Nuclear Deadlock: Will the Iran Deal be Revitalised Again Amidst Geo-Political Tensions?

Defence affairs (abdul haq)

Formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – the Iran nuclear deal was once hailed as a pillar of international nuclear non-proliferation – but it is currently in a precarious position. 

A new diplomatic effort is evident in the recent indirect negotiations between the Washington DC and Tehran, which were held in Muscat, Oman. However, even with this cautious diplomatic thaw, the chances of reviving the agreement are still hampered by long-standing mistrust, regional power struggles, and domestic political pressures.

The JCPOA’s Origins and Demise

The European Union acted as a mediator in the July 2015 conclusion of the JCPOA between Iran and the P5+1 group of world powers (China, Russia, France, Germany, the UK, the United and the US). In exchange for reducing its nuclear programme and permitting thorough inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the deal offered Iran relief from international sanctions.

Numerous economic sanctions were lifted after the IAEA verified Iran’s compliance in January 2016. The agreement gave international observers previously unheard-of access to Iranian nuclear sites and drastically reduced Iran’s capacity for uranium enrichment.

Nevertheless, the JCPOA’s stability was short-lived. The United States withdrew from the deal in May 2018 due to concerns about Iran’s missile programme, regional activities, and the agreement’s sunset clauses, which were cited by then-President Donald J. Trump. After that, the Trump administration reinstituted broad sanctions against Tehran, focussed especially on its financial and oil export industries. In retaliation, Tehran responded by gradually breaking the terms of the deal by enriching uranium above agreed-upon levels and decreasing its collaboration with the IAEA.

The Precarious Resumption in Muscat

Foreign Minister Sayyid Badr al-Busaidi of Oman acted as a mediator when indirect US-Iran talks resumed in Muscat in April 2024 following years of diplomatic silence. Growing regional instability, such as the devastating Israeli bombardment of Gaza and Iran’s increasing involvement with militant groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, coincided with this diplomatic opening.

The tenacity of these predominantly exploratory talks was to determine whether larger negotiations were feasible – if both sides revealed political will – a renewed agreement was possible, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi emphasised. Nonetheless, the fifth round of talks constructed no concrete outcomes.

The Negative Impact of Local Rivalries

Every effort to revitalise the JCPOA must take into account the altered geo-political landscape. A comprehensive agreement is complicated by Iran’s strategic alliances (Hezbollah in Lebanon, Bashar al-Assad in Syria, and various Shia militias in Iraq). These ties have strengthened the status of Iran in the region while also further isolating it, especially from the Gulf States and Israel.

Both the Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates – who were not parties to the 2015 agreement – have now become more forthright in their calls for a more ample deal that takes into account Tehran’s proxy operations and ballistic missile programme. Israel was tenaciously against the original JCPOA, but the changing stance of Riyadh is especially crucial because it reflects a wider regional agreement that a sturdier and more enforceable agenda is prerequisite.

A New Deal or an Interim?

It seems implausible that the JCPOA will be fully restored in the near future due to the deeply held positions on both sides. Analysts proposition a more measured strategy instead: a limited deal that might provide Tehran with some sanctions’ relief in return for a halt or reduction in its nuclear programme.

Such a temporary agreement, sometimes known as a ‘less for less’ bargain, perhaps used to boost confidence and set the stage for longer-term talks. The accomplishment of even this modest objective, however, hinges on both parties making a firm commitment to put diplomacy ahead of all-out demands.