites" Archived 4 May 2023 at the Wayback Machine, BBC News (14 July 2015).
  56. ^ "Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015" Archived 27 July 2015 at the Wayback Machine, Pub.L. 114–17.
  57. ^ "Iran Nuclear Review Act Becomes Law" Archived 26 January 2021 at the Wayback Machine, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP (29 May 2015).
  58. ^ a b c Jonathan Weisman & Julie Hirschfeld Davis, "Republican Lawmakers Vow Fight to Derail Nuclear Deal" Archived 19 May 2017 at the Wayback Machine, The New York Times (14 July 2005).
  59. ^ Kevin Liptak, "Now that he has a deal with Iran, Obama must face Congress" Archived 16 July 2015 at the Wayback Machine, CNN (14 July 2015).
  60. ^ a b Susan Page, "Cardin: If Iran deal survives, more U.S. aid likely to Israel, Gulf states", USA Today (21 July 2015).
  61. ^ Mullen, Jethro; Robertson, Nic (14 July 2015). "Landmark deal reached on Iran nuclear program". CNN. Archived from the original on 14 July 2015. Retrieved 14 July 2015.
  62. ^ a b c d e f g h i Michael R. Gordon & David E. Sanger, "Deal Reached on Iran Nuclear Program; Limits on Fuel Would Lessen With Time" Archived 20 January 2017 at the Wayback Machine, The New York Times (14 July 2015).
  63. ^ Charbonneau, Louis; Hafezi, Parisa (18 July 2014). "Iran, powers extend talks after missing nuclear deal deadline". Reuters. Archived from the original on 19 July 2014. Retrieved 19 July 2014.
  64. ^ Lee, Matthew; Jahn, George (24 November 2014). "Iran nuclear talks to be extended until July". Associated Press. Archived from the original on 29 November 2014. Retrieved 24 November 2014.
  65. ^ Jethro Mullen; Nic Robertson (14 July 2015). "Landmark deal reached on Iran nuclear program". CNN. Archived from the original on 14 July 2015. Retrieved 14 July 2015.
  66. ^ a b c d e William J. Broad, "Iran Accord's Complexity Shows Impact of Bipartisan Letter" Archived 13 December 2021 at the Wayback Machine, The New York Times (14 July 2015).
  67. ^ "Public Statement on U.S. Policy Toward the Iran Nuclear Negotiations Endorsed by a Bipartisan Group of American Diplomats, Legislators, Policymakers, and Experts" Archived 12 December 2020 at the Wayback Machine, Washington Institute for Near East Policy (24 June 2015).
  68. ^ Perkovich, George; Hibbs, Mark; Acton, James M.; Dalton, Toby (8 August 2015). "Parsing the Iran Deal". Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Archived from the original on 7 September 2015. Retrieved 23 August 2015.
  69. ^ Frifield, Julia (19 November 2015). "Nuclear deal with Iran" (PDF). Letter to Mike Pompeo. United States Department of State – via humanrightsvoices.org.
  70. ^ "تير مچگيري كوچك زاده از ظريف به سنگ خورد" (in Persian). Etemaad. 3 September 2015. p. 3. Archived from the original on 18 October 2017. Retrieved 18 January 2016.
  71. ^ "Iran nuclear deal: world powers reach historic agreement to lift sanctions". The Guardian. 14 July 2015. Archived from the original on 11 November 2020. Retrieved 14 July 2015.
  72. ^ "The Iran Nuclear Deal: What You Need To Know About The JCPOA" (PDF). whitehouse.gov. 14 July 2015. Archived (PDF) from the original on 20 January 2017. Retrieved 24 July 2016 – via National Archives.
  73. ^ "Making the world a bit safer". The Economist. 18 July 2015. ISSN 0013-0613. Archived from the original on 15 April 2018. Retrieved 3 November 2024.
  74. ^ a b c d e "The Iran Nuclear Deal: A Definitive Guide" (PDF). p. 6. Archived (PDF) from the original on 29 March 2016. Retrieved 15 August 2015.
  75. ^ Sanger, David E.; Kramer, Andrew E. (28 December 2015). "Iran Hands Over Stockpile of Enriched Uranium to Russia". NY Times. Archived from the original on 20 July 2019. Retrieved 20 July 2019.
  76. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Eric Bradner, "What's in the Iran nuclear deal? 7 key points" Archived 4 April 2015 at the Wayback Machine, CNN (2 April 2015).
  77. ^ a b c d e f Eyder Peralta, "6 Things You Should Know About The Iran Nuclear Deal" Archived 10 May 2018 at the Wayback Machine, NPR (14 July 2015).
  78. ^ a b c d e f "Key Excerpts of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)" Archived 16 May 2023 at the Wayback Machine, Office of the Press Secretary (14 July 2015).
  79. ^ "Press Availability on Nuclear Deal With Iran" Archived 16 February 2019 at the Wayback Machine, U.S. Department of State (14 July 2015).
  80. ^ Resolution 2231, page 29
  81. ^ "The odd reality of Iran's centrifuges: Enough for a bomb, not power". PolitiFact. Archived from the original on 9 July 2019. Retrieved 9 July 2019.
  82. ^ a b Kagan, Frederick (15 July 2015). "Evaluating President Obama's statements on the nuclear deal". American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. Archived from the original on 10 October 2015. Retrieved 15 July 2015.
  83. ^ Justin Fishel, "Iran Nuclear Deal: A Look at the Winners and Losers" Archived 20 May 2020 at the Wayback Machine, ABC News (14 July 2015).
  84. ^ Resolution 2231, page 21-22
  85. ^ George Jahn. "AP Exclusive: Diplomats: Iran to Get Natural Uranium Batch". The Associated Press. Archived from the original on 9 January 2017. Retrieved 9 January 2017. the transfer recently approved by the U.S. and five other world powers that negotiated the nuclear deal with Iran foresees delivery of 116 metric tons (nearly 130 tons) of natural uranium ... Tehran already got a similar amount of natural uranium in 2015 as part of negotiations leading up to the nuclear deal
  86. ^ Resolution 2231, page 21-24
  87. ^ Schumann, Anna (14 July 2015). "Fact Sheet: Iran and the Additional Protocol". Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. Retrieved 3 November 2024.|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150722020946/http://armscontrolcenter.org/factsheet-iran-and-the-additional-protocol/ |archive-date=22 July 2015 }}
  88. ^ a b c "The Iran Nuclear Deal: A Definitive Guide" (PDF). Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. pp. 43–44. Archived from the original (PDF) on 29 March 2016.
  89. ^ a b Jahn, George (19 August 2015). "AP Exclusive: UN to let Iran inspect alleged nuke work site". Associated Press. Archived from the original on 19 August 2015. Retrieved 19 August 2015.
  90. ^ "Text of draft agreement between IAEA, Iran". bigstory.ap.org. Archived from the original on 25 August 2015. Retrieved 22 August 2015.
  91. ^ a b c Max Fisher, "The AP's controversial and badly flawed Iran inspections story, explained" Archived 9 June 2017 at the Wayback Machine, Vox (20 August 2015).
  92. ^ Nichols, Tom (24 August 2015). "Iran Deal Truthers". The Daily Beast. Archived from the original on 25 August 2015. Retrieved 25 August 2015.
  93. ^ Nasralla, Shadia. "IAEA says report Iran to inspect own military site is 'misrepresentation'". Archived from the original on 16 May 2021. Retrieved 5 July 2021.
  94. ^ Kelsey Davenport & Daryl G. Kimball, "Would the IAEA Depend on Iran for Nuclear Residue Testing? No." Archived 25 August 2015 at the Wayback Machine, Arms Control Association (30 July 2015).
  95. ^ a b c d Mark Hibbs & Thomas Shea, No, Iran is not allowed to inspect itself Archived 9 May 2023 at the Wayback Machine, The Hill (21 August 2015).
  96. ^ Jahn, George. "UN agency: Iran's role in nuclear probe meets standards". bigstory.ap.org/. Archived from the original on 25 October 2015. Retrieved 29 October 2015.
  97. ^ Murphy, Francois; Nasralla, Shadia. "Samples taken at Iran's Parchin military site: U.N. nuclear watchdog". Archived from the original on 18 May 2021. Retrieved 5 July 2021.
  98. ^ a b Oren Dorell, "High-tech scrutiny key to Iran nuclear deal" Archived 18 August 2017 at the Wayback Machine, USA Today (16 July 2015).
  99. ^ a b Ishaan Tharoor, "How the nuclear deal can keep Iran from 'cheating,' according to a former U.N. inspector" Archived 16 July 2015 at the Wayback Machine, The Washington Post blogs (15 July 2015).
  100. ^ a b c d e Rebecca Kaplan, "Obama says inspectors get access to 'any' site in Iran. Is it true?" Archived 8 May 2020 at the Wayback Machine, CBS News (14 June 2015).
  101. ^ Tim Mak, "The Spy Tech That Will Keep Iran in Line" Archived 16 July 2015 at the Wayback Machine, The Daily Beast (7 July 2015).
  102. ^ "The Iran nuclear accord: Making the world a bit safer". The Economist. 18 July 2015. Archived from the original on 15 April 2018. Retrieved 20 July 2015.
  103. ^ a b Mohammed, Arshad (15 July 2015). "U.S., Iran finesse inspections of military sites in nuclear deal". Reuters. Archived from the original on 28 January 2016. Retrieved 15 July 2015.
  104. ^ a b Carol Morello & Karen DeYoung, "Historic deal reached with Iran to limit nuclear program" Archived 16 July 2015 at the Wayback Machine, The Washington Post (14 July 2015).
  105. ^ Yellinek, Roie. "A Reappraisal of China-Iran Ties After US JCPOA Withdrawal". Jamestown. Archived from the original on 18 June 2020. Retrieved 17 June 2020.
  106. ^ a b c Obama: Iran Will Face Longer 'Breakout Time,' Though Not Indefinitely, All Things Considered, NPR (11 August 2015). See also "Transcript: President Obama's Full NPR Interview On Iran Nuclear Deal" Archived 3 April 2018 at the Wayback Machine, NPR (7 April 2015).
  107. ^ Vaez, Ali (2 March 2015). "Missing the point on Iran's nuclear breakout time". -International Crisis Group (republished by al-Jazeera America). Archived from the original on 18 September 2015.
  108. ^ "Factsheet: Longevity of Major Iran Nuclear Agreement Provisions" Archived 25 July 2015 at the Wayback Machine, Center for Arms Control and Proliferation (14 July 2015).
  109. ^ Richard Nephew, "Based on breakout timelines, the world is better off with the Iran nuclear deal than without it" Archived 14 August 2015 at the Wayback Machine, Brookings Institution (17 July 2015).
  110. ^ Kuperman, Alan. "The Iran deal is built on a lie". Archived from the original on 15 August 2015. Retrieved 15 August 2015.
  111. ^ "Communication dated 21 December 2016 to the Agency sent on behalf of High Representative Mogherini in her capacity as Coordinator of the Joint Commission established under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action" Archived 4 January 2017 at the Wayback Machine, IAEA, INFCIRC/907, 23 December 2016.
  112. ^ "U.S., others agreed 'secret' exemptions for Iran after nuclear deal: t". Reuters. 1 September 2016. Archived from the original on 6 January 2018. Retrieved 6 January 2018.
  113. ^ a b c "The Real Facts on the Iran Nuclear Deal" Archived 10 August 2015 at the Wayback Machine, Center for Arms Control and Non-proliferation (last updated 12 August 2015).
  114. ^ Jackie Northam, "Lifting Sanctions Will Release $100 Billion To Iran. Then What?" Archived 24 April 2018 at the Wayback Machine, All Things Considered, NPR (16 July 2015).
  115. ^ a b Jessica Simeone & Anup Kaphle, "Here Are The Highlights of the Iran Nuclear Agreement" Archived 18 October 2017 at the Wayback Machine, Buzzfeed News (14 July 2015).
  116. ^ a b Felicia Schwartz, "When Sanctions Lift, Iranian Commander Will Benefit" Archived 18 October 2017 at the Wayback Machine, The Wall Street Journal blogs (15 July 2015).
  117. ^ a b Ellie Geranmayeh, "Explainer: The Iran nuclear deal", European Council on Foreign Relations (17 July 2015)
  118. ^ Katzman, Kenneth (4 August 2015). "Iran Sanctions" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. Archived (PDF) from the original on 5 September 2015. Retrieved 5 September 2015. The Administration asserts that it would implement the relief using waiver authority (for relevant U.S. statutory sanctions) and administrative action (for those sanctions in force only by executive order).
  119. ^ "Timeline: Implementation of the Iran nuclear agreement", Reuters (14 July 2015).
  120. ^ "Nuclear Deal with Iran Establishes Plan for Sanctions Relief Archived 7 April 2016 at the Wayback Machine, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP (11 August 2015), p. 5 ("According to the JCPOA's 'Implementation Plan' annex, Implementation Day occurs when two things happen 'simultaneously': (i) the 'IAEA-verified implementation by Iran' of certain nuclear-related measures; and (ii) the P5+1's implementation of specified forms of sanctions relief, including the termination of previous UNSC sanctions on Iran pursuant to UNSC Resolution 2231.22 Implementation Day, the crucial starting point for sanctions relief, is expected to occur in the first half of 2016, although the JCPOA sets no specific date on which, or by which, it will necessarily take place.")
  121. ^ Bryan Bender, "How the Pentagon got its way in Iran deal: Restrictions on advanced military weapons sales to Iran will remain in place for five to eight years" Archived 15 July 2015 at the Wayback Machine, Politico (14 July 2015).
  122. ^ Elizabeth Whitman, "What Sanctions Against Iran Won't Be Lifted? Bans For Terrorism Support, Human Rights Abuses To Remain Intact" Archived 15 July 2015 at the Wayback Machine, International Business Times (14 July 2015).
  123. ^ a b c d Panda, Ankit. "How the Iran Deal's 'Snap Back' Mechanism Will Keep Tehran Compliant". thediplomat.com. Retrieved 4 November 2024.
  124. ^ "European Union  – EEAS (European External Action Service) – Joint statement by EU High Representative Federica Mogherini and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif Vienna, 14 July 2015". Europa (web portal). Archived from the original on 6 September 2016. Retrieved 16 July 2015.
  125. ^ Northam, Jackie. "A Look At How Sanctions Would 'Snap Back' If Iran Violates Nuke Deal". NPR. Archived from the original on 10 February 2018. Retrieved 4 April 2018.
  126. ^ Sick, Gary G. (7 September 2015). "Iran After the Deal – What to Do When the JCPOA Expires". Foreign Affairs. Archived from the original on 14 July 2019. Retrieved 29 April 2016.
  127. ^ Bier, Jeryl (27 September 2013). "Kerry Shakes Hands With Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif". The Weekly Standard. Archived from the original on 27 September 2013. Retrieved 19 October 2015.
  128. ^ "Wang Yi: China Plays Unique and Constructive Role in Reaching Comprehensive Agreement on Iranian Nuclear Issue" Archived 18 July 2015 at the Wayback Machine, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China (14 July 2015).
  129. ^ "Iran deal 'sufficiently robust' for 10 years, says France's foreign minister Laurent Fabius" Archived 3 January 2017 at the Wayback Machine, The Economic Times, Reuters (14 July 2015).
  130. ^ "Gabriel heads off to forge business links with Iran". Deutsche Welle. 19 July 2015. Archived from the original on 26 December 2018.
  131. ^ Tom LoBianco & Sophie Tatum, "GOP 2016 hopefuls slam Iran nuclear deal" Archived 25 December 2018 at the Wayback Machine, CNN (14 July 2015).
  132. ^ Adam Wollner, "How the 2016 Presidential Candidates Are Reacting to the Iran Deal" Archived 15 July 2015 at the Wayback Machine, National Journal (14 July 2015).
  133. ^ Lawder, David (14 July 2015). Trott, Bill (ed.). "U.S. House Speaker Boehner says Iran accord looks like a 'bad deal'". Archived from the original on 15 July 2015. Retrieved 15 July 2015.
  134. ^ Sharma, Sheel Kant (23 July 2015). "More than a silver lining: The Iran nuclear deal could be a trigger for a far-reaching transformation". The Indian Express. Archived from the original on 23 October 2015. Retrieved 19 October 2015.
  135. ^ Piotrowski, Marcin Andrzej (23 July 2015). "Effects of the P5+1 Nuclear Deal with Iran". Bulletin. Warsaw: The Polish Institute of International Affairs. Retrieved 19 October 2015.
  136. ^ Parviz, Salman (16 October 2015). "Guardian Council approves JCPOA amid stormy Majlis session". Islamic Republic News Agency. Archived from the original on 23 October 2015. Retrieved 19 October 2015.
  137. ^ Parsi, Trita (24 June 2015). "The Iran Deal Proves That Peace Is Possible". Foreign Policy. Archived from the original on 29 September 2015. Retrieved 19 October 2015.
  138. ^ Irani, Omid (11 August 2015). "A Win for Diplomacy and the World". Iran Review. Archived from the original on 14 August 2016. Retrieved 19 April 2016.
  139. ^ a b c d e f g h "چه رکوردهايي در جريان مذاکرات اتمي ايران شکسته شد؟" (in Persian). BBC. 22 July 2015. Archived from the original on 1 October 2015. Retrieved 19 October 2015.
  140. ^ "Security Council Resolution, Building Block for Lifting of Sanctions". Iranian Diplomacy. 23 July 2015. Archived from the original on 11 August 2015. Retrieved 19 October 2015.
  141. ^ "Historic resolution at UNSC". Islamic Republic News Agency. 22 July 2015. Archived from the original on 23 October 2015. Retrieved 19 October 2015.
  142. ^ "Source Rejects AP Report on Provisional Agreement". Fars News Agency. 12 July 2015. Retrieved 19 October 2015.
  143. ^ Jones, Sam; Barker, Alex; Secastopulo, Demetri; Bozorgmehr, Najmeh (14 July 2015). "Iran agrees breakthrough nuclear deal". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 16 October 2015. Retrieved 19 April 2016.
  144. ^ Mohammadi, Ja'far (29 July 2015). "Will Iran's Nuclear Negotiating Team Introduce the "Fourth Option" in History of the Security Council?". Iran Review. Archived from the original on 24 September 2015. Retrieved 19 October 2015.
  145. ^ Sic, Gary G. (7 September 2015). "Iran After the Deal: What to Do When the JCPOA Expires". Foreign Affairs. Archived from the original on 14 July 2019. Retrieved 19 April 2016.
  146. ^ "Nuclear talks: Kerry setting records with long Vienna stay". Associated Press. 10 July 2015. Archived from the original on 23 October 2015. Retrieved 19 October 2015.
  147. ^ Salari, Maryam (17 September 2015). "ظريف 189 روز، جليلي 16 روز: بررسي آماري "ايران" از كارنامه 2 تيم هسته?اي فعلي و سابق" [Zarif 189 days, Jalili 16 days: Statistical Survey of Iran from Current and Existing Nuclear Team] (in Persian). Magiran. p. 21.
  148. ^ a b "چه 'اتفاقات نادري' در دوره اوباما ميان ايران و آمريکا رخ داده؟" (in Persian). BBC. 30 September 2015. Archived from the original on 29 October 2015. Retrieved 19 October 2015.
  149. ^ Foroohar, Kambiz (28 April 2015). "Kerry Visits a Piece of Iran on Manhattan's Upper East Side". Bloomberg. Archived from the original on 29 July 2015. Retrieved 19 October 2015.
  150. ^ Wright, Robin (6 October 2015). "Iran's Javad Zarif on Russia and Peace in Syria". The New Yorker. Archived from the original on 17 October 2015. Retrieved 19 October 2015.
  151. ^ "نقل‌ قول شفيعي از ظريف در کميسيون امنيت‌ملي: اوباما براي دست دادن با روحاني برنامه‌ريزي کرده بود" (in Persian). Iranian Students' News Agency. 13 October 2015. Archived from the original on 15 October 2015. Retrieved 19 October 2015.
  152. ^ "Iran nuclear deal: UN Security Council likely to vote next week: US diplomats to promote deal to UN counterparts in coming days" Archived 23 September 2020 at the Wayback Machine, CBC, Thomson Reuters (15 July 2015).
  153. ^ a b Somini Sengupta, Consensus Gives Security Council Momentum in Mideast, but Question Is How Much Archived 10 January 2021 at the Wayback Machine, The New York Times (16 July 2015).
  154. ^ a b c d e f Sengupta, Somini (20 July 2015). "U.N. Moves to Lift Sanctions on Iran After Nuclear Deal". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 23 January 2021.
  155. ^ "United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015)" Archived 19 August 2015 at the Wayback Machine, adopted by the Security Council at its 7488th meeting, on 20 July 2015
  156. ^ CBS News/Associated Press, Iran deal set to become international law Archived 21 May 2020 at the Wayback Machine (17 July 2015).
  157. ^ Samantha Power, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, "Explanation of Vote at a UN Security Council Vote on Resolution 2231 on Iran Non-proliferation" Archived 23 July 2015 at the Wayback Machine U.S. State Department (20 July 2015).
  158. ^ Michael Pearson & Elise Labott, 5 Americans released by Iran, 4 as part of prisoner swap Archived 26 December 2018 at the Wayback Machine, CNN (16 January 2016).
  159. ^ Robin Emmott & Francesco Guarascio, "Europe backs Iran nuclear deal in signal to U.S. Congress" Archived 18 May 2021 at the Wayback Machine, Reuters (20 July 2015).
  160. ^ a b c d e Nelson, Steven (15 July 2015). "Iran Deal May Bind Next President: Scholars say the nuclear agreement could be binding under domestic and international law". U.S. News & World Report. Archived from the original on 18 October 2017.
  161. ^ David Golove, "Presidential Authority to Conclude an Iran Nuclear Agreement—and the Senate's Self-Defeating Bill" Archived 6 July 2015 at the Wayback Machine, Just Security (20 August 2014).
  162. ^ Michael J. Glennon, "The Iran Nuclear Deal: The Dispensability of Obligation" Archived 10 July 2015 at the Wayback Machine, Just Security (16 March 2015).
  163. ^ Felicia Schwartz, "Iran Nuclear Deal, If Reached, Wouldn't Be 'Legally Binding,' Kerry Says" Archived 9 March 2017 at the Wayback Machine, The Wall Street Journal (11 March 2015).
  164. ^ a b Zachary Laub, "How Binding Is the Iran Deal?" Archived 23 August 2015 at the Wayback Machine (interview with John B. Bellinger III), Council on Foreign Relations (23 July 2015).
  165. ^ a b Kittrie, Orde (12 August 2015). "Congress Can Rewrite the Iran Deal". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 30 March 2017. Retrieved 16 August 2015.
  166. ^ "Dealing with Iran: A Primer on the President's Options for a Nuclear Agreement". 11 March 2015. Archived from the original on 8 December 2020. Retrieved 9 December 2015.
  167. ^ "International documents of a non-legally binding character" (PDF). U.S. State Department. Archived (PDF) from the original on 29 October 2020. Retrieved 9 December 2015.
  168. ^ a b Amber Phillips, "Can Congress stop the Iran deal?" Archived 17 November 2020 at the Wayback Machine, The Washington Post (1 July 2015).
  169. ^ Matthew Fleming, "Iran Deal: Treaty or Not?" Archived 1 August 2015 at the Wayback Machine, Roll Call (21 July 2015).
  170. ^ Scott Bomboy, "Veto showdown on tap for Congress after Iran nuclear deal" Archived 24 July 2015 at the Wayback Machine, National Constitution Center (15 July 2015).
  171. ^ "539 U.S. 396" Archived 10 December 2015 at the Wayback Machine (2003).
  172. ^ Rivkin, David; Casey, Lee A. (27 July 2015). "The Lawless Underpinnings of the Iran Nuclear Deal". The Wall Street Journal. p. A13.
  173. ^ Michael Ramsey, "Is the Iran Deal Unconstitutional?" Archived 3 August 2015 at the Wayback Machine, Originalism Blog (15 July 2015).
  174. ^ Jack Goldsmith, "More Weak Arguments For The Illegality of the Iran Deal" Archived 13 January 2024 at the Wayback Machine, Lawfare Blog (27 July 2015).
  175. ^ John Yoo, "Why Obama's Executive Action on Iran Does Not Violate the Law" Archived 6 August 2015 at the Wayback Machine, National Review (26 July 2015).
  176. ^ a b c "Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action" Archived 21 May 2020 at the Wayback Machine, United States Department of State (19 June 2015).
  177. ^ Eric Bradner, "State Dept. sends Iran deal to Congress" Archived 22 July 2015 at the Wayback Machine, CNN (19 July 2015).
  178. ^ Patricia Zengerle, "House to vote on Iran deal disapproval resolution", Reuters (4 August 2015).
  179. ^ Dennis C. Jett, The Iran Nuclear Deal: Bombs, Bureaucrats, and Billionaires (Springer, 2018), p. 35.
  180. ^ Michael D. Shear & Julie Hitschfeld Davis, "Obama Begins 60-Day Campaign to Win Over Iran Deal Skeptics at Home and Abroad" Archived 28 February 2017 at the Wayback Machine, The New York Times (15 July 2015).
  181. ^ Deirdre Walsh & Ted Barrett, "WH dispatches Joe Biden to lock down Iran deal on Capitol Hill" Archived 11 September 2015 at the Wayback Machine, CNN (16 July 2015).
  182. ^ Peter Baker, "Obama Criticizes Huckabee, Trump, Cruz and Other Republicans" Archived 9 May 2018 at the Wayback Machine, The New York Times (27 July 2015).
  183. ^ Nick Gass, "Mike Huckabee not backing down after Holocaust remark", Politico (27 July 2015).
  184. ^ "Remarks by President Obama and Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn of Ethiopia in Joint Press Conference, National Palace Addis Ababa, Ethiopia", White House Office of the Press Secretary (27 July 2015).
  185. ^ McAuliff, Michael (6 August 2015). "Mitch McConnell Scolds Obama To Tone Down Iran Rhetoric". The Huffington Post. Archived from the original on 10 August 2015. Retrieved 11 August 2015.
  186. ^ "Transcripts". CNN. 6 August 2015. Archived from the original on 5 March 2016. Retrieved 12 August 2015.
  187. ^ a b Schumer, Chuck (7 August 2015). "My Position on the Iran Deal". Medium. Retrieved 7 August 2015.
  188. ^ Eliza Collins, "Clapper: Iran deal gives U.S. access, insight" Archived 16 August 2015 at the Wayback Machine, Politico (24 July 2015).
  189. ^ Deb Riechmann, High-stakes lobbying on Iran deal; pressure for Congress Archived 22 July 2015 at the Wayback Machine, San Francisco Chronicle, Associated Press (22 July 2015).
  190. ^ Jonathan Weisman & Nicholas Confessore, "Donors Descend on Schumer and Others in Debate on Iran" Archived 15 March 2017 at the Wayback Machine, The New York Times (12 August 2015).
  191. ^ a b c Catherine Ho, "Mega-donors opposing Iran deal have upper hand in fierce lobbying battle" Archived 15 August 2018 at the Wayback Machine, The Washington Post (13 August 2015).
  192. ^ Ali Gharib, "Iranian-Americans welcome nuclear deal, despite opposition to regime" Archived 22 July 2015 at the Wayback Machine, Al Jazeera America (16 July 2015).
  193. ^ "Joint Statement of Iranian-American Organizations on the U.S.-Iran Nuclear Deal" Archived 14 August 2015 at the Wayback Machine, National Iranian American Council (29 July 2015)
  194. ^ Toosi, Nahal (27 August 2015). "Scholars: Iran deal will stabilize Mideast: The latest letter on the Iran nuclear deal focuses on potential benefits to the volatile region". Politico. Retrieved 20 December 2019.
  195. ^ Julian Hattem, "More than 100 ex-US ambassadors pledge backing for Iran deal" Archived 8 April 2023 at the Wayback Machine, The Hill (17 July 2015).
  196. ^ a b "Letter to the President from over 100 former American Ambassadors on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran's Nuclear Program" Archived 18 October 2017 at the Wayback Machine (17 July 2015).
  197. ^ a b c d James Fallows, "A Guide to the Iran Nuclear Deal's Supporters and Opponents" Archived 7 March 2017 at the Wayback Machine, The Atlantic (28 July 2015).
  198. ^ "Letter to Congressional Leadership from Former Under Secretaries of State and former American Ambassadors to Israel on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action" Archived 19 August 2017 at the Wayback Machine (27 July 2015).
  199. ^ a b Joe Cirincione, "60 of America's Top National Security Leaders Endorse Iran Deal" Archived 18 October 2017 at the Wayback Machine, The Huffington Post (21 July 2015).
  200. ^ a b c d William J. Broad, "29 U.S. Scientists Praise Iran Nuclear Deal in Letter to Obama" Archived 18 February 2017 at the Wayback Machine, The New York Times (8 August 2015).
  201. ^ "Scientists' Letter to Obama on Iran Nuclear Deal" (8 August 2015), reprinted by The New York Times.
  202. ^ a b Karen DeYoung, "Dozens of retired generals, admirals back Iran nuclear deal" Archived 5 March 2016 at the Wayback Machine, The Washington Post (11 August 2015).
  203. ^ a b c "Read: An open letter from retired generals and admirals on the Iran nuclear deal" Archived 30 August 2017 at the Wayback Machine (letter released 11 August 2015), reprinted by The Washington Post.
  204. ^ a b "The Comprehensive P5+1 Nuclear Agreement With Iran: A Net-Plus for Nonproliferation: Statement from Nuclear Nonproliferation Specialists" Archived 23 August 2015 at the Wayback Machine, Arms Control Association (17 August 2015).
  205. ^ a b Michael Crowley, "Nuclear experts fall in behind Obama: The deal with Iran exceeds historical standards for arms control agreements, 75 experts say" Archived 20 August 2015 at the Wayback Machine, Politico (18 August 2015).
  206. ^ Nathan Guttman, "26 Top Jewish Leaders Back Iran Deal in New York Times Ad" (20 August 2015).
  207. ^ a b "340 U.S. rabbis sign letter supporting Iran deal" Archived 20 August 2015 at the Wayback Machine, Jewish Telegraphic Agency (17 August 2015).
  208. ^ a b Jewish Telegraphic Agency, "11 Jewish ex-congressmen back Iran deal; 190 former generals oppose" Archived 11 September 2015 at the Wayback Machine (27 August 2015).
  209. ^ Emma-Jo Morris, "More Than 200 Retired Generals & Admirals Sign Letter Opposing the Iran Deal" Archived 22 September 2015 at the Wayback Machine, IranTruth.org (26 August 2015, subsequently updated).
  210. ^ a b Morello, Carol (26 August 2015). "Retired generals and admirals urge Congress to reject Iran nuclear deal". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 27 August 2015. Retrieved 27 August 2015.
  211. ^ "Read: An open letter from retired generals and admirals opposing the Iran nuclear deal". Washington Post. Archived from the original on 18 October 2017. Retrieved 2 September 2017.
  212. ^ a b Felicia Schwartz, "Pro-Israel Groups in U.S. Square Off Over Iran Nuke Deal" Archived 18 October 2017 at the Wayback Machine, The Wall Street Journal Washington Wire blog (16 July 2015).
  213. ^ Julie Hirschfeld Davis, "It's Either Iran Nuclear Deal or 'Some Form of War,' Obama Warns" Archived 15 February 2017 at the Wayback Machine, The New York Times (5 August 2015).
  214. ^ Alexander Bolton, "New group backed by AIPAC targets deal" Archived 9 April 2023 at the Wayback Machine, The Hill (17 July 2015).
  215. ^ Byron Tau, "AIPAC Funds Ads Opposing Iran Nuclear Deal" Archived 18 October 2017 at the Wayback Machine, The Wall Street Journal Washington Wire blog (17 July 2015).
  216. ^ Ailsa Chang, "Lobbyists Spending Millions to Sway the Undecided on Iran Deal" Archived 18 October 2017 at the Wayback Machine, NPR (6 August 2015).
  217. ^ Jacob Kornbluh, "J Street launches multimillion dollar campaign in support of Iran nuclear deal" Archived 19 July 2015 at the Wayback Machine, Haaretz (16 July 2015).
  218. ^ Gus Burns, First look at $2 million J-Street ad campaign in support of Iran nuclear deal Archived 11 August 2015 at the Wayback Machine, MLive.com (4 August 2015).
  219. ^ John Fritze, "J Street runs ads in Maryland supporting Iran deal" Archived 5 September 2015 at the Wayback Machine, The Baltimore Sun (4 August 2015).
  220. ^ Chemi Shalev, "Reflecting Deep Divisions, Reform Movement Abstains From 'Yes' or 'No' on Iran Deal" Archived 21 August 2015 at the Wayback Machine, Haaretz (19 August 2015).
  221. ^ "Reform Jewish Movement Response to Iran Deal: Address Important Concerns, Focus on the Day After" Archived 21 August 2015 at the Wayback Machine, Union for Reform Judaism (20 August 2015).
  222. ^ Aron Chilewich, "More than 900 rabbis sign letter opposing Iran nuclear deal" Archived 2 September 2015 at the Wayback Machine, The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles (27 August 2015).
  223. ^ "Orthodox Rabbis to Join Lobbying Push Against Iran Deal" Archived 7 September 2015 at the Wayback Machine, Jewish Telegraphic Agency (30 July 2015).
  224. ^ "American Jewish Committee Opposes Iran Nuclear Deal" Archived 12 August 2015 at the Wayback Machine, Jewish Telegraph Agency (5 August 2015).
  225. ^ Will Bredderman, "Religious Jewish Pols Bash Manhattan Congressman Over Iran Deal Support" Archived 6 September 2015 at the Wayback Machine, The Observer (21 August 2015).
  226. ^ "Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran (CNFI) Launches Third National TV Ad" Archived 5 September 2015 at the Wayback Machine (press release), United Against Nuclear Iran (20 August 2015).
  227. ^ Michael R. Gordon, "Head of Group Opposing Iran Accord Quits Post, Saying He Backs Deal" Archived 12 March 2017 at the Wayback Machine, The New York Times (11 August 2015).
  228. ^ a b Allison Kaplan Sommer, "Ad Nauseum: [sic] How Supporters and Opponents Are Trying to Sell the Iranian Nuclear Deal", Haaretz (26 August 2015).
  229. ^ Peter Waldman, "How Freelance Diplomacy Bankrolled by Rockefellers Has Paved the Way for an Iran Deal" Archived 16 February 2017 at the Wayback Machine, Bloomberg Politics (2 July 2015).
  230. ^ Alexandra Jaffe, "Colin Powell: Iran Deal Is a 'Pretty Good Deal'" Archived 29 March 2020 at the Wayback Machine, NBC News (6 September 2015).
  231. ^ Carl Levin & John Warner, "Why hawks should also back the Iran deal" Archived 15 August 2015 at the Wayback Machine, Politico (13 August 2015).
  232. ^ Richard Lugar & J. Bennett Johnston, "Why we disagree with Chuck Schumer on the Iran deal", Reuters Great Debate (14 August 2015).
  233. ^ Peter Foster, "Barack Obama's big gamble: Will Iran deal secure his presidential legacy?" Archived 19 October 2017 at the Wayback Machine, The Daily Telegraph (18 July 2015).
  234. ^ Vinnie Rotondaro, "Signs of 'seamless garment' in Catholic support for Iran nuke deal" Archived 14 August 2015 at the Wayback Machine, National Catholic Reporter (13 August 2015).
  235. ^ "Bishop Cantú Welcomes Iran Nuclear Deal, Urges Congress To Endorse Result of Negotiations" Archived 16 August 2015 at the Wayback Machine, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (14 July 2015).
  236. ^ Mandelbaum, Michael (30 July 2015). "It's the Deterrence, Stupid". The American Interest. Retrieved 28 August 2015.
  237. ^ Dershowitz, Alan (2015). The Case Against the Iran Deal: How Can We Now Stop Iran from Getting Nukes? PP=Kindle Locations 794–795. RosettaBooks. ISBN 9780795347559. See also "Excerpt from 'The Case Against the Iran Deal". The Times of Israel.
  238. ^ a b Jonathan Weisman & Michael R. Gordon, "Kerry Defends Iran Nuclear Deal Before Skeptical Senate" Archived 26 February 2017 at the Wayback Machine, The New York Times (23 July 2015).
  239. ^ "Iran Nuclear Agreement Review" Archived 24 July 2015 at the Wayback Machine, United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations (23 July 2015) (video of hearing).
  240. ^ "Senator Corker Opening Statement at Hearing to Review the Iran Nuclear Agreement". U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. 23 July 2015. Archived from the original on 29 July 2015. Retrieved 5 August 2015.
  241. ^ "Iran Nuclear Agreement (Senate Committee on Foreign Relations – hearing)". C-SPAN. 23 July 2015. Archived from the original on 25 July 2015. Retrieved 5 August 2015.
  242. ^ Welsh, Teresa (23 July 2015). "Corker to Kerry: 'You've Been Fleeced' on Iran Deal". U.S. News & World Report. Archived from the original on 2 August 2015. Retrieved 5 August 2015.
  243. ^ a b Karen DeYoung, "Senate opponents of Iran deal draw hard lines against White House", The Washington Post (23 July 2015).
  244. ^ a b Wong, Kristina (28 July 2015). "House chairman: Nuclear deal gives Iran a 'cash bonanza'". The Hill. Archived from the original on 29 July 2015. Retrieved 3 August 2015.
  245. ^ "Chairman Royce opening statement". United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs. 28 July 2015. Archived from the original on 31 July 2015. Retrieved 3 August 2015.
  246. ^ a b "Cabinet Secretaries on Iran Nuclear Agreement (House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing)". C-SPAN. 28 July 2015. Archived from the original on 30 July 2015. Retrieved 3 August 2015.
  247. ^ Davis, Susan (28 July 2015). "House panel questions Iran nuclear deal". USA Today. Archived from the original on 1 August 2015. Retrieved 3 August 2015.
  248. ^ a b Cooper, Helene (29 July 2015). "Nuclear Deal Reduces Risk of Conflict With Iran, Top U.S. General Says". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 25 March 2017.
  249. ^ "Opening Statement of Chairman John McCain (Armed Services Committee – hearing)" (PDF). U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services. 29 July 2015. Archived (PDF) from the original on 23 September 2015. Retrieved 10 August 2015.
  250. ^ "Opening Statement of U.S. Senator Jack Reed (Armed Services Committee – hearing)" (PDF). U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services. 29 July 2015. Archived (PDF) from the original on 23 September 2015. Retrieved 10 August 2015.
  251. ^ "Opening Statement by Ranking Member Jack Reed, SASC Hearing on Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action" Archived 24 September 2015 at the Wayback Machine (29 July 2015).
  252. ^ Anne K Walters (30 July 2015). "US defence chief tells Congress military options remain against Iran". Deutsche Presse-Agentur. Archived from the original on 23 September 2015. Retrieved 10 August 2015.
  253. ^ "Impacts of the JCPOA on U.S. Interests and the Military Balance in the Middle East (Senate Armed Services Committee – hearing)". C-SPAN. 29 July 2015. Archived from the original on 31 July 2015. Retrieved 10 August 2015.
  254. ^ Tom Bowman, "Senate Republicans Raise Concerns About Lifting Iran Economic Sanctions" Archived 18 October 2017 at the Wayback Machine, NPR (29 July 2015).
  255. ^ a b Nathan Guttman, "Fact-Checking the Flame Throwers on Both Sides of Iran Deal" Archived 14 August 2015 at the Wayback Machine, Jewish Daily Forward (13 August 2015).
  256. ^ a b Martin Matishak, "Obama officials deny 'secret deals' in Iran nuclear pact", The Hill (22 July 2015).
  257. ^ Carney, Jordain (31 July 2015). "Cruz wants delay in Iran review period because of 'side deals'". The Hill. Retrieved 14 August 2015.
  258. ^ "S. RES. 238". U.S. Congress. 30 July 2015. Archived from the original on 4 March 2016. Retrieved 14 August 2015.
  259. ^ Lerman, David (30 July 2015). "'Secret Side Deals' on Iran Accord Are New Republican Target". Bloomberg L.P. Archived from the original on 15 August 2015. Retrieved 14 August 2015.
  260. ^ Albright, David (10 August 2015). "What Iran's hostile reaction to the Parchin issue means for the nuclear deal". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 11 August 2015. Retrieved 14 August 2015.
  261. ^ a b Demirjian, Karoun (23 July 2015). "Twelve things in the Iran deal that lawmakers can't agree on". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2 August 2015. Retrieved 29 July 2015.
  262. ^ a b Gerald F. Seib, "An Expert View: Accept the Deal but Move to Contain Iran", The Wall Street Journal (20 July 2015).
  263. ^ Tim Farnsworth, "U.S. Position on Iran Enrichment: More Public Recognition Than Policy Shift" Archived 8 May 2012 at the Wayback Machine, Arms Control Association, Arms Control Now (30 April 2012).
  264. ^ Michael Singh, "The Case for Zero Enrichment in Iran", Arms Control Today, Arms Control Association (March 2013).
  265. ^ Kate Nelson, "US bill requiring zero enrichment would be a deal breaker", British American Security Information Council (17 January 2014).
  266. ^ Michael A. Levi, "Drawing the Line on Iranian Enrichment" Archived 5 September 2015 at the Wayback Machine, Survival: Global Politics and Strategy (August–September 2011), doi:10.1080/00396338.2011.603568 (reprinted by the Council on Foreign Relations).
  267. ^ Mark Jansson, "The Siren Song of Zero Enrichment", The National Interest (12 October 2013).
  268. ^ George Perkovich, "Demanding Zero Enrichment From Iran Makes Zero Sense", Foreign Affairs (15 January 2014) (reprinted by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace).
  269. ^ Jennifer Steinhauer, "Republicans Have Minds Made Up as Debate Begins on Iran Nuclear Deal" Archived 22 October 2017 at the Wayback Machine, The New York Times (23 July 2015).
  270. ^ DeBonis, Mike; Mufson, Steven (14 July 2015). "On Capitol Hill, deep skepticism persists as lawmakers react to Iran deal". Archived from the original on 22 October 2017. Retrieved 2 September 2017.
  271. ^ a b Remarks by the President on the Iran Nuclear Deal, American University, Washington, D.C., White House Office of the Press Secretary (5 August 2015). Another transcript of this speech was also printed by The Washington Post Archived 2 September 2017 at the Wayback Machine.
  272. ^ Al Franken, "Why I support Iran deal", CNN (13 August 2015).
  273. ^ Stephen M. Walt, "The Myth of a Better Deal", Foreign Policy (10 August 2015).
  274. ^ Albert Carnesale, "Deal or No Deal: The Choice Before Congress", National Interest (5 August 2015) (reprinted by the Harvard Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs).
  275. ^ Robert Satloff, "A Better Deal With Iran Is Possible", The Atlantic (13 August 2015).
  276. ^ "Levin Statement on the Iran Nuclear Agreement" Archived 31 July 2015 at the Wayback Machine (28 July 2015).
  277. ^ Mike DeBonis, "Three Senate Democrats came off of the fence to support the Iran deal", The Washington Post (4 August 2015).
  278. ^ Ken Dilanian, "US officials say they can tell if Iran is cheating on deal"[permanent dead link], Associated Press (12 August 2015).
  279. ^ a b Karoun Demirjian, "House Dems pounce on intel assessment of Iran deal", The Washington Post (13 August 2015).
  280. ^ "Current and Former House Intelligence Committee Members Urge Colleagues to Review Intelligence Community Assessments of Iran Nuclear Deal" Archived 17 August 2015 at the Wayback Machine, United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Democratic Office (13 August 2015).
  281. ^ a b c Lauren French, "GOP can disapprove Iran deal, but veto remains a hurdle", Politico (3 August 2015).
  282. ^ Julie Hirschfeld Davis, "Lobbying Fight Over Iran Nuclear Deal Centers on Democrats", The New York Times (17 August 2015).
  283. ^ Amber Phillips, "Whip count: Where the Senate stands on the Iran deal", The Washington Post (5 August 2015).
  284. ^ Lauren French, "Liberals poised to give Barack Obama a win on Iran", Politico (13 August 2015).
  285. ^ a b Sabrina Siddiqui, "Congress does not have votes to block Iran deal, says Nancy Pelosi", The Guardian (20 August 2015).
  286. ^ Erica Werner, "Pelosi: House Democrats will sustain Obama veto on Iran deal", Associated Press (20 August 2015).
  287. ^ a b c Amber Phillips, "President Obama's Iran deal nears a major symbolic victory", The Washington Post (8 September 2015).
  288. ^ Hulse, Karl; Herszenhorn, David M. (2 September 2015). "Coordinated Strategy Brings Obama Victory on Iran Nuclear Deal". The New York Times. Retrieved 6 September 2015.
  289. ^ Kristina Peterson, "GOP Leaders Back Vote to Disapprove of Iran Nuclear Deal" The Wall Street Journal (4 August 2015).
  290. ^ a b Emma Dumain, Royce, Boehner Set Stage for House Disapproval of Iran Deal Archived 11 August 2015 at the Wayback Machine, Roll Call (4 August 2015).
  291. ^ "H. Res. 367" (introduced 16 July 2015).
  292. ^ a b c d e Sabrina Siddiqui, "House rejects Obama's nuclear accord with Iran in symbolic vote", The Guardian (12 September 2015).
  293. ^ "Final Vote Results for Roll Call 493" (11 September 2015), Office of the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives.
  294. ^ a b Lauren French, "House GOP disapproves of Iran deal in symbolic vote", Politico (11 September 2015).
  295. ^ "Final Vote Results for Roll Call 492" and "Final Vote Results for Roll Call 494" (11 September 2015), Office of the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives.
  296. ^ "Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei's Letter Of Guidelines To President Rohani On JCPOA Sets Nine Conditions Nullifying Original Agreement Announced July 14, 2015". MEMRI. Retrieved 6 January 2018.
  297. ^ "Expert: Khamenei's letter to Rouhani voids deal". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 6 January 2018.
  298. ^ a b Thomas Erdbrink, "Iran Lawmakers to Wait 80 Days Before Voting on Nuclear Deal", The New York Times (21 July 2015).
  299. ^ a b Thomas Erdbrink & Rock Gladstone, "Iran's President Defends Nuclear Deal in Blunt Remarks", The New York Times (23 July 2015).
  300. ^ Kasra Naji, "Iran nuclear: Media ordered to be positive about deal", BBC Persian (26 July 2015).
  301. ^ a b Jay Solomon, "Iran Leaders Say Parliament Will Have Final Say on Fate of Nuclear Deal", The Wall Street Journal (3 September 2015).
  302. ^ a b c d e Abbas Milani & Michael McFaul, "What the Iran-Deal Debate Is Like in Iran", The Atlantic (11 August 2015).
  303. ^ "Nuclear chief says was threatened with death". Iran Daily.
  304. ^ "DM: Iran Not to Allow IAEA to Inspect Every Site". Fars News Agency. 2 September 2015.
  305. ^ "Parl. begins 10th session on reviewing JCPOA". Mehr News Agency. 13 September 2015.
  306. ^ Karami, Arash (8 September 2015). "Former Iran deal negotiator slams concessions in nuclear deal". Al-Monitor.
  307. ^ "Iran Tracker". Critical Threats, American Enterprise Institute. Archived from the original on 25 September 2015. Retrieved 17 September 2015.
  308. ^ "Zarif attends Majlis committee on JCPOA". Tehran Times. 15 September 2015. TTime-249411.
  309. ^ a b Tara Kangarlou, "Tehran's debate over nuclear pact mirrors Washington's", Al-Jazeera (13 August 2015).
  310. ^ "Iranian Dissidents Against the Iran Deal", The Daily Beast (14 August 2015).
  311. ^ Erdbrink, Thomas (13 October 2015). "Iran's Parliament Backs Details of Nuclear Deal". The New York Times. Retrieved 9 December 2015.
  312. ^ "ISNA – Iranian lawmakers approve JCPOA details". 23 October 2015. Archived from the original on 23 October 2015. Retrieved 9 December 2015.
  313. ^ "ایسنا – جزئیات برجام در مجلس تصویب شد". 9 December 2015. Archived from the original on 9 December 2015. Retrieved 9 December 2015.
  314. ^ "گزارش فارس از متن و حاشیه نشست امروز "خانه ملت" تصویب جزئیات طرح برجام در مجلس/ اجازه طرح پیشنهادات داده نشد". 16 October 2015. Archived from the original on 16 October 2015. Retrieved 9 December 2015.
  315. ^ "Joint Statement by EU High Representative Federica Mogherini and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif", Brussels, 18 October 2015.
  316. ^ "le-chef-de-l-aiea-a-visite-le-site-controverse-de-parchin-en-iran" (in French). 20 September 2015.
  317. ^ "U.N. nuclear watchdog says its chief visited military site in Iran". Reuters. 20 September 2015.
  318. ^ "Iran nuclear deal: IAEA head visits Parchin site". BBC. 20 September 2015.
  319. ^ "IAEA satisfied with samples from Parchin drawn by Iran". Times of Israel. Associated Press. 21 September 2015.
  320. ^ "Iran: des particules d'uranium probablement liées à un programme nucléaire passé" (in French). i24news.tv. 20 June 2016.
  321. ^ Saeed Kamali Dehghan. "Sanctions against Iran lifted after compliance with nuclear deal". The Guardian.
  322. ^ "US imposes new missile sanctions on Iran". The Nation. Retrieved 18 January 2016.
  323. ^ Roth, Andrew; Morello, Carol; Branigin, William (16 January 2016). "Plane with freed Americans leaves Iran; U.S. imposes new sanctions". The Washington Post. Retrieved 18 January 2016.
  324. ^ Amlôt, Robin. "'Implementation day' arrives, sanctions against Iran lifted". CPI Financial. Retrieved 18 January 2016.
  325. ^ Dehghan, Saeed Kamali (15 January 2016). "Lifting of Iran sanctions is 'a good day for the world'". The Guardian. Retrieved 18 January 2016.
  326. ^ French, David (10 May 2018). "A Trip Down Memory Lane: In 2015 the Obama Administration Said the Iran Deal Wasn't Even a 'Signed Document'". National Review. Archived from the original on 13 May 2018. Retrieved 14 May 2014.
  327. ^ "Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties". United Nations. Article 1(a). May 23, 1969.
  328. ^ "Withdrawal from International Agreements: Legal Framework, the Paris Agreement, and the Iran Nuclear Agreement" (PDF). fas.org. Retrieved 22 October 2022.
  329. ^ Eisenstadt, Michael (29 July 2015). "The Nuclear Deal with Iran: Regional Implications". Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Retrieved 28 August 2015.
  330. ^ Einhorn, Robert J. (August 2015). "The battleground-issues". Brookings Institution. Retrieved 28 August 2015.
  331. ^ a b "Obama's Letter to Congressman Nadler". The New York Times. 20 August 2015. Retrieved 28 August 2015.
  332. ^ David E. Sanger and Michael R. Gordon (23 August 2015). "Future Risks of an Iran Nuclear Deal". The New York Times. Retrieved 28 August 2015.
  333. ^ Dennis Ross and David Petraeus (25 August 2015). "How to put some teeth into the nuclear deal with Iran". The Washington Post. Retrieved 28 August 2015.
  334. ^ Wong, Kristina (27 August 2015). "Petraeus still making up his mind on Iran deal". The Hill. Retrieved 28 August 2015.
  335. ^ "Ayatollah Ali Khamenei criticises 'arrogance' of the United States following nuclear deal". The Daily Telegraph. 18 July 2015. Archived from the original on 12 January 2022. Retrieved 24 August 2014.
  336. ^ "Iran nuclear deal: Trump administration approves agreement but review looms". Associated Press. 19 April 2017. Retrieved 14 May 2019.
  337. ^ Baker, Peter (17 July 2017). "Trump Recertifies Iran Nuclear Deal, but Only Reluctantly". The New York Times. Retrieved 14 May 2019.
  338. ^ "Trump: W.H. "cannot and will not" certify Iran's compliance". CBS News. Retrieved 6 January 2018.
  339. ^ Landler, Mark; E. Sanger, David (13 October 2017). "Trump Disavows Nuclear Deal, but Doesn't Scrap It". The New York Times.
  340. ^ Millward, David. "Iranian president Hassan Rouhani warns US would pay "high cost" for scrapping nuclear deal". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 12 January 2022.
  341. ^ a b Shugerman, Emily. "ran nuclear deal: EU condemns Donald Trump's decision to decertify agreement". The Independent. Archived from the original on 14 June 2022.
  342. ^ Trump, Iran nuclear deal, CNN, 8 May 2018.
  343. ^ "FULL TRANSCRIPT OF TRUMP'S SPEECH PULLING U.S. OUT OF IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL". WSB Radio. Cox Media Group. 8 May 2018. Archived from the original on 27 June 2018. Retrieved 10 May 2018.
  344. ^ "Statement on Iran by the IAEA Spokesperson". www.iaea.org. 1 May 2018.
  345. ^ Bayoumy, Yara (10 May 2018). "Europeans work to save Iran deal, and business, after Trump pulls out". Reuters.
  346. ^ Mallard, Grégoire; Sabet, Farzan; Sun, Jin (9 April 2020). "The Humanitarian Gap in the Global Sanctions Regime: Assessing Causes, Effects, and Solutions". Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations. 26 (1): 121–153. doi:10.1163/19426720-02601003. ISSN 1942-6720.
  347. ^ "Trump administration to reinstate all Iran sanctions". 2 November 2018. Retrieved 15 April 2024.
  348. ^ Congressional Research Service. (6 April 2021). "Iran Sanctions". Federation of American Scientists website Retrieved 10 May 2021.
  349. ^ Xe website. Retrieved 10 May 2021.
  350. ^ Christopher A. Bidwell. (19 February 2021). "Foreign commercial banks: The essential partner in future discussions of the Iran nuclear deal ". The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Retrieved 10 May 2021.
  351. ^ "Video experience headlines". BBC News.
  352. ^ Liebermann, Oren; Abdelaziz, Salma (10 May 2018). "Netanyahu says Iran 'crossed a red line' after Israel pounds Iranian targets in Syria". CNN. Retrieved 10 May 2018.
  353. ^ a b Sharafedin, Bozorgmehr (8 May 2019). "Iran rolls back pledges under nuclear pact abandoned by Washington". Reuters. Retrieved 8 May 2019.
  354. ^ "Iran's top leader sets 7 conditions to remain in nuclear deal". Reuters. 23 May 2018. Retrieved 10 May 2018.
  355. ^ "Iran's Supreme Leader says there will be no war with U.S." reuters. 14 May 2019. Retrieved 14 May 2019.
  356. ^ "Iran news: Iranian President Hassan Rouhani announces partial withdrawal from 2015 nuclear deal". CBS News. 8 May 2019. Retrieved 8 May 2019.
  357. ^ a b c "Iran to breach uranium enrichment limits set by landmark nuclear deal". CNN. 7 July 2019. Retrieved 7 July 2019.
  358. ^ "Iran will enrich uranium to 5% at Fordow nuclear site -official". The Jerusalem Post | JPost.com. 5 November 2019.
  359. ^ Sanger, David E. (26 April 2020). "To Pressure Iran, Pompeo Turns to the Deal Trump Renounced". The New York Times.
  360. ^ "Release Human Rights Activist Farhad Meisami". United States Department of State (Press release). 7 December 2018. Retrieved 5 January 2021.
  361. ^ "نامه انتقادی فرهاد میثمی؛ از قاضی صلواتی تا مایک پومپئو". BBC News فارسی (in Persian). 6 January 2019. Retrieved 10 November 2020.
  362. ^ Erlanger, Steven (17 November 2020). "Biden Wants to Rejoin Iran Nuclear Deal, but It Won't Be Easy". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 29 August 2021.
  363. ^ Leary, Alex; Gordon, Michael R. (27 August 2021). "Israel's Bennett Presses Biden Over Iran Nuclear Deal". The Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 29 August 2021.
  364. ^ "Iran says agreed with EU on Brussels nuclear talks 'in days'". France 24. 14 October 2021. Retrieved 8 November 2024.
  365. ^ Joint Statement by the President of France Emmanuel Macron, Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland Boris Johnson, and President of the United States Joseph R. Biden, Jr. on Iran, The White House, 30 October 2021.
  366. ^ "Iran and world powers resume Vienna talks to restore nuclear deal" AlJazeera.com, Retrieved 29 November 2021.
  367. ^ Iran nuclear talks resume with upbeat comments despite skepticism, CNN, 30 November 2021.
  368. ^ Iran strikes hard line as talks over nuclear deal resume, Associated Press, 30 November 2021.
  369. ^ Iran presents drafts of sanctions plan to revive nuclear deal, thenationalnews.com, 2 December 2021.
  370. ^ Iran Nuclear Talks Head for Collapse Unless Tehran Shifts, Europeans Say, Steven Erlanger, The New York Times, 3 December 2021.
  371. ^ "Iran nuclear talks pulled back from brink as Tehran shifts stance" theguardian.com. Retrieved 10 December 2021.
  372. ^ Motamedi, Maziar (20 February 2022). "Iran's parliament sets conditions for return to nuclear deal". Al Jazeera. AL Jazeera. Retrieved 20 February 2022.
  373. ^ Herb, Kylie Atwood,Jeremy (3 March 2022). "US getting closer to reviving Iran nuclear deal but officials warn efforts could still fail | CNN Politics". CNN. Retrieved 8 November 2024.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  374. ^ Hafezi, Pariza (5 March 2022). "Iran says agreed roadmap with IAEA to resolve nuclear issues". Reuters. Reuters. Retrieved 5 March 2022.
  375. ^ "Congress fires its first warning shot on Biden's Iran deal" politico.com. Retrieved 8 May 2022.
  376. ^ "Iran confirms EU envoy visit to save stalled nuclear deal talks" aljazeera.com. Retrieved 8 May 2022.
  377. ^ "Biden 'shares the view that IRGC Quds Forces are terrorists'". 9 April 2022.
  378. ^ "Bennett: Biden notified me last month of decision to keep Iran Guards on terror list". The Times of Israel.
  379. ^ "Biden made final decision to keep Iran's IRGC on terrorist list". Politico. 24 May 2022.
  380. ^ "Iran: Zionist control of US dooms JCPOA talks, other options on table". 26 May 2022.
  381. ^ "Crisis over cameras threatens to shutter Iran nuclear talks". Financial Times. 13 June 2022.
  382. ^ "Iran removing 27 surveillance cameras at nuclear sites: IAEA".
  383. ^ "US targets Chinese, UAE companies in new Iran sanctions". Al Jazeera. 16 June 2022. Retrieved 16 June 2022.
  384. ^ Chiacu, Doina (5 July 2022). "Iran adds demands in nuclear talks, enrichment 'alarming'-U.S. envoy". Reuters. Retrieved 6 July 2022.
  385. ^ "US imposes new Iran sanctions amid efforts to revive nuclear deal". aljazeera.com. Retrieved & July 2022.
  386. ^ "Iran doesn't want a nuclear deal, British spy chief says" Reuters. Retrieved 27 July 2022.
  387. ^ Norman, Laurence (7 August 2022). "Iran, U.S. Close In on Nuclear Deal Text but Hurdles Remain". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 8 August 2022.
  388. ^ Norman, Laurence (5 August 2022). "Iran Demands End to U.N. Atomic Agency Probe to Restore Nuclear Deal". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 8 August 2022.
  389. ^ “Trump's shadow looms over last ditch effort to revive Iran nuclear deal CNN.com. Retrieved 10 August 2022.
  390. ^ Lee, Matthew; Madhani, Aamer (23 August 2022). "US, Iran inch closer to nuke deal but high hurdles remain". Associated Press. Retrieved 30 August 2022.
  391. ^ "Iran says it sends 'constructive' response on nuclear deal; U.S. disagrees". Reuters. 2 September 2022. Retrieved 2 September 2022.
  392. ^ Iordache, Ruxandra (05 septiembre 2022) "EU Borrell says Iran nuclear talks process 'in danger'" argusmedia.com. Retrieved 5 September 2022.
  393. ^ Irish, John; Murphy, Francois (10 September 2022). "Europeans doubt Iran's intentions in nuclear talks". Reuters. Retrieved 11 September 2022.
  394. ^ "Iran: European criticism of nuclear demands 'unconstructive,' takes 'Zionist path'". Times of Israel. 10 September 2022. Retrieved 12 September 2022.
  395. ^ "Oil Gains 2% As Iran Deal Fades, Market Eyes Tight Supply" oilprice.com. Retrieved 14 September 2022.
  396. ^ "Iran's president says he hasn't seen difference between Trump and Biden admins | 60 Minutes". #News #60Minutes #Iran. 60 Minutes 55th season. Retrieved 19 September 2022.
  397. ^ "U.S. says Iran nuclear deal is 'not our focus right now'". Reuters. 12 October 2022. Retrieved 13 October 2022.
  398. ^ Nazaryan, Alexander (17 October 2022). "Iran nuclear deal not happening 'anytime soon,' White House says". Yahoo! News. Retrieved 25 October 2022.
  399. ^ "US Iran envoy: We're not wasting our time on the nuclear deal". The Times of Israel. 21 October 2022. Archived from the original on 31 October 2022. Retrieved 21 December 2022.
  400. ^ "Iran Expands Nuclear Program Amid Protests" Davenport, K. (Nov 2022). armscontrol.org.
  401. ^ "Iran, Italy FMs discuss bilateral ties, regional, intl issues" mehrnews.com. Retrieved 13 November 2022.
  402. ^ Turak N., Iordache R. (DEC 15 2022). "UN nuclear watchdog to visit Tehran as Iran enriches uranium at its highest level ever" CNBC.
  403. ^ Motamedi M. (20 Dec 2022). "Iran and EU signal continued work on nuclear deal in Jordan" aljazeera.com.
  404. ^ "Lavrov: Transition to Plan B under JCPOA will lead to open conflict" az.news. Retrieved 30 December 2022.
  405. ^ "IAEA Chief May Visit Iran in January" financialtribune.
  406. ^ "Window for nuclear talks still open, Iran FM says" al-monitor (Agence France-Presse). Retrieved 30 December 2022.
  407. ^ Laura O'Callaghan (Feb 07, 2023) " IAEA chief touts alternative to Iran nuclear deal to break impasse" thenationalnews.
  408. ^ "Iran to allow more inspections at nuclear sites, U.N. says" cbsnews. Accessed 4 March 2023.
  409. ^ Davenport, K. (April 2023). "Iran Agrees to Increase Nuclear Transparency" armscontrol.org. Accessed 3 April 2023.
  410. ^ "Biden set to present new 'interim' Iran deal - report" jpost. Accessed 3 April 2023.
  411. ^ "علی خامنه‌ای برجام را "تقیه" خواند: "نرمش قهرمانانه در داخل و خارج کشور بد فهمیده شد"". ایران اینترنشنال (in Persian). 1 June 2023. Retrieved 1 June 2023.
  412. ^ "خامنه‌ای: انعطاف جاهایی لازم است اما به معنی عقب‌نشینی نیست". BBC News فارسی (in Persian). Retrieved 1 June 2023.
  413. ^ Iran's Khamenei says 'nothing wrong' with a nuclear deal with West Reuters Middle East. Accessed 14 June 2023.
  414. ^ "West resumes talks over how to deal with Iran nuclear crisis" Financial Times. Accessed 8 June 2023.
  415. ^ "Major Progress Made in Nuclear Talks Between U.S. and Iran in Preparation for a New Agreement" Haaretz | Israel News. Accessed 8 June 2023
  416. ^ "US, Iran eye release of detainees, unfreezing of assets in indirect talks to cool tensions" Arab News. Accessed 19 June 2023.
  417. ^ Why US, Iran holding talks and why does it matter? Al Jazeera. Accessed 19 June 2023.
  418. ^ Netanyahu says Israel opposes nuclear ‘mini-agreements’ with Iran The Times Of Israel. Accessed 19 June 2023.
  419. ^ „For Global Oil Markets, a USA-Iran Deal Is Already Happening“ rigzone.com. August 26, 2023. Accessed 28 August 2023.
  420. ^ „The US moves to advance a prisoner swap deal with Iran and release $6 billion in frozen funds“ AP News (Sep 12 2023) accessed 13 Sep 2023.
  421. ^ „Iran Uranium Near Bomb-Grade Is Focus of Atomic Watchdog Report“ Tirone J. (31 August 2023). Bloomberg (Accessed 1 September 2023)
  422. ^ „UN nuclear watchdog report seen by AP says Iran slows its enrichment of near-weapons-grade uranium“ AP. Sept 4, 2023.
  423. ^ Iran expands stock of near-weapons grade uranium, IAEA reports no progress Reuters. Sept 4, 2023.
  424. ^ "IAEA: Iran expels several inspectors in "unprecedented" move (16 Sep, 2023) axios.com. Accessed Sept 18 2023.
  425. ^ „Iran’s president urges US to demonstrate it wants to return to the 2015 nuclear deal“ (Sep 20, 202) Accessed 21 Sep 2023.
  426. ^ Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi addresses the 2023 United Nations General Assembly. PBS Newshour. (Sep 18 2023) YouTube.com. accessed 21 Sep 2023.
  427. ^ "US and Qatar Will Hold Off Giving Iran $6 Billion in Funds". Bloomberg.com. 12 October 2023. Retrieved 9 November 2023.
  428. ^ "U.S. and Qatar Deny Iran Access to $6 Billion From Prisoner Deal". NYT (Oct 12 2023). Accessed Oct 13 2023.
  429. ^ “US House passes resolution to block Iran's access to $6bn from prisoner swap” (Dec 01, 2023) AP. Retrieved December 1st, 2023.
  430. ^ "EU seeks to revive Iran nuclear talks with JCPOA parties" AZ News (Sep 09, 2024). Accessed Sep 14, 2024.
  431. ^ "IAEA chief Grossi hopes to hold talks with Iranian president by November" Reuters (Sep 08, 2024). Accessed Sep 14, 2024.
  432. ^ "Italian official: Italy ready to cooperate with Iran on JCPOA" 9/19.2024. Nournews. Accessed Oct 22 2024.
  433. ^ "Iran ready to revive nuclear talks with US, Europe" Oct 17 2024 uniindia. Accessed Oct 22 2024
[edit]
Videos