Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action#Congressional votes

{{Main|US-Iran nuclear negotiations}}

The agreement included a series of provisions describing actions that Iran would undertake for specified periods of time.

For 13 years, 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 15 years, Iran agreed to enrich uranium only up to 3.67% and not to build heavy-water facilities.

For 10 years, uranium enrichment would be limited to a single facility using first-generation centrifuges. Other facilities would be converted to avoid proliferation risks.

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 formed 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 (Adoption Day). 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 terminated 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.{{cite web|url=http://heavy.com/news/2017/10/trump-iran-live-stream-strategy-nuclear-deal/|title=LIVE STREAM: President Trump Announces Iran Nuclear Deal Strategy|first=Chris|last=Bucher|date=13 October 2017|publisher=Heavy.com|access-date=6 January 2018|archive-date=13 June 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180613111827/https://heavy.com/news/2017/10/trump-iran-live-stream-strategy-nuclear-deal/|url-status=live}}

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.{{cite web|first=Yukia |last=Amano |url=https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/statements/iaea-director-generals-introductory-remarks-at-press-conference |title=IAEA Director General: Introductory Remarks at Press Conference |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180509075735/https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/statements/iaea-director-generals-introductory-remarks-at-press-conference |archive-date=9 May 2018 |publisher=International Atomic Energy Agency |date=5 March 2018}} 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.{{cite news|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-30/trump-hints-at-u-s-ending-iran-deal-after-netanyahu-speech|title=Trump Hints He Plans to Quit the Iran Nuclear Deal|date=2018-04-30|work=Bloomberg.com|access-date=2018-04-30|language=en|archive-date=15 May 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180515122040/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-30/trump-hints-at-u-s-ending-iran-deal-after-netanyahu-speech|url-status=live}}{{Cite news|url=https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/pm-expected-to-reveal-how-iran-cheated-world-on-nuke-program-1.6045495|title=Trump: Netanyahu's Speech on Iran Deal Proves That I Was 100% Right on Iran Deal|last1=Tibon|first1=Amir|date=2018-04-30|work=Haaretz|access-date=2018-04-30|last2=Landau|first2=Noa|language=en|archive-date=1 May 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180501002023/https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/pm-expected-to-reveal-how-iran-cheated-world-on-nuke-program-1.6045495|url-status=live}}

{{Nuclear program of Iran}}

On 8 May 2018, Trump announced U.S. withdrawal from JCPOA.Multiple sources:

• {{cite news |last1=McCarthy |first1=Bill |date=July 15, 2020 |title=Trump's pledge to renegotiate Iran deal remains at standstill as election nears |publisher=PolitiFact |url=https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1368/renegotiate-iran-deal/ |access-date=18 December 2021 |archive-date=18 December 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211218025303/https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1368/renegotiate-iran-deal/ |url-status=live }}
• {{cite news |last1=Lynch |first1=Colum |date=May 8, 2020 |title=Despite U.S. Sanctions, Iran Expands Its Nuclear Stockpile |work=Foreign Policy |url=https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/05/08/iran-advances-nuclear-program-withdrawal-jcpoa/ |access-date=18 December 2021 |archive-date=10 May 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240510220143/https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/05/08/iran-advances-nuclear-program-withdrawal-jcpoa/ |url-status=live }}
• {{cite news |last1=Bender |first1=Michael C. |date=August 11, 2020 |title=Trump Pledge to Strike Postelection Deal With Iran Draws Scrutiny |work=The Wall Street Journal |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-pledge-to-strike-postelection-deal-with-iran-draws-scrutiny-11597173267 |access-date=18 December 2021 |archive-date=18 December 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211218025258/https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-pledge-to-strike-postelection-deal-with-iran-draws-scrutiny-11597173267 |url-status=live }}
• {{cite magazine |author=W.J. Hennigan |date=November 24, 2021 |title='They're Very Close.' U.S. General Says Iran Is Nearly Able to Build a Nuclear Weapon |url=https://time.com/6123380/iran-near-nuclear-weapon-capability/ |magazine=Time |access-date=18 December 2021 |archive-date=24 November 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211124155525/https://time.com/6123380/iran-near-nuclear-weapon-capability/ |url-status=live }}
• {{cite news |author1=Laurence Norman |author2=Michael R. Gordon |date=January 13, 2021 |title=Iran Is Assembling Gear Able to Produce Key Nuclear-Weapons Material |work=The Wall Street Journal |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-is-assembling-gear-able-to-produce-material-for-nuclear-weapons-officials-say-11610554933 |access-date=18 December 2021 |archive-date=18 December 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211218025301/https://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-is-assembling-gear-able-to-produce-material-for-nuclear-weapons-officials-say-11610554933 |url-status=live }}
• {{cite news |last1=De Luce |first1=Dan |date=May 31, 2022 |title=Iran has enough uranium to build an atomic bomb, U.N. agency says |publisher=NBC News |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/iran-enough-uranium-build-atomic-bomb-un-says-rcna31246?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma |access-date=1 June 2022 |archive-date=1 June 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220601101654/https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/iran-enough-uranium-build-atomic-bomb-un-says-rcna31246?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma |url-status=live }}{{cite news|url=https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-announces-us-will-withdraw-from-iran-nuclear-deal/ar-AAwXlQq?ocid=spartandhp|title=Trump Announces U.S. Will Withdraw From Iran Nuclear Deal|date=8 May 2018|agency=MSN|first=Mark|last=Landler|access-date=8 May 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180509013208/https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-announces-us-will-withdraw-from-iran-nuclear-deal/ar-AAwXlQq?ocid=spartandhp|archive-date=9 May 2018|url-status=dead}}{{cite news|title=Trump Withdraws U.S. From 'One-Sided' Iran Nuclear Deal|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/world/middleeast/trump-iran-nuclear-deal.html|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=8 May 2018|date=8 May 2018|last1=Landler|first1=Mark|archive-date=14 June 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190614023159/https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/world/middleeast/trump-iran-nuclear-deal.html|url-status=live}} On 7 August 2018, the E.U. enacted a blocking statute to defeat U.S. sanctions on countries trading with Iran.{{cite web|url=http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4805_en.htm|title=Updated Blocking Statute in support of Iran nuclear deal enters into force|website=Europa.eu|publisher=European Commission Press Release Database|date=6 August 2018|access-date=7 August 2018|archive-date=7 August 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180807042645/http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4805_en.htm|url-status=live}} 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.{{cite web|url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-03/trump-and-iran-sanctions/10462528|title=US targets arms program with strongest sanctions since scrapping Iran deal|date=3 November 2018|website=ABC News|access-date=18 December 2018|archive-date=14 December 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181214130717/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-03/trump-and-iran-sanctions/10462528|url-status=live}}

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

On 1 July 2019, Iran announced that it had breached the limit set on its stockpile of low-enriched uranium,{{cite web|url=https://apnews.com/3e2d08074a4f4256ba6ee379cdb168f7|title=Iran says it has breached stockpile limit under nuclear deal|date=1 July 2019|website=AP News|access-date=1 July 2019|archive-date=1 July 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190701134402/https://apnews.com/3e2d08074a4f4256ba6ee379cdb168f7|url-status=live}} which the IAEA confirmed.{{cite web|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-limit/irans-stock-of-enriched-uranium-exceeds-nuclear-deals-limit-iaea-says-idUSKCN1TW2TG?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews|title=Iran's stock of enriched uranium exceeds nuclear deal's limit, IAEA says|date=1 July 2019|website=Reuters|access-date=1 July 2019|archive-date=20 May 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200520144501/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-limit/irans-stock-of-enriched-uranium-exceeds-nuclear-deals-limit-iaea-says-idUSKCN1TW2TG?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews|url-status=live}}

On 5 January 2020, Iran declared that it would no longer abide by the deal's limitations but would continue to coordinate with IAEA.{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51001167|title= Iran rolls back nuclear deal commitments|date=5 January 2020|website=BBC|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200105195039/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51001167|archive-date=5 January 2020|url-status=live}}

{{see also|Nuclear program of Iran|Nuclear proliferation}}

A fission-based "atomic" nuclear weapon uses a fissile material to cause a nuclear chain reaction. The most commonly used materials are uranium 235 ({{Chem|235|U}}) and plutonium 239 ({{Chem|239|Pu}}). Both uranium 233 ({{Chem|233|U}}) and reactor-grade plutonium have also been used.{{cite journal |last1=Holdren |first1=John |first2=Matthew |last2=Bunn |title=Managing Military Uranium and Plutonium in the United States and the Former Soviet Union |journal=Annual Review of Energy and the Environment |year=1997 |volume=22 |pages=403–496 |doi=10.1146/annurev.energy.22.1.403 |doi-access=free}}{{cite book |url={{google books|plainurl=y|id=ynUBAwAAQBAJ|page=26}}|last=Barnaby |first=Frank |editor=Barnaby |editor-first2=Douglas |editor-last2=Holdstock |title=Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Retrospect and Prospect |page=25 |isbn=9781135209933 |date=5 March 2014|publisher=Routledge }}{{cite web |url=http://belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu/files/mmup.pdf |title=Managing military uranium and plutonium in the United States and the Former Soviet Union |first1=Matthew |last1=Bunn |first2=John P. |last2=Holdren |pages=403–409 |access-date=23 August 2015 |archive-date=30 March 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140330004718/http://belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu/files/mmup.pdf |url-status=dead }} 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.{{cite web |url=http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-weapons/nuclear-terrorism/fissile-materials-basics |title=Weapon Materials Basics (2009) |author=Union of Concerned Scientists |access-date=23 August 2015 |archive-date=7 September 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150907143150/http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-weapons/nuclear-terrorism/fissile-materials-basics |url-status=live }} Plutonium is almost nonexistent in nature, and natural uranium is about 99.3% uranium 238 ({{Chem|238|U}}) and only 0.7% {{Chem|235|U}}.

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 purity. For this reason, uranium enrichment is a dual-use technology required for both civilian and military purposes.{{cite web | first1=Jonas | last1=Schneider | first2=Oliver | last2=Thränert | url=http://www.css.ethz.ch/publications/pdfs/CSSAnalyse151-EN.pdf | title=Dual Use: Dealing with Uranium Enrichment | work=CSS Analyses in Security Policy | issue=151 | date=April 2014 | access-date=24 August 2015 | archive-date=23 September 2015 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150923211834/http://www.css.ethz.ch/publications/pdfs/CSSAnalyse151-EN.pdf | url-status=live }} 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.

{{See also|Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons#Iran}}

Iranian development of nuclear technology began in the 1970s, when the U.S. Atoms for Peace program began providing assistance. Iran ratified the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in 1970.{{cite web |title=Country Profiles: Iran: Nuclear |url=http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/iran/nuclear/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140807104143/http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/iran/nuclear/ |archive-date=7 August 2014 |publisher=Nuclear Threat Initiative}}

After the 1979 Iranian Revolution, Iran's nuclear program fell into disarray as "much of Iran's nuclear talent fled the country in the wake of the Revolution". The new leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, initially opposed nuclear technology.

In the late 1980s Iran reinstated its nuclear program, with assistance from China (which entered into an 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. Iran began pursuing nuclear capability, including uranium mining and experimenting with uranium enrichment.

In August 2002 the Paris-based Iranian dissident group National Council of Resistance of Iran publicly revealed the existence of two undeclared nuclear facilities, the Arak heavy-water production facility and the Natanz enrichment facility.{{Cite news |last=Lyons |first=Kate |date=2015-07-14 |title=Iran nuclear talks: timeline |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/iran-nuclear-talks-timeline |access-date=2024-11-03 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210121021219/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/iran-nuclear-talks-timeline |archive-date=21 January 2021 }} In February 2003, Iranian President Mohammad Khatami acknowledged the existence of the facilities and acknowledged that Iran had undertaken "small-scale enrichment experiments" to produce low-enriched uranium for power plants. IAEA inspectors visited Natanz. In May 2003 Iran allowed IAEA inspectors to visit the Kalaye Electric Company, but not to take samples.

In June 2003, an IAEA report concluded that Iran had failed to meet its obligations under the safeguards agreement. Iran, faced with the prospect of a U.N. S.C. referral, entered negotiations with France, Germany, and the United Kingdom (the E.U. 3). The U.S. took no part. In October 2003, Iran and the E.U. 3 agreed to the Tehran Declaration. Iran agreed to full IAEA cooperation, to sign the Additional Protocol, and to temporarily suspend uranium enrichment. In September and October 2003 the IAEA inspected several facilities. This was followed by the Paris Agreement in November 2004, in which Iran agreed to temporarily suspend enrichment and conversion activities, including those related to centrifuges, and committed to working with the EU-3 to find a diplomatic solution".

In August 2005, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accused the Iranian negotiators of treason.{{cite news |url=https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2010/11/iran-primer-the-george-w-bush-administration.html |title=Iran Primer: The George W. Bush Administration |author=Hadley, Stephen |access-date=2 September 2017 |archive-date=18 October 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171018132517/https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2010/11/iran-primer-the-george-w-bush-administration.html |url-status=live }} Over the following 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". Iran notified IAEA that it would resume enrichment at Esfahan.

In February 2006, Iran ended its implementation of the Additional Protocol and resumed enrichment at Natanz, prompting IAEA to refer Iran to the S.C. In April 2006 Ahmadinejad claimed that Iran had explored nuclear technology for power generation, not weapons. In June 2006 the E.U. 3 joined China, Russia, and the U.S., to form the P5+1. That July, the S.C. passed its first resolution (nr. 1696), demanding Iran stop uranium enrichment and processing.{{Cite web|url=https://undocs.org/S/RES/1696(2006)|title=S/RES/1696(2006) – E – S/RES/1696(2006)|website=undocs.org|access-date=26 January 2020|archive-date=3 July 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190703153043/https://www.undocs.org/S/RES/1696(2006)|url-status=live}} S.C. resolution 1737 was adopted in December; followed by others. The legal authority for IAEA referral and the S.C. resolutions derived from the IAEA Statute and the United Nations Charter. 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 July 2006, Iran opened the Arak heavy water production plant, which led to another S.C. resolution.

Four more S.C. resolutions followed: 1747 (March 2007), 1803 (March 2008), 1835 (September 2008), and 1929 (June 2010). In Resolution 1803 and elsewhere the S.C. acknowledged Iran's rights under Article IV of the NPT, which provides the "inalienable right... to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes".Paul K. Kerry, [https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R40094.pdf "Iran's Nuclear Program: Tehran's Compliance with International Obligations"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150905180156/http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R40094.pdf |date=5 September 2015 }}, Congressional Research Service (25 June 2015).{{efn|The meaning of Article IV of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, and its application to Iran, is a matter of dispute.Daniel Politi, [http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/11/24/right_to_enrich_uranium_tehran_washington_have_different_interpretations.html "Does Iran Deal Include Right to Enrich Uranium? Depends on Whom You Ask"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150711052747/http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/11/24/right_to_enrich_uranium_tehran_washington_have_different_interpretations.html? |date=11 July 2015 }}, Slate (24 November 2013).Fredrik Dahl, [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-rights-idUSBRE9AL0R120131123 "Q&A: Is there a 'right' to enrich uranium? Iran says yes, U.S. no"], Reuters (23 November 2013). Gary Samore writes, "Whether the NPT guarantees signatories a right to enrichment is a long-standing dispute among the parties to the treaty."Gary Samore, [https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/middle-east/2013-11-14/nuclear-rights-and-wrongs "Nuclear Rights and Wrongs: Why One Legal Term Stalled Negotiations With Iran"], Foreign Affairs (14 November 2013). 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.William O. Beeman, [https://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-o-beeman/does-iran-have-the-right-_b_4181347.html "Does Iran Have the Right to Enrich Uranium? The Answer Is Yes"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150712032505/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-o-beeman/does-iran-have-the-right-_b_4181347.html |date=12 July 2015 }}, The Huffington Post (31 December 2013).Kelsey Davenport, [http://armscontrolnow.org/2014/09/18/myths-and-misconceptions-the-right-to-enrich/ "Myths and Misconceptions: The Right to Enrich"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141014055905/http://armscontrolnow.org/2014/09/18/myths-and-misconceptions-the-right-to-enrich/ |date=14 October 2014 }}, Arms Control Association (18 September 2014). 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. 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. 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." 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.'" 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 it's a peaceful program." 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.}}

In 2007, IAEA director-general Mohamed ElBaradei said that military action against Iran "would be catastrophic, counterproductive" and called for negotiations.Daniel Dombey, [https://web.archive.org/web/20140904220229/http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/transcripts/2007/ft190207.html Transcript of the Director General's Interview on Iran and DPRK], Financial Times (19 February 2007). ElBaradei specifically proposed a "double, simultaneous suspension, a time out" as a confidence-building measure, under which sanctions and enrichment would be suspended.

A November 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate assessed that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003; that estimate and U.S. Intelligence Community statements assessed that Iran was maintaining its option to develop nuclear weapons".Kenneth Katzman & Paul K. Kerr, [https://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R43333.pdf "Report: Iran Nuclear Agreement"], Congressional Research Service (30 July 2015).

In September 2009 U.S. President Barack Obama revealed the existence of an underground enrichment facility in Fordow, near Qom.{{Cite web|url=https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2009/09/25/a-growing-concern-iran-refusing-live-those-international-responsibilities|work=whitehouse.gov|title=A Growing Concern that Iran is Refusing to Live Up to Those International Responsibilities|via=National Archives|date=25 September 2009|access-date=9 July 2019|archive-date=20 April 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190420123904/https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2009/09/25/a-growing-concern-iran-refusing-live-those-international-responsibilities|url-status=live}} Israel threatened military action.

File:U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry & Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in Geneva, Switzerland, November 24, 2013.jpg 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 Burns and Jake Sullivan (U.S.) and Ali Asghar Khaji (Iran).Laura Rozen, [http://backchannel.al-monitor.com/index.php/2014/01/7484/three-days-in-march-new-details-on-the-u-s-iran-backchannel "Three days in March: New details on how US, Iran opened direct talks"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140112085434/http://backchannel.al-monitor.com/index.php/2014/01/7484/three-days-in-march-new-details-on-the-u-s-iran-backchannel/ |date=12 January 2014 }}, Al-Monitor (8 January 2014). In June 2013 Hassan Rouhani was elected president of Iran.{{cite news |title=Optimism as Iran nuclear deal framework announced; more work ahead |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/02/world/iran-nuclear-talks/ |work=CNN |date=3 April 2015 |access-date=3 April 2015 |archive-date=1 May 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170501073531/http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/02/world/iran-nuclear-talks |url-status=live }} In a 2006 negotiation with Europe, Rouhani said that Iran had used the negotiations to dupe the Europeans, saying that during the negotiations, Iran had mastered the conversion of uranium yellowcake at Isfahan.{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/14/international/middleeast/14iran.html |title=Showdown at U.N.? Iran Seems Calm |author=Sciolino, Elaine|work=The New York Times |date=14 March 2006 }} In August 2013, three days after his inauguration, Rouhani called for negotiations with the P5+1.[https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheet/Timeline-of-Nuclear-Diplomacy-With-Iran "Timeline of Nuclear Diplomacy With Iran"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200219182955/https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheet/Timeline-of-Nuclear-Diplomacy-With-Iran |date=19 February 2020 }}, Arms Control Association (July 2015).

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. 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.[https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/1.829686 Obama Administration Reportedly Shielded Hezbollah From DEA and CIA to Save Iran Nuclear Deal] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200521044017/https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/1.829686 |date=21 May 2020 }}, Haaretz, 18 December 2017{{Cite web |title=The secret backstory of how Obama let Hezbollah off the hook |url=https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/obama-hezbollah-drug-trafficking-investigation/ |access-date=2024-11-03 |website=POLITICO|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171217223918/https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/obama-hezbollah-drug-trafficking-investigation/ |archive-date=17 December 2017 |date=18 December 2017}} Attorney General Jeff Sessions ordered an investigation.{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/sessions-wants-review-of-obama-era-hezbollah-investigations/2017/12/22/5733affa-e777-11e7-927a-e72eac1e73b6_story.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171223064053/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/sessions-wants-review-of-obama-era-hezbollah-investigations/2017/12/22/5733affa-e777-11e7-927a-e72eac1e73b6_story.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=23 December 2017 |title=Sessions wants review of Obama-era Hezbollah investigations|agency=Associated Press |date=22 December 2017 |newspaper=The Washington Post|access-date=6 January 2018 }}

On 24 November 2013, after several rounds of negotiations, the interim Joint Plan of Action was signed between Iran and the P5+1. It consisted of a short-term program freeze in exchange for decreased economic sanctions.{{cite news |first1=Anne |last1=Gearan |first2=Joby |last2=Warrick |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/kerry-in-geneva-raising-hopes-for-historic-nuclear-deal-with-iran/2013/11/23/53e7bfe6-5430-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html |title=World powers reach nuclear deal with Iran to freeze its nuclear program |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=23 November 2013 |access-date=3 April 2015 |archive-date=7 January 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180107095703/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/kerry-in-geneva-raising-hopes-for-historic-nuclear-deal-with-iran/2013/11/23/53e7bfe6-5430-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html |url-status=live }} The IAEA began inspections under this interim agreement. The agreement was formally activated on 20 January 2014.{{cite news |title=West, Iran activate landmark nuclear deal |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-idUSBREA0J00420140120 |access-date=21 January 2014 |publisher=Reuters |date=3 April 2015 |first1=Frederick |last1=Dahl |first2=Justyna |last2=Pawlak |archive-date=21 January 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140121005336/http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/20/us-iran-nuclear-idUSBREA0J00420140120 |url-status=live }} That day, an IAEA report stated that Iran was adhering to the terms of the interim agreement, including stopping enrichment of uranium to 20%, beginning to dilute half of the stockpile of 20% enriched uranium to 3.5%, and halting work on the Arak heavy-water reactor.

A major focus of the negotiations was limitations on the Arak IR-40 heavy water reactor and production plant (which was under construction, but never became operational. Iran agreed in the Joint Plan of Action 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.{{Cite news |date=2010-12-06 |title=Iran's key nuclear sites |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-11927720 |access-date=2024-11-09 |work=BBC News |language=en-GB|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230504105854/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-11927720 |archive-date=4 May 2023 }}

In 2015, the U.S. enacted the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015.{{efn|The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, Pub.L. 114–17, was an amendment to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.[https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ17/PLAW-114publ17.pdf "Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150727145717/https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ17/PLAW-114publ17.pdf |date=27 July 2015 }}, Pub.L. 114–17.}}[https://www.davispolk.com/sites/default/files/2015-05-29_Iran_Nuclear_Agreement_Review_Act_Becomes_Law.pdf "Iran Nuclear Review Act Becomes Law"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210126080515/https://www.davispolk.com/sites/default/files/2015-05-29_Iran_Nuclear_Agreement_Review_Act_Becomes_Law.pdf|date=26 January 2021}}, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP (29 May 2015). 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.Jonathan Weisman & Julie Hirschfeld Davis, [https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/15/world/middleeast/congress-iran-nuclear-deal.html "Republican Lawmakers Vow Fight to Derail Nuclear Deal"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170519110953/https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/15/world/middleeast/congress-iran-nuclear-deal.html|date=19 May 2017}}, The New York Times (14 July 2005). 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.Kevin Liptak, [http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/14/politics/iran-nuclear-deal-congress-obama-block/ "Now that he has a deal with Iran, Obama must face Congress"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150716215050/http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/14/politics/iran-nuclear-deal-congress-obama-block|date=16 July 2015}}, CNN (14 July 2015).{{Cite web |last=Page |first=Susan |title=Cardin: If Iran deal survives, more U.S. aid likely to Israel, Gulf states |url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/07/21/capital-download-ben-cardin-iran-nuclear-deal/30480529/ |access-date=2024-11-09 |website=USA TODAY |language=en-US}}

{{see also|Criticism of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action}}

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) covered 109 pages, including five annexes.Michael R. Gordon & David E. Sanger, [https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/15/world/middleeast/iran-nuclear-deal-is-reached-after-long-negotiations.html "Deal Reached on Iran Nuclear Program; Limits on Fuel Would Lessen With Time"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170120105536/https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/15/world/middleeast/iran-nuclear-deal-is-reached-after-long-negotiations.html|date=20 January 2017}}, The New York Times (14 July 2015). The major provisions are:{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/14/iran-nuclear-programme-world-powers-historic-deal-lift-sanctions |title=Iran nuclear deal: world powers reach historic agreement to lift sanctions |date=14 July 2015 |work=The Guardian |access-date=14 July 2015 |archive-date=11 November 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201111051805/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/14/iran-nuclear-programme-world-powers-historic-deal-lift-sanctions |url-status=live }}{{cite web |title=The Iran Nuclear Deal: What You Need To Know About The JCPOA |url=https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/jcpoa_what_you_need_to_know.pdf |access-date=24 July 2016 |date=14 July 2015 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170120215419/https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/jcpoa_what_you_need_to_know.pdf |archive-date=20 January 2017 |via=National Archives |work=whitehouse.gov |df=dmy-all }}

Over 15 years, Iran would reduce its stockpile of low-enriched uranium by 97%, from 10,000 kg to 300 kg,{{cite web |first1=David E. |last1=Sanger |first2=Andrew E. |last2=Kramer |title=Iran Hands Over Stockpile of Enriched Uranium to Russia |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/29/world/middleeast/iran-hands-over-stockpile-of-enriched-uranium-to-russia.html |website=NY Times |date=28 December 2015 |access-date=20 July 2019 |archive-date=20 July 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190720175111/https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/29/world/middleeast/iran-hands-over-stockpile-of-enriched-uranium-to-russia.html |url-status=live }}{{cite web|first=Eric |last=Bradner |url=http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/02/politics/iran-nuclear-deal-main-points-of-agreement/ |title=What's in the Iran nuclear deal? 7 key points |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150404070719/http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/02/politics/iran-nuclear-deal-main-points-of-agreement/ |archive-date=4 April 2015 |publisher=CNN |date=2 April 2015}}{{cite web|first=Eyder |last=Peralta |url=https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/07/14/422920192/6-things-you-should-know-about-the-iran-nuclear-deal |title=6 Things You Should Know About The Iran Nuclear Deal |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180510051201/https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/07/14/422920192/6-things-you-should-know-about-the-iran-nuclear-deal |archive-date=10 May 2018 |publisher=NPR |date=14 July 2015}}{{Cite web |date=2015-07-14 |title=Key Excerpts of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) |url=https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/07/14/key-excerpts-joint-comprehensive-plan-action-jcpoa |access-date=2024-11-09 |website=White House |language=en|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230516005819/https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/07/14/key-excerpts-joint-comprehensive-plan-action-jcpoa |archive-date=16 May 2023 }} and limit enrichment to 3.67%, sufficient for civilian nuclear power and research, but not for weaponry.[https://2009-2017.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2015/07/244885.htm "Press Availability on Nuclear Deal With Iran"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190216201411/https://2009-2017.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2015/07/244885.htm |date=16 February 2019 }}, U.S. Department of State (14 July 2015). This represented a "major decline" in Iran's nuclear activity. Iran had produced stockpiles near 20% (medium-enriched uranium). 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".Resolution 2231, page 29

Iran initially possessed centrifuges sufficient for one nuclear weapon, but not for nuclear power.{{Cite web |title=The odd reality of Iran's centrifuges: Enough for a bomb, not power |url=https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/feb/25/michael-morell/odd-reality-irans-centrifuges-enough-bomb-not-powe/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190709050018/https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/feb/25/michael-morell/odd-reality-irans-centrifuges-enough-bomb-not-powe/ |archive-date=9 July 2019 |access-date=9 July 2019 |website=PolitiFact}} 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. 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. Non-operating centrifuges would be stored in Natanz and monitored by IAEA, but could be used to replace failed centrifuges.{{cite web |last=Kagan |first=Frederick |title=Evaluating President Obama's statements on the nuclear deal |publisher=American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research |date=15 July 2015 |url=http://www.aei.org/publication/evaluating-president-obamas-statements-on-the-nuclear-deal/ |access-date=15 July 2015 |archive-date=10 October 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151010170226/http://www.aei.org/publication/evaluating-president-obamas-statements-on-the-nuclear-deal/ |url-status=live }}Justin Fishel, [https://abcnews.go.com/International/iran-nuclear-deal-winners-losers/story?id=32437227 "Iran Nuclear Deal: A Look at the Winners and Losers"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200520082903/https://abcnews.go.com/International/iran-nuclear-deal-winners-losers/story?id=32437227 |date=20 May 2020 }}, ABC News (14 July 2015). Iran agreed to build no enrichment facilities for 15 years.

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

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.Resolution 2231, page 21-22 Spent fuel was to be sent out of the country. 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.{{cite news |last1=George Jahn |title=AP Exclusive: Diplomats: Iran to Get Natural Uranium Batch |url=http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_IRAN_NUCLEAR?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-01-09-08-26-03 |access-date=9 January 2017 |work=The Associated Press |quote=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 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170109233531/http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_IRAN_NUCLEAR?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-01-09-08-26-03 |archive-date=9 January 2017 |df=dmy-all }} For 15 years Iran agreed not to research or engage in spent fuel reprocessing,Resolution 2231, page 21-24 build additional heavy-water reactors, or accumulate heavy water.

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.

An Additional Protocol extended the monitoring and verification provisions for as long as Iran remained a party to the NPT.{{Cite web |last=Schumann |first=Anna |date=2015-07-14 |title=Fact Sheet: Iran and the Additional Protocol |url=https://armscontrolcenter.org/factsheet-iran-and-the-additional-protocol/ |access-date=2024-11-03 |website=Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation |language=en-US}}|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150722020946/http://armscontrolcenter.org/factsheet-iran-and-the-additional-protocol/ |archive-date=22 July 2015 }}

A comprehensive inspections regime would monitor and confirm Iranian compliance.{{efn|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.{{cite web|url=http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/IranDealDefinitiveGuide.pdf?webSyncID=481969e1-d6e1-01d6-9107-7657215a1003&sessionGUID=9e1b2808-6ac0-b0b9-565e-d7b6411031c5 |title=The Iran Nuclear Deal: A Definitive Guide |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160329073445/http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/IranDealDefinitiveGuide.pdf?webSyncID=481969e1-d6e1-01d6-9107-7657215a1003&sessionGUID=9e1b2808-6ac0-b0b9-565e-d7b6411031c5 |archive-date=29 March 2016 |publisher=Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs |pp= 43–44}} 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. "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."

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.{{cite news |first=George |last=Jahn |title=AP Exclusive: UN to let Iran inspect alleged nuke work site |url=http://bigstory.ap.org/article/a9f4e40803924a8ab4c61cb65b2b2bb3/ap-exclusive-un-let-iran-inspect-alleged-nuke-work-site |publisher=Associated Press |date=19 August 2015 |access-date=19 August 2015 |archive-date=19 August 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150819222903/http://bigstory.ap.org/article/a9f4e40803924a8ab4c61cb65b2b2bb3/ap-exclusive-un-let-iran-inspect-alleged-nuke-work-site |url-status=live }} (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).{{cite news|url=http://bigstory.ap.org/article/bedd428e26924eed95c5ceaeec72d3a4/text-draft-agreement-between-iaea-iran|title=Text of draft agreement between IAEA, Iran|website=bigstory.ap.org|access-date=22 August 2015|archive-date=25 August 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150825032857/http://bigstory.ap.org/article/bedd428e26924eed95c5ceaeec72d3a4/text-draft-agreement-between-iaea-iran|url-status=live}} The AP said that the draft "diverges from normal procedures". 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."{{cite web|first=Max |last=Fisher |url=https://www.vox.com/2015/8/20/9182185/ap-iran-inspections-parchin |title=The AP's controversial and badly flawed Iran inspections story, explained |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170609013121/https://www.vox.com/2015/8/20/9182185/ap-iran-inspections-parchin |archive-date=9 June 2017 |publisher=Vox |date=20 August 2015}} 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.{{cite news |url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/24/iran-deal-truthers.html |title=Iran Deal Truthers |first=Tom |last=Nichols |date=24 August 2015 |publisher=The Daily Beast |access-date=25 August 2015 |archive-date=25 August 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150825141104/http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/24/iran-deal-truthers.html |url-status=live }}

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."{{cite news |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-iaea-parchin-idUSKCN0QP0ID20150820 |title=IAEA says report Iran to inspect own military site is 'misrepresentation' |author=Nasralla, Shadia |access-date=5 July 2021 |archive-date=16 May 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210516141709/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-iaea-parchin-idUSKCN0QP0ID20150820 |url-status=live }} 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."Kelsey Davenport & Daryl G. Kimball, [http://www.armscontrol.org/print/7130 "Would the IAEA Depend on Iran for Nuclear Residue Testing? No."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150825004358/http://www.armscontrol.org/print/7130 |date=25 August 2015 }}, Arms Control Association (30 July 2015). 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."Mark Hibbs & Thomas Shea, [https://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/251660-no-iran-is-not-allowed-to-inspect-itself/ No, Iran is not allowed to inspect itself] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230509001515/https://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/251660-no-iran-is-not-allowed-to-inspect-itself/ |date=9 May 2023 }}, The Hill (21 August 2015). Hibbs and Shea wrote that the claims that Iran would be in charge of inspections at Parchin were "wholly specious" and "unfounded".

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." 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." 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".{{cite news |url=http://bigstory.ap.org/article/72239ef269414e33a4983e6d91fbf43f/iran-gives-samples-military-site-nuclear-inspectors |title=UN agency: Iran's role in nuclear probe meets standards |author=Jahn, George |website=bigstory.ap.org/ |access-date=29 October 2015 |archive-date=25 October 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151025201538/http://bigstory.ap.org/article/72239ef269414e33a4983e6d91fbf43f/iran-gives-samples-military-site-nuclear-inspectors |url-status=live }}{{cite news |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-iaea-idUSKCN0RL0Z020150921 |title=Samples taken at Iran's Parchin military site: U.N. nuclear watchdog |author=Murphy, Francois |author2=Nasralla, Shadia |access-date=5 July 2021 |archive-date=18 May 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210518091646/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-iaea-idUSKCN0RL0Z020150921 |url-status=live }}}}

The IAEA was to have multilayeredOren Dorell, [https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/07/16/high-tech-scrutiny-key-iran-nuclear-deal/30247549/ "High-tech scrutiny key to Iran nuclear deal"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170818145128/https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/07/16/high-tech-scrutiny-key-iran-nuclear-deal/30247549/ |date=18 August 2017 }}, USA Today (16 July 2015). oversight "over Iran's entire nuclear supply chain, from uranium mills to its procurement of nuclear-related technologies".Ishaan Tharoor, [https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/07/15/how-the-nuclear-deal-can-keep-iran-from-cheating-according-to-a-former-u-n-inspector/ "How the nuclear deal can keep Iran from 'cheating,' according to a former U.N. inspector"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150716132621/https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/07/15/how-the-nuclear-deal-can-keep-iran-from-cheating-according-to-a-former-u-n-inspector/ |date=16 July 2015 }}, The Washington Post blogs (15 July 2015). 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).Rebecca Kaplan, [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-inspectors-access-any-site-iran-true/ "Obama says inspectors get access to 'any' site in Iran. Is it true?"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200508193913/https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-inspectors-access-any-site-iran-true/ |date=8 May 2020 }}, CBS News (14 June 2015). 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.William J. Broad, [https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/15/world/middleeast/iran-nuclear-accords-complexity-shows-bipartisan-letters-impact.html "Iran Accord's Complexity Shows Impact of Bipartisan Letter"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211213145304/https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/15/world/middleeast/iran-nuclear-accords-complexity-shows-bipartisan-letters-impact.html |date=13 December 2021 }}, The New York Times (14 July 2015).Tim Mak, [http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/06/the-spy-tech-that-will-keep-iran-in-line.html "The Spy Tech That Will Keep Iran in Line"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150716091923/http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/06/the-spy-tech-that-will-keep-iran-in-line.html |date=16 July 2015 }}, The Daily Beast (7 July 2015). Other tools included software to gather information and detect anomalies, and datasets on imports. The number of inspectors tripled to 150.

Inspectors could request access, informing Iran of the basis of the request, to verify the absence of prohibited activities and nuclear materials. The inspectors were to come only from countries with which Iran had diplomatic relations.{{cite news |title=The Iran nuclear accord: Making the world a bit safer |url=https://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21657820-imperfect-deal-better-alternatives-making-world-bit-safer |access-date=20 July 2015 |newspaper=The Economist |date=18 July 2015 |archive-date=15 April 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180415181140/https://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21657820-imperfect-deal-better-alternatives-making-world-bit-safer |url-status=live }} Iran could either allow the inspection or propose alternatives that satisfied the IAEA's concerns. If the inspectors were not satisfied, a 24-day process would ensue. Iran and the IAEA were to have 14 days to reach agreement. For the following week a majority of the commission could require Iran to take specific actions within three more days.{{cite news |last=Mohammed |first=Arshad |title=U.S., Iran finesse inspections of military sites in nuclear deal |publisher=Reuters |date=15 July 2015 |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-military-sites-analysis-idUSKCN0PP2TG20150715 |access-date=15 July 2015 |archive-date=28 January 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160128153438/http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-military-sites-analysis-idUSKCN0PP2TG20150715 |url-status=live }}Carol Morello & Karen DeYoung, [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/historic-nuclear-deal-with-iran-expected-to-be-announced/2015/07/14/5f8dddb2-29ea-11e5-a5ea-cf74396e59ec_story.html "Historic deal reached with Iran to limit nuclear program"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150716202017/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/historic-nuclear-deal-with-iran-expected-to-be-announced/2015/07/14/5f8dddb2-29ea-11e5-a5ea-cf74396e59ec_story.html |date=16 July 2015 }}, The Washington Post (14 July 2015). This allowed the U.S. and its allies to insist on responses that Iran, Russia or China could not veto.{{Cite news|last=Yellinek|first=Roie|title=A Reappraisal of China-Iran Ties After US JCPOA Withdrawal|url=https://jamestown.org/program/a-reappraisal-of-china-iran-ties-after-us-jcpoa-withdrawal/|access-date=2020-06-17|website=Jamestown|language=en-US|archive-date=18 June 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200618112242/https://jamestown.org/program/a-reappraisal-of-china-iran-ties-after-us-jcpoa-withdrawal/|url-status=live}} After three days of non-compliance, sanctions would be automatically reimposed.

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.[https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/08/11/431652556/obama-iran-will-face-longer-breakout-time-though-not-indefinitely Obama: Iran Will Face Longer 'Breakout Time,' Though Not Indefinitely], All Things Considered, NPR (11 August 2015). See also [https://www.npr.org/2015/04/07/397933577/transcript-president-obamas-full-npr-interview-on-iran-nuclear-deal "Transcript: President Obama's Full NPR Interview On Iran Nuclear Deal"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180403030418/https://www.npr.org/2015/04/07/397933577/transcript-president-obamas-full-npr-interview-on-iran-nuclear-deal |date=3 April 2018 }}, NPR (7 April 2015).{{efn|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."{{cite web|first=Ali |last=Vaez |url=http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/middle-east-north-africa/iraq-iran-gulf/iran/op-eds/vaez-missing-the-point-on-Irans-breakout-time-english.aspx |title=Missing the point on Iran's nuclear breakout time|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150918194838/http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/middle-east-north-africa/iraq-iran-gulf/iran/op-eds/vaez-missing-the-point-on-Irans-breakout-time-english.aspx |archive-date=18 September 2015 |publisher=-International Crisis Group (republished by al-Jazeera America) |date=2 March 2015}}}} Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation[http://armscontrolcenter.org/longevity-of-major-iran-nuclear-agreement-provisions/ "Factsheet: Longevity of Major Iran Nuclear Agreement Provisions"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150725061802/http://armscontrolcenter.org/longevity-of-major-iran-nuclear-agreement-provisions/|date=25 July 2015}}, Center for Arms Control and Proliferation (14 July 2015).Richard Nephew, [http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/markaz/posts/2015/07/17-iran-breakout-nephew "Based on breakout timelines, the world is better off with the Iran nuclear deal than without it"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150814035831/http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/markaz/posts/2015/07/17-iran-breakout-nephew|date=14 August 2015}}, Brookings Institution (17 July 2015). 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.{{cite news |url=http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/alan-kuperman-iran-deal-built-lie-article-1.2296038 |title=The Iran deal is built on a lie |first=Alan |last=Kuperman |access-date=15 August 2015 |archive-date=15 August 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150815082135/http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/alan-kuperman-iran-deal-built-lie-article-1.2296038 |url-status=live }}

After ten years or more, the breakout time would gradually decrease. By the 15th year, U.S. officials said the breakout time would return to the status quo ante of a few months. 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."

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:[https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/documents/infcircs/2016/infcirc907.pdf "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"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170104000724/https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/documents/infcircs/2016/infcirc907.pdf|date=4 January 2017}}, IAEA, INFCIRC/907, 23 December 2016.

• 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.{{cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-exemptions-exclusive/exclusive-u-s-others-agreed-secret-exemptions-for-iran-after-nuclear-deal-report-idUSKCN1173LA|title=U.S., others agreed 'secret' exemptions for Iran after nuclear deal: t|date=1 September 2016|publisher=Reuters|access-date=6 January 2018|archive-date=6 January 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180106174005/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-exemptions-exclusive/exclusive-u-s-others-agreed-secret-exemptions-for-iran-after-nuclear-deal-report-idUSKCN1173LA|url-status=live}}

{{further|Sanctions against Iran}}Iran had to submit a full report on its nuclear history before it could receive any sanctions relief.{{Cite web |last=Schumann |first=Anna |date=2015-08-31 |title=Iran Nuclear Deal: Debunking the Myths |url=https://armscontrolcenter.org/the-real-facts-on-the-iran-nuclear-negotiations/ |access-date=2024-11-09 |website=Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation |language=en-US}} 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.Jackie Northam, [https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/07/16/423562391/lifting-sanctions-will-release-100-billion-to-iran-then-what "Lifting Sanctions Will Release $100 Billion To Iran. Then What?"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180424215049/https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/07/16/423562391/lifting-sanctions-will-release-100-billion-to-iran-then-what |date=24 April 2018 }}, All Things Considered, NPR (16 July 2015). No U.N. or E.U. nuclear-related sanctions or restrictive measures were to be imposed.Jessica Simeone & Anup Kaphle, [https://www.buzzfeed.com/jessicasimeone/here-are-the-highlights-of-the-iran-nuclear-agreement "Here Are The Highlights of the Iran Nuclear Agreement"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171018132500/https://www.buzzfeed.com/jessicasimeone/here-are-the-highlights-of-the-iran-nuclear-agreement|date=18 October 2017}}, Buzzfeed News (14 July 2015).

Additional E.U. sanctions would be lifted after eight years of compliance, including some on the Revolutionary Guards.Felicia Schwartz, [https://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/15/when-sanctions-lift-iranian-commander-will-benefit/ "When Sanctions Lift, Iranian Commander Will Benefit"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171018132340/https://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/15/when-sanctions-lift-iranian-commander-will-benefit/ |date=18 October 2017 }}, The Wall Street Journal blogs (15 July 2015).

The U.S. agreed to suspend its nuclear-related secondary sanctions.Ellie Geranmayeh, [http://www.ecfr.eu/article/iran_explainer3070 "Explainer: The Iran nuclear deal"], European Council on Foreign Relations (17 July 2015){{cite web |title=Iran Sanctions |first=Kenneth |last=Katzman |url=https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS20871.pdf |date=4 August 2015 |publisher=Congressional Research Service |quote=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). |access-date=5 September 2015 |archive-date=5 September 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150905183447/http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS20871.pdf |url-status=live }} This was not tied to a date or compliance but was expected to occur "roughly in the first half of 2016".[https://web.archive.org/web/20151224152611/http://uk.reuters.com/article/iran-nuclear-timeline-idUKL5N0ZU38O20150714 "Timeline: Implementation of the Iran nuclear agreement"], Reuters (14 July 2015).[http://davispolk.com/sites/default/files/2015-08-11_Nuclear_Deal_with_Iran_Establishes_Plan_for_Sanctions_Relief.pdf "Nuclear Deal with Iran Establishes Plan for Sanctions Relief] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160407060706/http://www.davispolk.com/sites/default/files/2015-08-11_Nuclear_Deal_with_Iran_Establishes_Plan_for_Sanctions_Relief.pdf |date=7 April 2016 }}, 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.") Some sanctions would continue: those on conventional weapon sales for five years; those on ballistic missile technologies for eight.Bryan Bender, [http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/pentagon-iran-deal-weapon-restrictions-120116.html "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"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150715163200/http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/pentagon-iran-deal-weapon-restrictions-120116.html |date=15 July 2015 }}, Politico (14 July 2015). But sanctions related to human rights, missiles, and support for terrorism remained in effect.Elizabeth Whitman, [http://www.ibtimes.com/what-sanctions-against-iran-wont-be-lifted-bans-terrorism-support-human-rights-abuses-2008066 "What Sanctions Against Iran Won't Be Lifted? Bans For Terrorism Support, Human Rights Abuses To Remain Intact"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150715015723/http://www.ibtimes.com/what-sanctions-against-iran-wont-be-lifted-bans-terrorism-support-human-rights-abuses-2008066 |date=15 July 2015 }}, International Business Times (14 July 2015). Many U.S. sanctions apply worldwide; E.U. sanctions apply only in Europe.

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

Any party could refer allegations of non-compliance to the Joint Commission monitoring body.{{Cite web |last=Panda |first=Ankit |title=How the Iran Deal's 'Snap Back' Mechanism Will Keep Tehran Compliant |url=https://thediplomat.com/2015/07/how-the-iran-deals-snap-back-mechanism-will-keep-tehran-compliant/ |access-date=2024-11-04 |website=thediplomat.com |language=en-US}} 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. 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.{{cite web |title=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 |url=http://eeas.europa.eu/statements-eeas/2015/150714_01_en.htm |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160906071926/http://eeas.europa.eu/statements-eeas/2015/150714_01_en.htm |archive-date=6 September 2016 |access-date=16 July 2015 |publisher=Europa (web portal)}} 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, though since that might cause Iran to withdraw from the agreement, they might be reluctant to do so.{{cite news |first=Jackie |last=Northam |url=https://www.npr.org/2015/07/20/424571368/if-iran-violates-nuke-deal-a-look-at-how-sanctions-would-snap-back |title=A Look At How Sanctions Would 'Snap Back' If Iran Violates Nuke Deal |publisher=NPR |access-date=4 April 2018 |archive-date=10 February 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180210121648/https://www.npr.org/2015/07/20/424571368/if-iran-violates-nuke-deal-a-look-at-how-sanctions-would-snap-back |url-status=live }}

After 15 years, many provisions of the JCPOA would expire, including most enrichment provisions.{{cite journal|url=https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/iran/2015-09-07/iran-after-deal|title=Iran After the Deal – What to Do When the JCPOA Expires|first=Gary G.|last=Sick|date=7 September 2015|journal=Foreign Affairs|access-date=29 April 2016|archive-date=14 July 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190714045317/https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/iran/2015-09-07/iran-after-deal|url-status=live}}

{{Main|Reactions to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action}}

{{Wikisource|Remarks by President Trump on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action}}

File:Secretary Kerry shakes hands with minister Zarif.jpg 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.{{cite web |first=Jeryl |last=Bier |url=http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/kerry-shakes-hands-iranian-foreign-minister-zarif_757241.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130927153348/http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/kerry-shakes-hands-iranian-foreign-minister-zarif_757241.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=27 September 2013 |title=Kerry Shakes Hands With Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif |work=The Weekly Standard |date=27 September 2013|access-date=19 October 2015}}]]

The JCPOA received a mixed international reaction. Many countries expressed hope that it could achieve its goals,[http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/t1281870.shtml/ "Wang Yi: China Plays Unique and Constructive Role in Reaching Comprehensive Agreement on Iranian Nuclear Issue"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150718181351/http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/t1281870.shtml |date=18 July 2015 }}, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China (14 July 2015).[http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/business/iran-deal-sufficiently-robust-for-10-years-says-frances-foreign-minister-laurent-fabius/articleshow/48068401.cms "Iran deal 'sufficiently robust' for 10 years, says France's foreign minister Laurent Fabius"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170103155431/http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/business/iran-deal-sufficiently-robust-for-10-years-says-frances-foreign-minister-laurent-fabius/articleshow/48068401.cms |date=3 January 2017 }}, The Economic Times, Reuters (14 July 2015).{{Cite news|url=https://www.dw.com/en/gabriel-heads-off-to-forge-business-links-with-iran/a-18593967|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181226035459/https://www.dw.com/en/gabriel-heads-off-to-forge-business-links-with-iran/a-18593967|url-status=dead|title=Gabriel heads off to forge business links with Iran |date=July 19, 2015|archive-date=26 December 2018|work=Deutsche Welle}} while Iranian adversaries in the Middle East, including Israel and Saudi Arabia, and some U.S. lawmakers saw it as defective and appeasing Iran.Tom LoBianco & Sophie Tatum, [http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/14/politics/2016-candidates-iran-deal/ "GOP 2016 hopefuls slam Iran nuclear deal"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181225225027/https://www.cnn.com/2015/07/14/politics/2016-candidates-iran-deal/ |date=25 December 2018 }}, CNN (14 July 2015).Adam Wollner, [http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/iran-deal-republican-presidential-candidates-20150714 "How the 2016 Presidential Candidates Are Reacting to the Iran Deal"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150715105640/http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/iran-deal-republican-presidential-candidates-20150714 |date=15 July 2015 }}, National Journal (14 July 2015).{{cite news |first=David |last=Lawder |date=14 July 2015 |title=U.S. House Speaker Boehner says Iran accord looks like a 'bad deal' |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/iran-nuclear-boehner-deal-idUSL2N0ZU13820150714 |editor-first=Bill |editor-last=Trott |access-date=15 July 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150715120823/http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/14/iran-nuclear-boehner-deal-idUSL2N0ZU13820150714 |archive-date=15 July 2015 |url-status=live }}

JCPOA was the first of its kind in the annals of non-proliferation.{{cite news |first=Sheel Kant |last=Sharma |url=http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/more-than-a-silver-lining/ |title=More than a silver lining: The Iran nuclear deal could be a trigger for a far-reaching transformation |work=The Indian Express |date=23 July 2015 |access-date=19 October 2015 |archive-date=23 October 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151023095249/http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/more-than-a-silver-lining/ |url-status=live }}{{cite web |url=https://www.pism.pl/files/?id_plik=20150 |title=Effects of the P5+1 Nuclear Deal with Iran |publisher=The Polish Institute of International Affairs |location=Warsaw |number=74 |volume=806 |date=23 July 2015|access-date=19 October 2015 |first=Marcin Andrzej |last=Piotrowski |series=Bulletin}}{{cite news |url=http://www.irna.ir/en/News/81801135/ |title=Guardian Council approves JCPOA amid stormy Majlis session |publisher=Islamic Republic News Agency |date=16 October 2015 |access-date=19 October 2015 |first=Salman |last=Parviz |archive-date=23 October 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151023051810/http://www.irna.ir/en/News/81801135/ |url-status=live }}{{cite web |url=https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/06/24/the-iran-nuclear-deal-proves-that-peace-is-possible-diplomacy-works/ |title=The Iran Deal Proves That Peace Is Possible |work=Foreign Policy |date=24 June 2015 |access-date=19 October 2015 |first=Trita |last=Parsi |archive-date=29 September 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150929065708/http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/06/24/the-iran-nuclear-deal-proves-that-peace-is-possible-diplomacy-works/? |url-status=live }}{{cite web |url=http://www.iranreview.org/content/Documents/A-Win-for-Diplomacy-and-the-World.htm |title=A Win for Diplomacy and the World |work=Iran Review |date=11 August 2015 |access-date=19 April 2016 |first=Omid |last=Irani |archive-date=14 August 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160814062526/http://www.iranreview.org/content/Documents/A-Win-for-Diplomacy-and-the-World.htm |url-status=live }} 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.

It was the first time that the S.C. had recognized a developing country's nuclear enrichment program{{cite web |url=http://irdiplomacy.ir/en/page/1950372/Security+Council+Resolution%2C+Building+Block+for+Lifting+of+Sanctions.html |title=Security Council Resolution, Building Block for Lifting of Sanctions |publisher=Iranian Diplomacy |date=23 July 2015 |access-date=19 October 2015 |archive-date=11 August 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150811225311/http://www.irdiplomacy.ir/en/page/1950372/Security+Council+Resolution%2C+Building+Block+for+Lifting+of+Sanctions.html |url-status=live }} and backed a multinational agreement within the framework of a resolution (2231).{{cite web |url=http://www.irna.ir/en/News/81690711/ |title=Historic resolution at UNSC |publisher=Islamic Republic News Agency |date=22 July 2015 |access-date=19 October 2015 |archive-date=23 October 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151023051821/http://www.irna.ir/en/News/81690711/ |url-status=live }} 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. Sanctions against Iran were lifted for the first time.

Iran was the first country subject to Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter that ended its case by diplomacy.{{cite news |url=http://english.farsnews.ir/newstext.aspx?nn=13940421001398 |title=Source Rejects AP Report on Provisional Agreement |publisher=Fars News Agency |date=12 July 2015|access-date=19 October 2015}}{{cite news |url=http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/271a104c-296b-11e5-8613-e7aedbb7bdb7.html |title=Iran agrees breakthrough nuclear deal |work=Financial Times |date=14 July 2015 |access-date=19 April 2016 |first1=Sam |last1=Jones |first2=Alex |last2=Barker |first3=Demetri |last3=Secastopulo |first4=Najmeh |last4=Bozorgmehr |archive-date=16 October 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151016202639/http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/271a104c-296b-11e5-8613-e7aedbb7bdb7.html |url-status=live }} All other cases ended by regime change, war, or acquiescence.{{cite web |first=Ja'far |last=Mohammadi |url=http://www.iranreview.org/content/Documents/Will-Iran-s-Nuclear-Negotiating-Team-Introduce-the-Fourth-Option-in-History-of-the-Security-Council-.htm |title=Will Iran's Nuclear Negotiating Team Introduce the "Fourth Option" in History of the Security Council? |publisher=Iran Review |date=29 July 2015 |access-date=19 October 2015 |archive-date=24 September 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150924092858/http://www.iranreview.org/content/Documents/Will-Iran-s-Nuclear-Negotiating-Team-Introduce-the-Fourth-Option-in-History-of-the-Security-Council-.htm |url-status=live }}

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.{{cite journal|first=Gary G.|last=Sic|author-link=Gary Sick|url=https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/iran/2015-09-07/iran-after-deal|title=Iran After the Deal: What to Do When the JCPOA Expires|journal=Foreign Affairs|date=7 September 2015|access-date=19 April 2016|archive-date=14 July 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190714045317/https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/iran/2015-09-07/iran-after-deal|url-status=live}}

File:John Kerry Speaks With Hossein Fereydoun and Javad Zarif before Press conference in Vienna (19663913956) cropped.jpg 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.{{cite news |url=http://bigstory.ap.org/article/68579b6285a6413fa33c606d44eafd1f/nuclear-talks-kerry-setting-records-long-vienna-stay |title=Nuclear talks: Kerry setting records with long Vienna stay |publisher=Associated Press |date=10 July 2015 |access-date=19 October 2015 |archive-date=23 October 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151023052521/http://bigstory.ap.org/article/68579b6285a6413fa33c606d44eafd1f/nuclear-talks-kerry-setting-records-long-vienna-stay |url-status=live }} Zarif broke the record for an Iranian Foreign Minister staying far from home with an 18-day stay in Vienna,{{cite news |url=http://www.bbc.com/persian/iran/2015/07/150722_l12_iran_nuclear_deal_record |title=چه رکوردهايي در جريان مذاکرات اتمي ايران شکسته شد؟ |publisher=BBC |language=fa |date=22 July 2015 |access-date=19 October 2015 |archive-date=1 October 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151001073202/http://www.bbc.com/persian/iran/2015/07/150722_l12_iran_nuclear_deal_record |url-status=live }} and set the record of 106 days of negotiations over 687 days, more than any other chief nuclear negotiator in 12 years.{{cite web |url=http://www.magiran.com/n3229539 |title=ظريف 189 روز، جليلي 16 روز: بررسي آماري "ايران" از كارنامه 2 تيم هسته?اي فعلي و سابق |trans-title=Zarif 189 days, Jalili 16 days: Statistical Survey of Iran from Current and Existing Nuclear Team |publisher=Magiran |first=Maryam |last=Salari |page=21 |number=6030 |language=fa |date=17 September 2015}} The negotiations became the longest continuous negotiations with the presence of all five foreign ministers of the permanent S.C. members.

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.{{cite news |url=http://www.bbc.com/persian/iran/2015/09/150930_l12_iran_us_obama |title=چه 'اتفاقات نادري' در دوره اوباما ميان ايران و آمريکا رخ داده؟ |publisher=BBC |language=fa |date=30 September 2015 |access-date=19 October 2015 |archive-date=29 October 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151029185258/http://www.bbc.com/persian/iran/2015/09/150930_l12_iran_us_obama |url-status=live }} 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.{{cite news |first=Kambiz |last=Foroohar |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-27/kerry-to-visit-iranian-territory-on-manhattan-s-upper-east-side |title=Kerry Visits a Piece of Iran on Manhattan's Upper East Side |publisher=Bloomberg |date=28 April 2015 |access-date=19 October 2015 |archive-date=29 July 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150729073102/http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-27/kerry-to-visit-iranian-territory-on-manhattan-s-upper-east-side |url-status=live }} 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.{{cite magazine |first=Robin |last=Wright |url=https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/irans-javad-zarif-on-russia-and-peace-in-syria |title=Iran's Javad Zarif on Russia and Peace in Syria |magazine=The New Yorker |date=6 October 2015 |access-date=19 October 2015 |archive-date=17 October 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151017001511/http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/irans-javad-zarif-on-russia-and-peace-in-syria |url-status=live }} Obama said, "Too much effort has been put into the JCPOA and we all should be diligent to implement it."{{cite news |url=http://www.isna.ir/fa/news/94072114183/%D8%A7%D9%88%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%A7-%D8%A8%D8%B1%D8%A7%DB%8C-%D8%AF%D8%B3%D8%AA-%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%86-%D8%A8%D8%A7-%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%AD%D8%A7%D9%86%DB%8C-%D8%A8%D8%B1%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%87-%D8%B1%DB%8C%D8%B2%DB%8C |title=نقل‌ قول شفيعي از ظريف در کميسيون امنيت‌ملي: اوباما براي دست دادن با روحاني برنامه‌ريزي کرده بود |publisher=Iranian Students' News Agency |language=fa |date=13 October 2015 |access-date=19 October 2015 |archive-date=15 October 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151015213039/http://www.isna.ir/fa/news/94072114183/%D8%A7%D9%88%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%A7-%D8%A8%D8%B1%D8%A7%DB%8C-%D8%AF%D8%B3%D8%AA-%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%86-%D8%A8%D8%A7-%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%AD%D8%A7%D9%86%DB%8C-%D8%A8%D8%B1%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%87-%D8%B1%DB%8C%D8%B2%DB%8C |url-status=live }}

{{Main|Negotiations leading to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action}}

File:P5+1 Ministers With Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif in Vienna.jpg, Austria, on November 24, 2014]]

JCPOA was the culmination of a 20-month negotiation.{{cite news |last1=Mullen |first1=Jethro |last2=Robertson |first2=Nic |date=14 July 2015 |title=Landmark deal reached on Iran nuclear program |url=http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/14/politics/iran-nuclear-deal/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150714100219/http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/14/politics/iran-nuclear-deal/ |archive-date=14 July 2015 |access-date=14 July 2015 |work=CNN}}

The parties extended their talks, first to 24 November 2014{{cite news |last1=Charbonneau |first1=Louis |last2=Hafezi |first2=Parisa |date=18 July 2014 |title=Iran, powers extend talks after missing nuclear deal deadline |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-idUSKBN0FN27020140719 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140719061838/http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/19/us-iran-nuclear-idUSKBN0FN27020140719 |archive-date=19 July 2014 |access-date=19 July 2014 |publisher=Reuters}} and then to 1 July 2015.{{cite news |last1=Lee |first1=Matthew |last2=Jahn |first2=George |date=24 November 2014 |title=Iran nuclear talks to be extended until July |url=http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAN_NUCLEAR_TALKS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-11-24-07-58-13 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141129130025/http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAN_NUCLEAR_TALKS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-11-24-07-58-13 |archive-date=29 November 2014 |access-date=24 November 2014 |publisher=Associated Press |df=dmy-all}}

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. Negotiations continued, ending in Vienna at the Palais Coburg. On 14 July 2015, all parties agreed.{{cite news |author1=Jethro Mullen |author2=Nic Robertson |date=14 July 2015 |title=Landmark deal reached on Iran nuclear program |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/14/politics/iran-nuclear-deal/index.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150714162234/http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/14/politics/iran-nuclear-deal/index.html |archive-date=14 July 2015 |access-date=14 July 2015 |work=CNN}}

The agreement reflects the impact of a June 2015 public letter by a bipartisan group of U.S. diplomats, experts, and others.[http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/public-statement-on-u.s.-policy-toward-the-iran-nuclear-negotiations "Public Statement on U.S. Policy Toward the Iran Nuclear Negotiations Endorsed by a Bipartisan Group of American Diplomats, Legislators, Policymakers, and Experts"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201212091640/http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/public-statement-on-u.s.-policy-toward-the-iran-nuclear-negotiations|date=12 December 2020}}, Washington Institute for Near East Policy (24 June 2015). The letter outlined concerns about various provisions and called for strengthening the agreement. After the agreement was reached, one of the negotiators, Robert Einhorn, a former U.S. Department of State official, said: "Analysts will be pleasantly surprised. The more things are agreed to, the less opportunity there is for implementation difficulties later on."

An analysis by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace claimed that the final agreement was based upon (and buttressed) "the rules-based nonproliferation regime created by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and including especially the IAEA safeguards system".{{cite web |last1=Perkovich |first1=George |last2=Hibbs |first2=Mark |last3=Acton |first3=James M. |last4=Dalton |first4=Toby |date=8 August 2015 |title=Parsing the Iran Deal |url=http://carnegieendowment.org/2015/08/06/parsing-iran-deal/iec5 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150907182841/http://carnegieendowment.org/2015/08/06/parsing-iran-deal/iec5 |archive-date=7 September 2015 |access-date=23 August 2015 |publisher=Carnegie Endowment for International Peace}}

File:JCPOA Signatures.png 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]."{{cite web |date=3 September 2015 |title=تير مچگيري كوچك زاده از ظريف به سنگ خورد |url=http://www.magiran.com/n3221234 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171018132340/http://www.magiran.com/n3221234 |archive-date=18 October 2017 |access-date=18 January 2016 |publisher=Etemaad |page=3 |language=fa |number=3333}}]]In November 2015, U.S. State Department Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs Julia Frifield said: "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."{{cite letter|url=http://www.humanrightsvoices.org/assets/attachments/documents/11.24.2015.state.dept.letter.jcpoa.pdf|first=Julia|last=Frifield|author-link=Julia Frifield|publisher=United States Department of State|recipient=Mike Pompeo|date=November 19, 2015|title=Nuclear deal with Iran|via=humanrightsvoices.org}}

File:Wang Yi 2014 (cropped).jpg|{{flagicon|China|size=x30px}}
China
Wang Yi, Foreign Minister

File:Laurent Fabius January 2015.jpg|{{flagicon|France|1974|size=x30px}}
France
Laurent Fabius, Foreign Minister

File:Frank-Walter Steinmeier Feb 2014 (cropped).jpg|{{flagicon|Germany|size=x30px}}
Germany
Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Minister of Foreign Affairs

File:Federica Mogherini Official.jpg|{{flagicon|European Union|size=x30px}}
European Union
Federica Mogherini, High Representative

File:Mohammad Javad Zarif 2014.jpg|{{flagicon|Iran|size=x30px}}
Iran
Mohammad Javad Zarif, Minister of Foreign Affairs

File:Sergey Lavrov 2014.jpg|{{flagicon|Russia|size=x30px}}
Russia
Sergey Lavrov, Foreign Minister

File:Philip Hammond, Secretary of State for Defence.jpg|{{flagicon|United Kingdom|size=x30px}}
United Kingdom
Philip Hammond, Foreign Secretary

File:John Kerry official Secretary of State portrait.jpg|{{flagicon|United States|size=x30px}}
United States
John Kerry, Secretary of State

{{main|United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231}}

The S.C. formally endorsed the agreement on 20 July 2015.[http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/iran-nuclear-deal-un-security-council-likely-to-vote-next-week-1.3152376 "Iran nuclear deal: UN Security Council likely to vote next week: US diplomats to promote deal to UN counterparts in coming days"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200923162835/http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/iran-nuclear-deal-un-security-council-likely-to-vote-next-week-1.3152376|date=23 September 2020}}, CBC, Thomson Reuters (15 July 2015).Somini Sengupta, [https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/16/world/consensus-gives-security-council-momentum-in-mideast-but-question-is-how-much.html Consensus Gives Security Council Momentum in Mideast, but Question Is How Much] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210110161250/https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/16/world/consensus-gives-security-council-momentum-in-mideast-but-question-is-how-much.html|date=10 January 2021}}, The New York Times (16 July 2015).{{cite web |last=Sengupta |first=Somini |date=20 July 2015 |title=U.N. Moves to Lift Sanctions on Iran After Nuclear Deal |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/21/world/middleeast/security-council-following-iran-nuclear-pact-votes-to-lift-sanctions.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210123215903/https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/21/world/middleeast/security-council-following-iran-nuclear-pact-votes-to-lift-sanctions.html |archive-date=23 January 2021 |publisher=The New York Times}}

On 15 July, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power circulated a 14-page draft to Council members. On 20 July, the S.C. approved resolution 2231[https://www.un.org/en/sc/inc/pages/pdf/pow/RES2231E.pdf "United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015)"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150819092747/http://www.un.org/en/sc/inc/pages/pdf/pow/RES2231E.pdf|date=19 August 2015}}, adopted by the Security Council at its 7488th meeting, on 20 July 2015 by a 15–0 vote. The resolution delayed implementation for 90 days to allow for U.S. Congressional consideration under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015.CBS News/Associated Press, [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/un-security-council-vote-iran-nuclear-deal-resolution-us-congress-objections/ Iran deal set to become international law] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200521151830/https://www.cbsnews.com/news/un-security-council-vote-iran-nuclear-deal-resolution-us-congress-objections/|date=21 May 2020}} (17 July 2015).

Speaking immediately after the vote, Power told the S.C. that sanctions relief would start only when Iran "verifiably" met its obligations. She 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.Samantha Power, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, [http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/245067.htm "Explanation of Vote at a UN Security Council Vote on Resolution 2231 on Iran Non-proliferation"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150723001412/http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/245067.htm|date=23 July 2015}} U.S. State Department (20 July 2015). Hekmati, Abedini, and Rezaian were released in a January 2016 prisoner exchange, which Kerry said the nuclear agreement had accelerated.Michael Pearson & Elise Labott, [http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/16/middleeast/iran-jason-rezaian-prisoners-freed/ 5 Americans released by Iran, 4 as part of prisoner swap] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181226035306/https://www.cnn.com/2016/01/16/middleeast/iran-jason-rezaian-prisoners-freed/|date=26 December 2018}}, CNN (16 January 2016).

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.Robin Emmott & Francesco Guarascio, [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-eu-idUSKCN0PU0S520150720 "Europe backs Iran nuclear deal in signal to U.S. Congress"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210518124034/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-eu-idUSKCN0PU0S520150720|date=18 May 2021}}, Reuters (20 July 2015). The E.U. continued its sanctions relating to human rights and prohibiting the export of ballistic missile technology.

{{See also|Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015}}

File:John Kerry, Ernest Moniz and Jack Lew defending the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (19759429878).jpg

The agreement's legal status in the U.S. was disputed.{{efn|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.{{cite web|first=Steven |last=Nelson |url=https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/07/15/iran-deal-may-bind-next-president |title=Iran Deal May Bind Next President: Scholars say the nuclear agreement could be binding under domestic and international law |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171018134500/https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/07/15/iran-deal-may-bind-next-president |archive-date=18 October 2017 |publisher=U.S. News & World Report |date=15 July 2015}} 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.David Golove, [https://www.justsecurity.org/14154/presidential-authority-conclude-iran-nuclear-agreement-and-senates-self-defeating-bill/ "Presidential Authority to Conclude an Iran Nuclear Agreement—and the Senate's Self-Defeating Bill"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150706185422/http://justsecurity.org/14154/presidential-authority-conclude-iran-nuclear-agreement-and-senates-self-defeating-bill/ |date=6 July 2015 }}, Just Security (20 August 2014). 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." 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." 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.
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."Michael J. Glennon, [https://www.justsecurity.org/21130/iran-nuclear-deal-dispensability-obligation/ "The Iran Nuclear Deal: The Dispensability of Obligation"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150710115815/http://justsecurity.org/21130/iran-nuclear-deal-dispensability-obligation/ |date=10 July 2015 }}, Just Security (16 March 2015). (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.Felicia Schwartz, [https://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-nuclear-deal-if-reached-wouldnt-be-legally-binding-kerry-says-1426115097 "Iran Nuclear Deal, If Reached, Wouldn't Be 'Legally Binding,' Kerry Says"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170309072909/https://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-nuclear-deal-if-reached-wouldnt-be-legally-binding-kerry-says-1426115097/ |date=9 March 2017 }}, The Wall Street Journal (11 March 2015).) 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."Zachary Laub, [http://www.cfr.org/iran/binding-iran-deal/p36828 "How Binding Is the Iran Deal?"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150823225144/http://www.cfr.org/iran/binding-iran-deal/p36828 |date=23 August 2015 }} (interview with John B. Bellinger III), Council on Foreign Relations (23 July 2015). 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". 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".{{cite news |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/congress-can-rewrite-the-iran-deal-1439419154 |title=Congress Can Rewrite the Iran Deal |work=The Wall Street Journal |first=Orde |last=Kittrie |date=12 August 2015 |access-date=16 August 2015 |author-link=Orde Kittrie |archive-date=30 March 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170330013638/https://www.wsj.com/articles/congress-can-rewrite-the-iran-deal-1439419154 |url-status=live }}}} Under U.S. law, the JCPOA is a non-binding political commitment.{{cite web |date=11 March 2015 |title=Dealing with Iran: A Primer on the President's Options for a Nuclear Agreement |url=http://opiniojuris.org/2015/03/11/dealing-with-iran-a-primer-on-the-presidents-options-for-a-nuclear-agreement/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201208020823/http://opiniojuris.org/2015/03/11/dealing-with-iran-a-primer-on-the-presidents-options-for-a-nuclear-agreement/ |archive-date=8 December 2020 |access-date=9 December 2015}}{{cite web |title=International documents of a non-legally binding character |url=https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/65728.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201029064500/https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/65728.pdf |archive-date=29 October 2020 |access-date=9 December 2015 |publisher=U.S. State Department}} According to the State Department, it specifically is not an executive agreement nor a treaty (as defined in U.S. law).{{citation needed|date=August 2020}} 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.Amber Phillips, [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/09/the-role-of-congress-or-lack-thereof-in-the-iran-deal-explained/ "Can Congress stop the Iran deal?"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201117060714/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/09/the-role-of-congress-or-lack-thereof-in-the-iran-deal-explained/|date=17 November 2020}}, The Washington Post (1 July 2015).{{efn|The "vast majority of international agreements" negotiated by the United States, especially in recent decades, have been executive agreements, rather than treaties.Matthew Fleming, [http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/iran-deal-treaty-or-not/?dcz= "Iran Deal: Treaty or Not?"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150801041508/http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/iran-deal-treaty-or-not/?dcz= |date=1 August 2015 }}, Roll Call (21 July 2015). 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."Scott Bomboy, [http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/07/veto-showdown-on-tap-for-congress-after-iran-nuclear-deal/ "Veto showdown on tap for Congress after Iran nuclear deal"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150724161256/http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/07/veto-showdown-on-tap-for-congress-after-iran-nuclear-deal/ |date=24 July 2015 }}, National Constitution Center (15 July 2015).[https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-722.ZO.html "539 U.S. 396"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151210222339/https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-722.ZO.html |date=10 December 2015 }} (2003). 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.{{cite news |title=The Lawless Underpinnings of the Iran Nuclear Deal |page=A13 |first1=David |last1=Rivkin |first2=Lee A. |last2=Casey |newspaper=The Wall Street Journal |date=27 July 2015}}Michael Ramsey, [http://originalismblog.typepad.com/the-originalism-blog/2015/07/is-the-iran-deal-unconstitutionalmichael-ramsey.html "Is the Iran Deal Unconstitutional?"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150803031035/http://originalismblog.typepad.com/the-originalism-blog/2015/07/is-the-iran-deal-unconstitutionalmichael-ramsey.html |date=3 August 2015 }}, Originalism Blog (15 July 2015). 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",Jack Goldsmith, [https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/more-weak-arguments-illegality-iran-deal "More Weak Arguments For The Illegality of the Iran Deal"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240113124136/https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/more-weak-arguments-illegality-iran-deal |date=13 January 2024 }}, Lawfare Blog (27 July 2015). and by John Yoo, who wrote that the executive agreement form of the JCPOA is consistent with the Treaty Clause of the Constitution.John Yoo, [http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421621/iran-deal-constition-supports-obama-executive-action "Why Obama's Executive Action on Iran Does Not Violate the Law"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150806203637/http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421621/iran-deal-constition-supports-obama-executive-action |date=6 August 2015 }}, National Review (26 July 2015).}}

On 19 July 2015, the State Department officially transmitted the JCPOA to Congress.[https://2009-2017.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2015/07/245051.htm "Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200521013516/https://2009-2017.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2015/07/245051.htm|date=21 May 2020}}, United States Department of State (19 June 2015). The referral included the Unclassified Verification Assessment Report on the JCPOA and the Intelligence Community's Classified Annex to the Verification Assessment Report. The 60-day review period began on 20 JulyEric Bradner, [http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/19/politics/john-kerry-iran-deal-congress/ "State Dept. sends Iran deal to Congress"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150722222352/http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/19/politics/john-kerry-iran-deal-congress|date=22 July 2015}}, CNN (19 July 2015). and ended on 17 September.Patricia Zengerle, [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-congress-idUSKCN0Q922020150804 "House to vote on Iran deal disapproval resolution"], Reuters (4 August 2015). 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.Dennis C. Jett, The Iran Nuclear Deal: Bombs, Bureaucrats, and Billionaires (Springer, 2018), p. 35.

Obama repeatedly urged Congress to support the agreement, noting the inspections regime's vigor and criticizing opponents for failing to offer a viable alternative.Michael D. Shear & Julie Hitschfeld Davis, [https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/16/world/middleeast/iran-nuclear-deal-approval-urged-by-obama.html "Obama Begins 60-Day Campaign to Win Over Iran Deal Skeptics at Home and Abroad"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170228084324/https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/16/world/middleeast/iran-nuclear-deal-approval-urged-by-obama.html|date=28 February 2017}}, The New York Times (15 July 2015). Vice President Joe Biden met with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Democrats, seeking their support.Deirdre Walsh & Ted Barrett, [http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/15/politics/iran-deal-white-house-democrats-congress/ "WH dispatches Joe Biden to lock down Iran deal on Capitol Hill"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150911103604/http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/15/politics/iran-deal-white-house-democrats-congress|date=11 September 2015}}, CNN (16 July 2015).

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."Peter Baker, [https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/28/us/politics/obama-criticizes-huckabee-trump-cruz-and-other-republicans.html "Obama Criticizes Huckabee, Trump, Cruz and Other Republicans"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180509075556/https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/28/us/politics/obama-criticizes-huckabee-trump-cruz-and-other-republicans.html|date=9 May 2018}}, The New York Times (27 July 2015). Former Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, a candidate for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, called Obama "naive".Nick Gass, [http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/mike-huckabee-2016-iran-deal-holocaust-120651.htm "Mike Huckabee not backing down after Holocaust remark"], Politico (27 July 2015). 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 America safe".[https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/07/27/remarks-president-obama-and-prime-minister-hailemariam-desalegn-ethiopia "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).

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell promised that Republicans would discuss the agreement respectfully in September.{{cite news |last=McAuliff |first=Michael |date=6 August 2015 |title=Mitch McConnell Scolds Obama To Tone Down Iran Rhetoric |url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mitch-mcconnell-scolds-obama-on-iran-rhetoric_55c3a13ae4b0f1cbf1e41c2f |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150810062207/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mitch-mcconnell-scolds-obama-on-iran-rhetoric_55c3a13ae4b0f1cbf1e41c2f |archive-date=10 August 2015 |access-date=11 August 2015 |work=The Huffington Post}}{{cite news |date=6 August 2015 |title=Transcripts |url=https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/wolf/date/2015-08-06/segment/02 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160305093049/http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1508/06/wolf.02.html |archive-date=5 March 2016 |access-date=12 August 2015 |publisher=CNN}} 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."{{cite web |last=Schumer |first=Chuck |date=7 August 2015 |title=My Position on the Iran Deal |url=https://medium.com/@SenSchumer/my-position-on-the-iran-deal-e976b2f13478 |access-date=7 August 2015 |publisher=Medium}}

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.Eliza Collins, [http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/clapper-iran-deal-gives-us-access-insight-120616.html "Clapper: Iran deal gives U.S. access, insight"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150816181034/http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/clapper-iran-deal-gives-us-access-insight-120616.html|date=16 August 2015}}, Politico (24 July 2015).

The discussion extended to the wider public.Deb Riechmann, [http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/High-stakes-lobbying-on-Iran-deal-pressure-for-6393259.php High-stakes lobbying on Iran deal; pressure for Congress] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150722210430/http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/High-stakes-lobbying-on-Iran-deal-pressure-for-6393259.php|date=22 July 2015}}, San Francisco Chronicle, Associated Press (22 July 2015). 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.Jonathan Weisman & Nicholas Confessore, [https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/13/us/politics/in-efforts-to-sway-iran-debate-big-money-donors-are-heard.html "Donors Descend on Schumer and Others in Debate on Iran"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170315181934/https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/13/us/politics/in-efforts-to-sway-iran-debate-big-money-donors-are-heard.html|date=15 March 2017}}, The New York Times (12 August 2015).Catherine Ho, [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/08/13/mega-donors-opposing-iran-deal-have-upper-hand-in-fierce-lobbying-battle/ "Mega-donors opposing Iran deal have upper hand in fierce lobbying battle"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180815135114/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/08/13/mega-donors-opposing-iran-deal-have-upper-hand-in-fierce-lobbying-battle/|date=15 August 2018}}, The Washington Post (13 August 2015).

Some groups welcomed the JCPOA,Ali Gharib, [http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/7/16/iranian-americans-welcome-nuclear-deal.html "Iranian-Americans welcome nuclear deal, despite opposition to regime"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150722015338/http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/7/16/iranian-americans-welcome-nuclear-deal.html|date=22 July 2015}}, Al Jazeera America (16 July 2015). such as the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), and Iranian American Bar Association.[http://www.niacouncil.org/joint-statement-of-iranian-american-organizations-on-the-u-s-iran-nuclear-deal/ "Joint Statement of Iranian-American Organizations on the U.S.-Iran Nuclear Deal"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150814034629/http://www.niacouncil.org/joint-statement-of-iranian-american-organizations-on-the-u-s-iran-nuclear-deal/|date=14 August 2015}}, National Iranian American Council (29 July 2015)

Public letters of support abounded (often bipartisan):

• 73 Middle East and foreign affairs scholars supported the deal. Signatories included John Esposito, Ehsan Yarshater, Noam Chomsky, Peter Beinart, John Mearsheimer, and Stephen Walt.{{cite news |last=Toosi |first=Nahal |author-link=Nahal Toosi |date=27 August 2015 |title=Scholars: Iran deal will stabilize Mideast: The latest letter on the Iran nuclear deal focuses on potential benefits to the volatile region |url=http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/iran-deal-praised-for-stabilizing-mideast-121778.htm |access-date=20 December 2019 |work=Politico}}
• More than 100 former U.S. ambassadors and senior State Department officials.Julian Hattem, [https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/248309-more-than-100-ex-us-ambassadors-pledge-backing-for-iran-deal/ "More than 100 ex-US ambassadors pledge backing for Iran deal"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230408113610/https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/248309-more-than-100-ex-us-ambassadors-pledge-backing-for-iran-deal/|date=8 April 2023}}, The Hill (17 July 2015).[https://www.scribd.com/doc/271773707/Letter-to-the-President-from-over-100-former-American-Ambassadors-on-the-Joint-Comprehensive-Plan-of-Action-on-Iran-s-Nuclear-Program "Letter to the President from over 100 former American Ambassadors on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran's Nuclear Program"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171018132244/https://www.scribd.com/doc/271773707/Letter-to-the-President-from-over-100-former-American-Ambassadors-on-the-Joint-Comprehensive-Plan-of-Action-on-Iran-s-Nuclear-Program|date=18 October 2017}} (17 July 2015). Signatories included Daniel C. Kurtzer, James R. Jones, Frank E. Loy, Princeton N. Lyman, Jack F. Matlock Jr., Donald F. McHenry, Thomas E. McNamara, and Thomas R. Pickering.
• Five former U.S. ambassadors to Israel and three former Under Secretaries of State: R. Nicholas Burns, James B. Cunningham, William C. Harrop, Daniel Kurtzer, Thomas R. Pickering, Edward S. Walker Jr., and Frank G. Wisner.James Fallows, [https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/07/the-iran-debate-moves-on/399713/ "A Guide to the Iran Nuclear Deal's Supporters and Opponents"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170307163101/https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/07/the-iran-debate-moves-on/399713/|date=7 March 2017}}, The Atlantic (28 July 2015).[https://www.scribd.com/doc/272679222/Letter-on-JCPOA-From-Former-Und-Sec-State-and-US-Ambs-to-Israel-to-House-Leadership "Letter to Congressional Leadership from Former Under Secretaries of State and former American Ambassadors to Israel on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170819103951/https://www.scribd.com/doc/272679222/Letter-on-JCPOA-From-Former-Und-Sec-State-and-US-Ambs-to-Israel-to-House-Leadership|date=19 August 2017}} (27 July 2015).
• 60 national-security leaders. Republican signatories included Paul O'Neill, Carla Anderson Hills, William Perry, and Nancy Landon Kassebaum. Democrats included Madeleine Albright, George J. Mitchell, Tom Daschle, Carl Levin.Joe Cirincione, [https://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-cirincione/60-of-americas-top-nation_b_7836558.html "60 of America's Top National Security Leaders Endorse Iran Deal"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171018135317/https://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-cirincione/60-of-americas-top-nation_b_7836558.html|date=18 October 2017}}, The Huffington Post (21 July 2015). Others included Zbigniew Brzezinski, Brent Scowcroft, R. Nicholas Burns, Thomas R. Pickering; Ryan Crocker, Stuart Eizenstat; Eric T. Olson, Michele Flournoy, and Robert Einhorn.
• 29 U.S. scientists, mostly physicists,William J. Broad, [https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/world/29-us-scientists-praise-iran-nuclear-deal-in-letter-to-obama.html "29 U.S. Scientists Praise Iran Nuclear Deal in Letter to Obama"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170218212713/https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/world/29-us-scientists-praise-iran-nuclear-deal-in-letter-to-obama.html|date=18 February 2017}}, The New York Times (8 August 2015).[https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/08/08/world/document-iranletteraug2015.html "Scientists' Letter to Obama on Iran Nuclear Deal"] (8 August 2015), reprinted by The New York Times. many of whom had held Q clearances and been longtime government advisers. The five primary authors were Richard L. Garwin, Robert J. Goldston, R. Scott Kemp, Rush D. Holt, and Frank N. von Hippel. Six Nobel Prize in Physics laureates co-signed the letter: Philip W. Anderson, Leon N. Cooper, Sheldon L. Glashow, David Gross, Burton Richter, and Frank Wilczek. Other scientists included Siegfried S. Hecker, Freeman Dyson, and Sidney Drell.
• 36 retired military generals and admirals.Karen DeYoung, [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/retired-generals-and-admirals-back-iran-nuclear-deal/2015/08/11/bd26f6ae-4045-11e5-bfe3-ff1d8549bfd2_story.html?hpid=z1 "Dozens of retired generals, admirals back Iran nuclear deal"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160305045434/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/retired-generals-and-admirals-back-iran-nuclear-deal/2015/08/11/bd26f6ae-4045-11e5-bfe3-ff1d8549bfd2_story.html?hpid=z1|date=5 March 2016}}, The Washington Post (11 August 2015).[https://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/read-an-open-letter-from-retired-generals-and-admirals-on-the-iran-nuclear-deal/1689/ "Read: An open letter from retired generals and admirals on the Iran nuclear deal"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170830021552/http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/read-an-open-letter-from-retired-generals-and-admirals-on-the-iran-nuclear-deal/1689/|date=30 August 2017}} (letter released 11 August 2015), reprinted by The Washington Post. Signatories included James E. "Hoss" Cartwright, Joseph P. Hoar, Merrill McPeak, and Lloyd W. Newton, Robert G. Gard Jr., Claudia J. Kennedy,; Lee F. Gunn, Garland Wright, Joseph Sestak, and Paul D. Eaton.
• 75 arms control and nuclear nonproliferation experts.[http://www.armscontrol.org/files/Nonpro_Specialist_statement_on_Iran_Deal_Aug_2015.pdf "The Comprehensive P5+1 Nuclear Agreement With Iran: A Net-Plus for Nonproliferation: Statement from Nuclear Nonproliferation Specialists"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150823233930/http://www.armscontrol.org/files/Nonpro_Specialist_statement_on_Iran_Deal_Aug_2015.pdf|date=23 August 2015}}, Arms Control Association (17 August 2015).Michael Crowley, [http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/nuclear-experts-fall-in-behind-obama-iran-121459.html "Nuclear experts fall in behind Obama: The deal with Iran exceeds historical standards for arms control agreements, 75 experts say"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150820000009/http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/nuclear-experts-fall-in-behind-obama-iran-121459.html|date=20 August 2015}}, Politico (18 August 2015). Signers included Valerie Plame, Joseph C. Wilson, Hans Blix; Morton H. Halperin; and experts from the Brookings Institution, Stimson Center, and other think tanks.
• 26 Jewish leaders supported the deal; signers included three former chairs of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations as well as former AIPAC executive director Tom Dine.Nathan Guttman, [http://forward.com/news/319481/full-page-new-york-times-ad-backs-iran-deal/ "26 Top Jewish Leaders Back Iran Deal in New York Times Ad"] (20 August 2015).
• 340 rabbis organized by Ameinu.[http://www.jta.org/2015/08/17/news-opinion/politics/340-u-s-rabbis-sign-letter-supporting-iran-deal "340 U.S. rabbis sign letter supporting Iran deal"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150820005524/http://www.jta.org/2015/08/17/news-opinion/politics/340-u-s-rabbis-sign-letter-supporting-iran-deal|date=20 August 2015}}, Jewish Telegraphic Agency (17 August 2015). Signers included Sharon Brous, Burton Visotzky, Nina Beth Cardin, Lawrence Kushner, Sharon Kleinbaum, and Amy Eilberg.
• 11 Democratic Jewish former members of Congress.Jewish Telegraphic Agency, [http://www.jta.org/2015/08/27/news-opinion/politics/11-former-jewish-congressmen-back-iran-deal-190-former-generals-oppose "11 Jewish ex-congressmen back Iran deal; 190 former generals oppose"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150911070817/http://www.jta.org/2015/08/27/news-opinion/politics/11-former-jewish-congressmen-back-iran-deal-190-former-generals-oppose|date=11 September 2015}} (27 August 2015). Signatories included Levin, Barney Frank, Mel Levine, Steve Rothman, and Robert Wexler.

Public letters from opponents included:

• 200 retired generals and admirals.Emma-Jo Morris, [http://irantruth.org/more-than-200-retired-generals-admirals-sign-letter-opposing-the-iran-deal/ "More Than 200 Retired Generals & Admirals Sign Letter Opposing the Iran Deal"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150922181100/http://irantruth.org/more-than-200-retired-generals-admirals-sign-letter-opposing-the-iran-deal/|date=22 September 2015}}, IranTruth.org (26 August 2015, subsequently updated).{{cite news |author=Morello, Carol |date=26 August 2015 |title=Retired generals and admirals urge Congress to reject Iran nuclear deal |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/retired-generals-and-admirals-urge-congress-to-reject-iran-deal/2015/08/26/8912d9c6-4bf5-11e5-84df-923b3ef1a64b_story.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150827133708/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/retired-generals-and-admirals-urge-congress-to-reject-iran-deal/2015/08/26/8912d9c6-4bf5-11e5-84df-923b3ef1a64b_story.html |archive-date=27 August 2015 |access-date=27 August 2015 |newspaper=The Washington Post}}{{Cite news |title=Read: An open letter from retired generals and admirals opposing the Iran nuclear deal |url=https://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/read-an-open-letter-from-retired-generals-and-admirals-opposing-the-iran-nuclear-deal/1703/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171018132614/https://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/read-an-open-letter-from-retired-generals-and-admirals-opposing-the-iran-nuclear-deal/1703/ |archive-date=18 October 2017 |access-date=2 September 2017 |newspaper=Washington Post}} Signers included Leon A. "Bud" Edney, James A. Lyons, William G. Boykin, and Thomas McInerney.

U.S. pro-Israel lobby groups were divided.Felicia Schwartz, [https://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/16/pro-israel-groups-in-u-s-square-off-over-iran-nuke-deal/tab/comments/ "Pro-Israel Groups in U.S. Square Off Over Iran Nuke Deal"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171018132352/https://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/16/pro-israel-groups-in-u-s-square-off-over-iran-nuke-deal/tab/comments/|date=18 October 2017}}, The Wall Street Journal Washington Wire blog (16 July 2015). American Israel Public Affairs Committee spent millions opposing it.Julie Hirschfeld Davis, [https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/06/us/politics/obama-urges-critics-of-iran-deal-to-ignore-drumbeat-of-war.html "It's Either Iran Nuclear Deal or 'Some Form of War,' Obama Warns"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170215181259/https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/06/us/politics/obama-urges-critics-of-iran-deal-to-ignore-drumbeat-of-war.html|date=15 February 2017}}, The New York Times (5 August 2015).Alexander Bolton, [https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/248349-new-group-backed-by-aipac-targets-iran-deal/ "New group backed by AIPAC targets deal"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230409180557/https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/248349-new-group-backed-by-aipac-targets-iran-deal/|date=9 April 2023}}, The Hill (17 July 2015).Byron Tau, [https://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/17/aipac-funds-ads-opposing-iran-nuclear-deal/ "AIPAC Funds Ads Opposing Iran Nuclear Deal"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171018132403/https://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/17/aipac-funds-ads-opposing-iran-nuclear-deal/|date=18 October 2017}}, The Wall Street Journal Washington Wire blog (17 July 2015). J Street came out in support, and planned a $5 million advertising effort.Ailsa Chang, [https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/06/429911872/in-iran-deal-fight-lobbyists-are-spending-millions-to-sway-12-senators "Lobbyists Spending Millions to Sway the Undecided on Iran Deal"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171018132536/http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/06/429911872/in-iran-deal-fight-lobbyists-are-spending-millions-to-sway-12-senators|date=18 October 2017}}, NPR (6 August 2015).Jacob Kornbluh, [http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/1.666219 "J Street launches multimillion dollar campaign in support of Iran nuclear deal"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150719013459/http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/1.666219|date=19 July 2015}}, Haaretz (16 July 2015). 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.Gus Burns, [http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2015/08/first_look_at_5_million_j-stre.html First look at $2 million J-Street ad campaign in support of Iran nuclear deal] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150811004829/http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2015/08/first_look_at_5_million_j-stre.html|date=11 August 2015}}, MLive.com (4 August 2015).John Fritze, [http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/blog/bal-j-street-runs-ads-supporting-iran-deal-in-md-20150804-story.html "J Street runs ads in Maryland supporting Iran deal"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150905092925/http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/blog/bal-j-street-runs-ads-supporting-iran-deal-in-md-20150804-story.html|date=5 September 2015}}, The Baltimore Sun (4 August 2015).

Leaders of the Reform Jewish movement stayed neutral.Chemi Shalev, [http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/.premium-1.671996 "Reflecting Deep Divisions, Reform Movement Abstains From 'Yes' or 'No' on Iran Deal"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150821025435/http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/.premium-1.671996|date=21 August 2015}}, Haaretz (19 August 2015).[http://urj.org/about/union/pr/2015/?syspage=article&item_id=118381 "Reform Jewish Movement Response to Iran Deal: Address Important Concerns, Focus on the Day After"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150821235705/http://urj.org/about/union/pr/2015/?syspage=article&item_id=118381|date=21 August 2015}}, Union for Reform Judaism (20 August 2015).

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.Aron Chilewich, [http://www.jewishjournal.com/irandeal/article/more_than_900_rabbis_sign_letter_opposing_iran_nuclear_deal "More than 900 rabbis sign letter opposing Iran nuclear deal"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150902015553/http://www.jewishjournal.com/irandeal/article/more_than_900_rabbis_sign_letter_opposing_iran_nuclear_deal|date=2 September 2015}}, The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles (27 August 2015). The Orthodox Union and American Jewish Committee also announced opposition to the agreement.[http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/318167/orthodox-rabbis-to-join-lobbying-push-against-iran-deal/ "Orthodox Rabbis to Join Lobbying Push Against Iran Deal"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150907030041/http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/318167/orthodox-rabbis-to-join-lobbying-push-against-iran-deal/|date=7 September 2015}}, Jewish Telegraphic Agency (30 July 2015).[http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/318591/american-jewish-committee-opposes-iran-nuclear-deal "American Jewish Committee Opposes Iran Nuclear Deal"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150812171842/http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/318591/american-jewish-committee-opposes-iran-nuclear-deal/|date=12 August 2015}}, Jewish Telegraph Agency (5 August 2015).

File:Tour bus on W58 with JCPOA ad jeh.JPG in New York City. The bus ad was sponsored by New York Assemblyman Dov Hikind, an opponent of the agreement.Will Bredderman, [http://observer.com/2015/08/religious-jewish-pols-bash-manhattan-congressman-over-iran-deal-support/ "Religious Jewish Pols Bash Manhattan Congressman Over Iran Deal Support"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150906194925/http://observer.com/2015/08/religious-jewish-pols-bash-manhattan-congressman-over-iran-deal-support/|date=6 September 2015}}, The Observer (21 August 2015).]]United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) opposed the deal,[http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/citizens-for-a-nuclear-free-iran-cnfi-launches-third-national-tv-ad-featuring-former-us-air-force-deputy-chief-of-staff-300131305.html "Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran (CNFI) Launches Third National TV Ad"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150905170307/http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/citizens-for-a-nuclear-free-iran-cnfi-launches-third-national-tv-ad-featuring-former-us-air-force-deputy-chief-of-staff-300131305.html|date=5 September 2015}} (press release), United Against Nuclear Iran (20 August 2015). although the group's president and co-founder, nonproliferation expert Gary Samore, disagreed.Michael R. Gordon, [https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/12/world/middleeast/head-of-group-opposing-iran-accord-quits-post-saying-he-backs-deal.html "Head of Group Opposing Iran Accord Quits Post, Saying He Backs Deal"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170312072342/https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/12/world/middleeast/head-of-group-opposing-iran-accord-quits-post-saying-he-backs-deal.html|date=12 March 2017}}, The New York Times (11 August 2015). Foundation for American Security and Freedom and Veterans Against the Deal ran opposing ads.Allison Kaplan Sommer, [http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/routine-emergencies/.premium-1.673016 "Ad Nauseum: How Supporters and Opponents Are Trying to Sell the Iranian Nuclear Deal"], Haaretz (26 August 2015).

Supporters included MoveOn.org, Americans United for Change, and Global Zero. Iran Project, and the United Nations Association of the U.S.supported the agreement.Peter Waldman, [https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-02/how-freelance-diplomacy-bankrolled-by-rockefellers-has-paved-the-way-for-an-iran-deal "How Freelance Diplomacy Bankrolled by Rockefellers Has Paved the Way for an Iran Deal"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170216192716/https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-02/how-freelance-diplomacy-bankrolled-by-rockefellers-has-paved-the-way-for-an-iran-deal|date=16 February 2017}}, Bloomberg Politics (2 July 2015). Colin Powell expressed support.Alexandra Jaffe, [https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iran-nuclear-talks/colin-powell-iran-deal-pretty-good-deal-n422551 "Colin Powell: Iran Deal Is a 'Pretty Good Deal'"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200329032512/https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iran-nuclear-talks/colin-powell-iran-deal-pretty-good-deal-n422551|date=29 March 2020}}, NBC News (6 September 2015).

Retired U.S. Senators Carl Levin and John Warner published a supporting op-ed.Carl Levin & John Warner, [http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/08/levin-warner-military-option-iran-nuclear-deal-000198 "Why hawks should also back the Iran deal"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150815212256/http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/08/levin-warner-military-option-iran-nuclear-deal-000198?|date=15 August 2015}}, Politico (13 August 2015). Retired Republican Richard Lugar and Democrat J. Bennett Johnston wrote in support of the agreement.{{Cite web |date=2015-08-15 |title=Why we disagree with Chuck Schumer on the Iran deal |url=http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/08/13/why-we-disagree-with-chuck-schumer-on-the-iran-deal/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150815234941/http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/08/13/why-we-disagree-with-chuck-schumer-on-the-iran-deal/ |url-status=dead |archive-date=2015-08-15 |access-date=2024-11-09 }}

Foreign diplomats joined the debate. Israeli ambassador to the U.S. Ron Dermer was an opponent. European ambassadors including Sir Peter Westmacott supported it.Peter Foster, [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/11748409/Barack-Obamas-big-gamble-Will-Iran-deal-secure-his-presidential-legacy.html "Barack Obama's big gamble: Will Iran deal secure his presidential legacy?"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171019100317/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/11748409/Barack-Obamas-big-gamble-Will-Iran-deal-secure-his-presidential-legacy.html|date=19 October 2017}}, The Daily Telegraph (18 July 2015).

The Roman Catholic Church expressed support, led by Bishop Oscar Cantú.Vinnie Rotondaro, [http://ncronline.org/news/peace-justice/signs-seamless-garment-catholic-support-iran-nuke-deal "Signs of 'seamless garment' in Catholic support for Iran nuke deal"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150814172716/http://ncronline.org/news/peace-justice/signs-seamless-garment-catholic-support-iran-nuke-deal|date=14 August 2015}}, National Catholic Reporter (13 August 2015).{{Cite web |title=Bishop Cantú Welcomes Iran Nuclear Deal, Urges Congress To Endorse Result of Negotiations {{!}} USCCB |url=https://www.usccb.org/news/2015/bishop-cantu-welcomes-iran-nuclear-deal-urges-congress-endorse-result-negotiations |access-date=2024-11-09 |website=www.usccb.org |language=en}}

Michael Mandelbaum claimed that nonproliferation ultimately depended on deterrence, not agreements.{{cite news |last=Mandelbaum |first=Michael |author-link=Michael Mandelbaum |date=30 July 2015 |title=It's the Deterrence, Stupid |url=http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/07/30/its-the-deterrence-stupid/ |access-date=28 August 2015 |work=The American Interest}} Alan Dershowitz claimed that the involvement of Russia and China made the deal irrelevant.{{cite book |last=Dershowitz |first=Alan |author-link=Alan Dershowitz |url={{google books|plainurl=y|id=Q8kmDwAAQBAJ}} |title=The Case Against the Iran Deal: How Can We Now Stop Iran from Getting Nukes? PP=Kindle Locations 794–795 |publisher=RosettaBooks |year=2015 |isbn=9780795347559}} See also {{cite news |title=Excerpt from 'The Case Against the Iran Deal |url=http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/exclusive-excerpt-from-the-case-against-the-iran-deal/ |publisher=The Times of Israel}}

A Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing took place on 23 July. Kerry, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, and Moniz testified.Jonathan Weisman & Michael R. Gordon, [https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/24/world/middleeast/john-kerry-defends-iran-nuclear-deal-before-skeptical-senate.html "Kerry Defends Iran Nuclear Deal Before Skeptical Senate"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170226172048/https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/24/world/middleeast/john-kerry-defends-iran-nuclear-deal-before-skeptical-senate.html|date=26 February 2017}}, The New York Times (23 July 2015).[http://www.foreign.senate.gov/hearings/072315 "Iran Nuclear Agreement Review"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150724212822/http://www.foreign.senate.gov/hearings/072315|date=24 July 2015}}, United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations (23 July 2015) (video of hearing). Chair Bob Corker said the agreement codified rather than dismantled the Iranian program.{{cite web |date=23 July 2015 |title=Senator Corker Opening Statement at Hearing to Review the Iran Nuclear Agreement |url=http://www.foreign.senate.gov/press/chair/release/hearing-to-review-the-iran-nuclear-agreement |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150729064056/http://www.foreign.senate.gov/press/chair/release/hearing-to-review-the-iran-nuclear-agreement |archive-date=29 July 2015 |access-date=5 August 2015 |publisher=U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations}}{{cite news |date=23 July 2015 |title=Iran Nuclear Agreement (Senate Committee on Foreign Relations – hearing) |url=http://www.c-span.org/video/?327246-1/secretaries-kerry-moniz-lew-testimony-iran-nuclear-agreement |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150725195227/http://www.c-span.org/video/?327246-1/secretaries-kerry-moniz-lew-testimony-iran-nuclear-agreement |archive-date=25 July 2015 |access-date=5 August 2015 |publisher=C-SPAN}} Ranking member Benjamin Cardin remained neutral.{{cite news |last=Welsh |first=Teresa |date=23 July 2015 |title=Corker to Kerry: 'You've Been Fleeced' on Iran Deal |url=https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/07/23/corker-to-kerry-youve-been-fleeced-on-iran-deal |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150802023411/http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/07/23/corker-to-kerry-youve-been-fleeced-on-iran-deal |archive-date=2 August 2015 |access-date=5 August 2015 |work=U.S. News & World Report}} Other Democrats, led by Barbara Boxer, expressed support. Corker and Cardin requested to review the IAEA-Iran document.Karen DeYoung, [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/hearing-on-iran-nuclear-deal-opens-with-sharp-gop-criticism/2015/07/23/2003439e-309d-11e5-8f36-18d1d501920d_story.html "Senate opponents of Iran deal draw hard lines against White House"], The Washington Post (23 July 2015). Kerry, Lew, and Moniz said that without JCPOA, international sanctions would collapse. Republican senators gave vociferous speeches denouncing the deal.

The three also testified before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.{{cite news |last=Wong |first=Kristina |date=28 July 2015 |title=House chairman: Nuclear deal gives Iran a 'cash bonanza' |url=https://thehill.com/policy/defense/249410-foreign-affairs-committee-chairman-deal-would-give-iran-cash-bonanza/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150729145354/http://thehill.com/policy/defense/249410-foreign-affairs-committee-chairman-deal-would-give-iran-cash-bonanza |archive-date=29 July 2015 |access-date=3 August 2015 |work=The Hill}} Republican Committee chair Ed Royce claimed that the deal traded permanent sanctions relief for temporary restrictions{{cite web |date=28 July 2015 |title=Chairman Royce opening statement |url=http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/press-release/secretaries-kerry-lew-moniz-testify-iran-nuclear-deal-house-foreign-affairs-committe-1 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150731013117/http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/press-release/secretaries-kerry-lew-moniz-testify-iran-nuclear-deal-house-foreign-affairs-committe-1 |archive-date=31 July 2015 |access-date=3 August 2015 |publisher=United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs}} and criticized the inspection regime.{{cite news |date=28 July 2015 |title=Cabinet Secretaries on Iran Nuclear Agreement (House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing) |url=http://www.c-span.org/video/?327359-1/secretaries-kerry-moniz-lew-testimony-iran-nuclear-agreement |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150730215808/http://www.c-span.org/video/?327359-1/secretaries-kerry-moniz-lew-testimony-iran-nuclear-agreement |archive-date=30 July 2015 |access-date=3 August 2015 |publisher=C-SPAN}} Ranking member Eliot Engel was not in support.{{cite news |last=Davis |first=Susan |date=28 July 2015 |title=House panel questions Iran nuclear deal |url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/07/28/house-iran-agreement-kerry-lew-moniz/30774357/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150801082330/http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/07/28/house-iran-agreement-kerry-lew-moniz/30774357/ |archive-date=1 August 2015 |access-date=3 August 2015 |work=USA Today}}

File:Senator John McCain - the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee — Senator Jack Reed - the Committee's Ranking Democratic Member.jpg

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.{{cite news |last=Cooper |first=Helene |date=29 July 2015 |title=Nuclear Deal Reduces Risk of Conflict With Iran, Top U.S. General Says |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/30/world/middleeast/nuclear-deal-reduces-risk-of-conflict-with-iran-top-us-general-says.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170325184839/https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/30/world/middleeast/nuclear-deal-reduces-risk-of-conflict-with-iran-top-us-general-says.html |archive-date=25 March 2017 |work=The New York Times}} Carter and Dempsey had been invited to testify by Republican Chair John McCain, who opposed the deal.{{cite web |date=29 July 2015 |title=Opening Statement of Chairman John McCain (Armed Services Committee – hearing) |url=http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/7-29-15%20JCPOA%20hearing1.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150923173647/http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/7-29-15%20JCPOA%20hearing1.pdf |archive-date=23 September 2015 |access-date=10 August 2015 |publisher=U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services}} Ranking member Jack Reed stressed the need to independently validate the deal.{{cite web |date=29 July 2015 |title=Opening Statement of U.S. Senator Jack Reed (Armed Services Committee – hearing) |url=http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/7-29-15%20Reed%20Opening.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150923173648/http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/7-29-15%20Reed%20Opening.pdf |archive-date=23 September 2015 |access-date=10 August 2015 |publisher=U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services}}{{Cite web |date=2015-07-29 |title=Opening Statement by Ranking Member Jack Reed, SASC Hearing on Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action {{!}} U.S. Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island |url=https://www.reed.senate.gov/news/releases/opening-statement-by-ranking-member-jack-reed-sasc-hearing-on-joint-comprehensive-plan-of-action |access-date=2024-11-09 |website=www.reed.senate.gov |language=en}}

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,{{cite news |author=Anne K Walters |date=30 July 2015 |title=US defence chief tells Congress military options remain against Iran |url=http://www.dpa-international.com/news/international/us-defence-chief-tells-congress-military-options-remain-against-iran-a-46098613.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150923220229/http://www.dpa-international.com/news/international/us-defence-chief-tells-congress-military-options-remain-against-iran-a-46098613.html |archive-date=23 September 2015 |access-date=10 August 2015 |publisher=Deutsche Presse-Agentur |df=dmy-all}} another reason to limit its nuclear program.{{cite news |date=29 July 2015 |title=Impacts of the JCPOA on U.S. Interests and the Military Balance in the Middle East (Senate Armed Services Committee – hearing) |url=http://www.c-span.org/video/?327380-1/hearing-iran-nuclear-agreement |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150731184956/http://www.c-span.org/video/?327380-1/hearing-iran-nuclear-agreement |archive-date=31 July 2015 |access-date=10 August 2015 |publisher=C-SPAN}}Tom Bowman, [https://www.npr.org/2015/07/29/427464653/senate-republicans-raise-concerns-about-lifting-iran-economic-sanctions "Senate Republicans Raise Concerns About Lifting Iran Economic Sanctions"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171018132714/http://www.npr.org/2015/07/29/427464653/senate-republicans-raise-concerns-about-lifting-iran-economic-sanctions|date=18 October 2017}}, NPR (29 July 2015). Dempsey testified that the agreement reduced the chances of a near-term military conflict.

IAEA has confidential technical arrangements with many countries.{{Cite web |date=2015-08-13 |title=Fact-Checking the Flame Throwers on Both Sides of Iran Deal |url=https://forward.com/news/319072/fact-checking-the-flame-throwers-on-iran-deal/ |access-date=2024-11-09 |website=The Forward |language=en}}{{Cite web |last=Matishak |first=Martin |date=2015-07-22 |title=Obama officials deny 'secret deals' in Iran nuclear pact |url=https://thehill.com/policy/defense/248845-no-side-deals-on-iran-nuclear-agreement-state-says/ |access-date=2024-11-09 |website=The Hill |language=en-US}} Some Republican lawmakers called such agreements "secret side deals" that restructured the deal. 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.{{cite news |last=Carney |first=Jordain |date=31 July 2015 |title=Cruz wants delay in Iran review period because of 'side deals' |url=https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/249892-cruz-pushes-to-delay-start-of-review-period-on-iran-deal/ |access-date=14 August 2015 |work=The Hill}}{{cite web |date=30 July 2015 |title=S. RES. 238 |url=https://www.congress.gov/114/bills/sres238/BILLS-114sres238is.xml |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304142713/https://www.congress.gov/114/bills/sres238/BILLS-114sres238is.xml |archive-date=4 March 2016 |access-date=14 August 2015 |publisher=U.S. Congress}}

State Department spokesman John Kirby responded the P5+1 had been fully briefed and that related questions could be addressed in a classified setting. Various experts lined up on both sides of the controversy.{{cite news |last=Lerman |first=David |date=30 July 2015 |title='Secret Side Deals' on Iran Accord Are New Republican Target |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-30/-secret-side-deals-on-iran-accord-are-new-target-of-republicans |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150815122542/http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-30/-secret-side-deals-on-iran-accord-are-new-target-of-republicans |archive-date=15 August 2015 |access-date=14 August 2015 |publisher=Bloomberg L.P.}}{{cite news |last=Albright |first=David |author-link=David Albright |date=10 August 2015 |title=What Iran's hostile reaction to the Parchin issue means for the nuclear deal |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/denying-the-obvious/2015/08/10/4b5b208e-3f75-11e5-9561-4b3dc93e3b9a_story.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150811150637/https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/denying-the-obvious/2015/08/10/4b5b208e-3f75-11e5-9561-4b3dc93e3b9a_story.html |archive-date=11 August 2015 |access-date=14 August 2015 |newspaper=The Washington Post}}

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.{{cite news |last=Demirjian |first=Karoun |date=23 July 2015 |title=Twelve things in the Iran deal that lawmakers can't agree on |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/world/issues-with-iran-deal/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150802195556/http://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/world/issues-with-iran-deal/ |archive-date=2 August 2015 |access-date=29 July 2015 |newspaper=The Washington Post}}{{efn|"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".Gerald F. Seib, [https://www.wsj.com/articles/an-expert-view-accept-the-deal-but-move-to-contain-iran-1437405727 "An Expert View: Accept the Deal but Move to Contain Iran"], The Wall Street Journal (20 July 2015). 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".Tim Farnsworth, [http://armscontrolnow.org/2012/04/30/u-s-position-on-iran-enrichment-more-public-recognition-than-policy-shift/ "U.S. Position on Iran Enrichment: More Public Recognition Than Policy Shift"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120508013622/http://armscontrolnow.org/2012/04/30/u-s-position-on-iran-enrichment-more-public-recognition-than-policy-shift/ |date=8 May 2012 }}, Arms Control Association, Arms Control Now (30 April 2012).
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.Michael Singh, [https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2013_03/The-Case-for-Zero-Enrichment-in-Iran "The Case for Zero Enrichment in Iran"], Arms Control Today, Arms Control Association (March 2013). 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.Kate Nelson, [http://www.basicint.org/blogs/2014/01/us-bill-requiring-zero-enrichment-would-be-deal-breaker "US bill requiring zero enrichment would be a deal breaker"], British American Security Information Council (17 January 2014).
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." 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".Michael A. Levi, [http://www.cfr.org/iran/drawing-line-iranian-enrichment/p25573 "Drawing the Line on Iranian Enrichment"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150905132905/http://www.cfr.org/iran/drawing-line-iranian-enrichment/p25573 |date=5 September 2015 }}, Survival: Global Politics and Strategy (August–September 2011), doi:10.1080/00396338.2011.603568 (reprinted by the Council on Foreign Relations). 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)Mark Jansson, [http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/the-siren-song-zero-enrichment-9234 "The Siren Song of Zero Enrichment"], The National Interest (12 October 2013). 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").George Perkovich, [https://web.archive.org/web/20151015154913/http://carnegieendowment.org/2014/01/15/iran-sanctions "Demanding Zero Enrichment From Iran Makes Zero Sense"], Foreign Affairs (15 January 2014) (reprinted by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace).}}

Republican leaders vowed to kill the agreement.Jennifer Steinhauer, [https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/24/us/politics/iran-nuclear-deal-appears-dead-on-arrival-for-republicans.html "Republicans Have Minds Made Up as Debate Begins on Iran Nuclear Deal"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171022193541/https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/24/us/politics/iran-nuclear-deal-appears-dead-on-arrival-for-republicans.html|date=22 October 2017}}, The New York Times (23 July 2015).{{cite news |last1=DeBonis |first1=Mike |last2=Mufson |first2=Steven |date=14 July 2015 |title=On Capitol Hill, deep skepticism persists as lawmakers react to Iran deal |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/on-capitol-hill-deep-skepticism-persists-as-lawmakers-react-to-iran-deal/2015/07/14/90190bfe-2a27-11e5-a5ea-cf74396e59ec_story.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171022195128/https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/on-capitol-hill-deep-skepticism-persists-as-lawmakers-react-to-iran-deal/2015/07/14/90190bfe-2a27-11e5-a5ea-cf74396e59ec_story.html |archive-date=22 October 2017 |access-date=2 September 2017}}

One area of disagreement was the consequences of walking away, and whether renegotiation was a realistic option. Schumer, an opponent, called for retaining and strengthening sanctions, and to continue negotiating. President Obama argued that renegotiation was unrealistic, that the Iranian people would see further concessions as "total surrender of their sovereignty",[https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/08/05/remarks-president-iran-nuclear-deal 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 [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/05/text-obama-gives-a-speech-about-the-iran-nuclear-deal/ The Washington Post] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170902035715/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/05/text-obama-gives-a-speech-about-the-iran-nuclear-deal/|date=2 September 2017}}. and that other countries would not continue to support the existing sanctions regime. Senator Al Franken accepted the claim that no better deal was feasible.Al Franken, [http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/13/opinions/franken-iran-deal/ "Why I support Iran deal"], CNN (13 August 2015).{{efn|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".Stephen M. Walt, [https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/08/10/the-myth-of-a-better-deal-iran-nuke-wmds-iraq/ "The Myth of a Better Deal"], Foreign Policy (10 August 2015). 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."Albert Carnesale, [http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/25609/deal_or_no_deal.html "Deal or No Deal: The Choice Before Congress"], National Interest (5 August 2015) (reprinted by the Harvard Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs). 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,Robert Satloff, [https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/08/iran-deal-congress-better-alternative/401222/ "A Better Deal With Iran Is Possible"], The Atlantic (13 August 2015). and law professor Orde Kittrie of Arizona State University argued that Congress could send the JCPOA back for renegotiation.}} Representative Sander M. Levin announced his support.[http://levin.house.gov/press-release/levin-statement-iran-nuclear-agreement "Levin Statement on the Iran Nuclear Agreement"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150731152343/http://levin.house.gov/press-release/levin-statement-iran-nuclear-agreement|date=31 July 2015}} (28 July 2015). Senator Cardin said that if the agreement were implemented, the U.S. should increase military aid to Israel and friendly Gulf states. Senator Bill Nelson and Foreign Relations Committee members Tim Kaine and Barbara Boxer announced their support.Mike DeBonis, [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/04/three-senate-democrats-came-off-of-the-fence-to-support-the-iran-deal/ "Three Senate Democrats came off of the fence to support the Iran deal"], The Washington Post (4 August 2015).

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.{{Cite web |last=Dilanian |first=Ken |date=July 15, 2015 |title=US officials say they can tell if Iran is cheating on deal |url=http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IRAN_NUCLEAR_DEAL_INTELLIGENCE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT |access-date=2024-11-09 |website=hosted.ap.org |publisher=Associated Press}}Karoun Demirjian, [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/08/13/house-dems-pounce-on-intel-assessment-of-iran-deal/ "House Dems pounce on intel assessment of Iran deal"], The Washington Post (13 August 2015). 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.[http://democrats.intelligence.house.gov/press-release/current-and-former-house-intelligence-committee-members-urge-colleagues-review "Current and Former House Intelligence Committee Members Urge Colleagues to Review Intelligence Community Assessments of Iran Nuclear Deal"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150817124341/http://democrats.intelligence.house.gov/press-release/current-and-former-house-intelligence-committee-members-urge-colleagues-review|date=17 August 2015}}, United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Democratic Office (13 August 2015).

A resolution of disapproval was initially expected to pass both the House and Senate.Julie Hirschfeld Davis, [https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/18/world/middleeast/lobbying-fight-over-iran-nuclear-deal-centers-on-democrats.html "Lobbying Fight Over Iran Nuclear Deal Centers on Democrats"], The New York Times (17 August 2015).

Two-thirds of both houses are required to override a presidential veto.Amber Phillips, [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/14/whip-count-where-the-senate-stands-on-the-iran-deal/ "Whip count: Where the Senate stands on the Iran deal"], The Washington Post (5 August 2015).Lauren French, [http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/barack-obama-iran-deal-liberals-congress-win-121304.html "Liberals poised to give Barack Obama a win on Iran"], Politico (13 August 2015). On 20 August 2015, Pelosi claimed that House Democrats had the votes to sustain a veto of a resolution of disapproval.{{Cite news |last=Siddiqui |first=Sabrina |date=2015-08-20 |title=Congress does not have votes to block Iran deal, says Nancy Pelosi |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/20/nancy-pelosi-house-democrats-votes-iran-nuclear-deal |access-date=2024-11-09 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}} By 20 August, about 60 House Democrats had announced their support,Erica Werner, [https://news.yahoo.com/pelosi-house-democrats-sustain-obama-veto-iran-deal-232515294.html "Pelosi: House Democrats will sustain Obama veto on Iran deal"], Associated Press (20 August 2015). versus about 12 opponents.

By early September 2015, 34 senators had confirmed their support, ensuring that the Senate could sustain a veto.Amber Phillips, [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/14/whip-count-where-the-senate-stands-on-the-iran-deal/ "President Obama's Iran deal nears a major symbolic victory"], The Washington Post (8 September 2015). 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). Without 60 votes on either side, the other could filibuster any resolution. 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.{{cite news |last1=Hulse |first1=Karl |last2=Herszenhorn |first2=David M. |date=2 September 2015 |title=Coordinated Strategy Brings Obama Victory on Iran Nuclear Deal |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/03/world/obama-clinches-vote-to-secure-iran-nuclear-deal.html |access-date=6 September 2015 |work=The New York Times}}

Initially, the House leadership planned to vote on a resolution of disapproval.Kristina Peterson, [https://www.wsj.com/articles/gop-leaders-back-vote-to-disapprove-of-iran-nuclear-deal-1438719726 "GOP Leaders Back Vote to Disapprove of Iran Nuclear Deal"] The Wall Street Journal (4 August 2015).{{efn|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).Lauren French, [http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/iran-deal-congress-house-gop-veto-proof-majority-120936.html "GOP can disapprove Iran deal, but veto remains a hurdle"], Politico (3 August 2015).Emma Dumain, [http://blogs.rollcall.com/218/royce-boehner-set-stage-house-disapproval-iran-deal/?pos=adpb Royce, Boehner Set Stage for House Disapproval of Iran Deal] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150811074233/http://blogs.rollcall.com/218/royce-boehner-set-stage-house-disapproval-iran-deal/?pos=adpb |date=11 August 2015 }}, Roll Call (4 August 2015).[http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-114hres367ih/pdf/BILLS-114hres367ih.pdf "H. Res. 367"] (introduced 16 July 2015). But Roskam's resolution "is not the formal disapproval measure that the House is expected to take up in September"; and it was expected that it is the resolution by Royce, as the relevant committee chair, will be the one ultimately voted upon. Ultimately, neither resolution was voted upon.Sabrina Siddiqui, [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/11/house-rejects-obama-nuclear-accord-iran "House rejects Obama's nuclear accord with Iran in symbolic vote"], The Guardian (12 September 2015).}} Speaker John Boehner instead chose to advance a resolution of approval to force Democratic supporters to formally register their views. 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.[http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll493.xml "Final Vote Results for Roll Call 493"] (11 September 2015), Office of the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives. 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 sanctionsLauren French, [http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/iran-deal-house-of-representatives-vote-213550 "House GOP disapproves of Iran deal in symbolic vote"], Politico (11 September 2015). (all Republicans and two Democrats in favor).[http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll492.xml "Final Vote Results for Roll Call 492"] and [http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll494.xml "Final Vote Results for Roll Call 494"] (11 September 2015), Office of the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives.

{{see also|Iran Nuclear Achievements Protection Act|Iranian Government's Reciprocal and Proportional Action in Implementing the JCPOA Act|Majlis special commission for examining the JCPOA}}

Khamenei gave Rouhani guidelines for how to proceed.{{cite web |title=Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei's Letter Of Guidelines To President Rohani On JCPOA Sets Nine Conditions Nullifying Original Agreement Announced July 14, 2015 |url=https://www.memri.org/reports/iranian-supreme-leader-khameneis-letter-guidelines-president-rohani-jcpoa-sets-nine |access-date=6 January 2018 |publisher=MEMRI}}

{{cite news |title=Expert: Khamenei's letter to Rouhani voids deal |url=http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Expert-Khameneis-letter-to-Rouhani-voids-deal-430056 |access-date=6 January 2018 |newspaper=The Jerusalem Post}} 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.Thomas Erdbrink, [https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/22/world/middleeast/iran-nuclear-deal-vote.html "Iran Lawmakers to Wait 80 Days Before Voting on Nuclear Deal"], The New York Times (21 July 2015). Zarif and Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) chief Ali Akbar Salehi defended the deal in Parliament.

In televised remarks on 23 July 2015, Rouhani rejected domestic criticism by Iranian hardliners, such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.Thomas Erdbrink & Rock Gladstone, [https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/24/world/middleeast/irans-president-defends-nuclear-deal-in-blunt-remarks.html "Iran's President Defends Nuclear Deal in Blunt Remarks"], The New York Times (23 July 2015). He claimed a popular mandate to make an agreement based on his election in 2013 and said the alternative was suffering under continued sanctions. 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.{{Cite news |date=2015-07-26 |title=Iran nuclear: Media ordered to be positive about deal |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33668390 |access-date=2024-11-09 |work=BBC News |language=en-GB}}

On 3 September, Khamenei said that the Majlis should make the final decision.Jay Solomon, [https://www.wsj.com/articles/irans-ali-larijani-says-parliament-must-approve-nuclear-agreement-1441304205 "Iran Leaders Say Parliament Will Have Final Say on Fate of Nuclear Deal"], The Wall Street Journal (3 September 2015). The same day, Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani voiced his support. Former presidents Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami and moderates within parliament announced their support.{{Cite web |last=Milani |first=Abbas |last2=McFaul |first2=Michael |date=2015-08-11 |title=What Do Iranians Think of the Iran Deal? |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/08/iran-deal-politics-rouhani-khamenei/400985/ |access-date=2024-11-09 |website=The Atlantic |language=en}} 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.

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. This group claimed that Iranian negotiators caved on many key issues and were outmaneuvered.

File:Protests against JCPOA during Ali Akbar Salehi speech in the Parliament.jpg}}

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.{{cite news |date=2 September 2015 |title=DM: Iran Not to Allow IAEA to Inspect Every Site |url=http://english.farsnews.ir/newstext.aspx?nn=13940611000185 |work=Fars News Agency}}]]

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.{{cite news |date=13 September 2015 |title=Parl. begins 10th session on reviewing JCPOA |url=http://en.mehrnews.com/news/110062/Parl-begins-10th-session-on-reviewing-JCPOA |publisher=Mehr News Agency}} 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.{{cite news |last=Karami |first=Arash |date=8 September 2015 |title=Former Iran deal negotiator slams concessions in nuclear deal |url=http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/09/jalili-jcpoa-nuclear-concessions.html |publisher=Al-Monitor}} He claimed that the deal violated the terms Khamenei set. Commission members Masoud Pezeshkian and Abbas Ali Mansouri Arani criticized Jalili's testimony.{{cite web |title=Iran Tracker |url=http://www.criticalthreats.org/iran-news-round-september-11-2015 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150925110959/http://www.criticalthreats.org/iran-news-round-september-11-2015 |archive-date=25 September 2015 |access-date=17 September 2015 |publisher=Critical Threats, American Enterprise Institute |df=dmy-all}} In another session, negotiators Abbas Araqchi and Majid Takht-Ravanchi defended the deal.{{cite news |date=15 September 2015 |title=Zarif attends Majlis committee on JCPOA |url=http://www.tehrantimes.com/Index_view.asp?code=249411 |work=Tehran Times |id=TTime-249411}}

The leading reformist newspapers, Etemad and Shargh, supported the deal.Tara Kangarlou, [http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/8/13/why-tehrans-debate-over-nuclear-pact-mirrors-washingtons.html "Tehran's debate over nuclear pact mirrors Washington's"], Al-Jazeera (13 August 2015). The leading conservative papers, Ettelaat and Kayhan, criticized its terms.

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. Others opposed the agreement, including Ahmad Batebi, Nazanin Afshin-Jam, and Roozbeh Farahanipour.[http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/14/iranian-dissidents-against-the-iran-deal.html "Iranian Dissidents Against the Iran Deal"], The Daily Beast (14 August 2015).

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.{{cite news |last1=Erdbrink |first1=Thomas |date=13 October 2015 |title=Iran's Parliament Backs Details of Nuclear Deal |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/14/world/middleeast/irans-parliament-backs-details-of-nuclear-deal.html |access-date=9 December 2015 |work=The New York Times}}{{cite news |date=23 October 2015 |title=ISNA – Iranian lawmakers approve JCPOA details |url=http://isna.ir/en/news/94072113595/Iranian-lawmakers-approve-JCPOA-details |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151023004004/http://isna.ir/en/news/94072113595/Iranian-lawmakers-approve-JCPOA-details |archive-date=23 October 2015 |access-date=9 December 2015}}{{cite news |date=9 December 2015 |title=ایسنا – جزئیات برجام در مجلس تصویب شد |url=http://isna.ir/fa/news/94072113545/%2525D8%2525AC%2525D8%2525B2%2525D8%2525A6%2525DB%25258C%2525D8%2525A7%2525D8%2525AA-%2525D8%2525A8%2525D8%2525B1%2525D8%2525AC%2525D8%2525A7%2525D9%252585-%2525D8%2525AF%2525D8%2525B1-%2525D9%252585%2525D8%2525AC%2525D9%252584%2525D8%2525B3-%2525D8%2525AA%2525D8%2525B5%2525D9%252588%2525DB%25258C%2525D8%2525A8-%2525D8%2525B4%2525D8%2525AF&usg=ALkJrhgDB4RNIlnjzRTR0Fi3jhiXRrdMIA |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151209062230/http://isna.ir/fa/news/94072113545/%D8%AC%D8%B2%D8%A6%DB%8C%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A8%D8%B1%D8%AC%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D9%85%D8%AC%D9%84%D8%B3-%D8%AA%D8%B5%D9%88%DB%8C%D8%A8-%D8%B4%D8%AF%26usg%3DALkJrhgDB4RNIlnjzRTR0Fi3jhiXRrdMIA |archive-date=9 December 2015 |access-date=9 December 2015}}{{cite news |date=16 October 2015 |title=گزارش فارس از متن و حاشیه نشست امروز "خانه ملت" تصویب جزئیات طرح برجام در مجلس/ اجازه طرح پیشنهادات داده نشد |url=http://www.farsnews.ir/13940719000295 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151016034120/http://www.farsnews.ir/13940719000295 |archive-date=16 October 2015 |access-date=9 December 2015}}

On 18 October 2015 E.U. High Representative Mogherini and Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif jointly announced "Adoption Day".[http://eeas.europa.eu/statements-eeas/2015/151018_01_en.htm "Joint Statement by EU High Representative Federica Mogherini and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif"], Brussels, 18 October 2015.

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.{{cite news |date=20 September 2015 |title=le-chef-de-l-aiea-a-visite-le-site-controverse-de-parchin-en-iran |url=https://www.lemonde.fr/proche-orient/article/2015/09/20/le-chef-de-l-aiea-a-visite-le-site-controverse-de-parchin-en-iran_4764796_3218.htm |language=fr}}{{cite news |date=20 September 2015 |title=U.N. nuclear watchdog says its chief visited military site in Iran |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-visit-idUSKCN0RK0RX20150920 |publisher=Reuters}}{{cite news |date=20 September 2015 |title=Iran nuclear deal: IAEA head visits Parchin site |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34310941 |publisher=BBC}} 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".{{cite news |date=21 September 2015 |title=IAEA satisfied with samples from Parchin drawn by Iran |url=https://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-says-it-gave-iaea-parchin-samples-it-drew-itself/ |publisher=Times of Israel |agency=Associated Press}} In June 2016, IAEA investigators reported that they had reported traces of uranium found at the Parchin facility in December 2015.{{cite news |date=20 June 2016 |title=Iran: des particules d'uranium probablement liées à un programme nucléaire passé |url=http://www.i24news.tv/fr/actu/international/moyen-orient/117365-160620-iran-des-particules-d-uranium-probablement-liees-a-un-programme-nucleaire-passe |publisher=i24news.tv |language=fr}}

File:American diplomatic team and Iranian diplomatic team sit together - 16 January 2016.jpg

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".{{cite news |author=Saeed Kamali Dehghan |title=Sanctions against Iran lifted after compliance with nuclear deal |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/16/sanctions-against-iran-to-be-lifted-after-compliance-with-nuclear-deal |work=The Guardian}}

That day Washington imposed sanctions on 11 companies and individuals for supplying Iran's ballistic missile program.{{cite news |title=US imposes new missile sanctions on Iran |url=http://nation.com.pk/national/18-Jan-2016/us-imposes-new-missile-sanctions-on-iran |access-date=18 January 2016 |work=The Nation}}{{cite news |last1=Roth |first1=Andrew |last2=Morello |first2=Carol |last3=Branigin |first3=William |date=16 January 2016 |title=Plane with freed Americans leaves Iran; U.S. imposes new sanctions |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/plane-leaves-iran-with-post-reporter-other-americans-in-swap/2016/01/17/5dc7095c-bd21-11e5-9443-7074c3645405_story.html |access-date=18 January 2016 |newspaper=The Washington Post}} 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{{cite news |last1=Amlôt |first1=Robin |title='Implementation day' arrives, sanctions against Iran lifted |url=http://www.cpifinancial.net/news/category/investment-banking/post/34289/implementation-day-arrives-sanctions-against-iran-lifted |access-date=18 January 2016 |publisher=CPI Financial}} and U.S. sanctions with respect to Iran, including existing terrorism, human rights and ballistic missiles-related sanctions, remained in effect.{{cite news |last1=Dehghan |first1=Saeed Kamali |date=15 January 2016 |title=Lifting of Iran sanctions is 'a good day for the world' |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/16/iran-prepares-for-lifting-of-sanctions-and-the-end-of-decade-long-isolation |access-date=18 January 2016 |work=The Guardian}}

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".{{Cite web |last=French |first=David |date=10 May 2018 |title=A Trip Down Memory Lane: In 2015 the Obama Administration Said the Iran Deal Wasn't Even a 'Signed Document' |url=https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/iran-nuclear-deal-not-signed-document-not-binding/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180513074547/https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/iran-nuclear-deal-not-signed-document-not-binding/ |archive-date=13 May 2018 |access-date=14 May 2014 |website=National Review}}

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."[http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties]". United Nations. Article 1(a). May 23, 1969. Under domestic U.S. law, 'treaty' signifies only those binding international agreements that have received the advice and consent of the Senate."{{Cite web |title=Withdrawal from International Agreements: Legal Framework, the Paris Agreement, and the Iran Nuclear Agreement |url=https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R44761.pdf |accessdate=22 October 2022 |website=fas.org}}

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.{{cite web |last=Eisenstadt |first=Michael |date=29 July 2015 |title=The Nuclear Deal with Iran: Regional Implications |url=http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/the-nuclear-deal-with-iran-regional-implications |access-date=28 August 2015 |publisher=Washington Institute for Near East Policy}} Einhorn wrote that maintaining a credible deterrent was essential.{{cite web |last=Einhorn |first=Robert J. |date=August 2015 |title=The battleground-issues |url=http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports2/2015/08/iran-nuclear-deal-battleground-issues-einhorn |access-date=28 August 2015 |publisher=Brookings Institution}}

Obama stated that the U.S. would continue its policy of deterring any Iranian efforts to develop nuclear weapons, including via military force.{{cite news |date=20 August 2015 |title=Obama's Letter to Congressman Nadler |url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/08/20/world/middleeast/document-obamas-letter-to-congressman-nadler.html |access-date=28 August 2015 |work=The New York Times}} Flexibility meant that Obama rejected specifying "the penalties for smaller violations of the accord" in advance.{{cite news |author=David E. Sanger and Michael R. Gordon |date=23 August 2015 |title=Future Risks of an Iran Nuclear Deal |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/24/world/middleeast/in-pushing-for-the-iran-nuclear-deal-obamas-rationale-shows-flaws.html |access-date=28 August 2015 |work=The New York Times}}

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.{{cite news |author=Dennis Ross and David Petraeus |date=25 August 2015 |title=How to put some teeth into the nuclear deal with Iran |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-to-put-some-teeth-into-the-nuclear-deal-with-iran/2015/08/25/6f3db43c-4b35-11e5-bfb9-9736d04fc8e4_story.html |access-date=28 August 2015 |newspaper=The Washington Post}}{{cite news |last=Wong |first=Kristina |date=27 August 2015 |title=Petraeus still making up his mind on Iran deal |url=https://thehill.com/policy/defense/252135-petraeus-still-making-up-mind-on-iran-deal/ |access-date=28 August 2015 |work=The Hill}}

Khamenei claimed that his fatwa and not JCPOA was the reason Iran would not acquire nuclear weapons.{{cite news |date=18 July 2015 |title=Ayatollah Ali Khamenei criticises 'arrogance' of the United States following nuclear deal |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/11748176/Ayatollah-Ali-Khamenei-criticises-arrogance-of-the-United-States-following-nuclear-deal.html |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220112/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/11748176/Ayatollah-Ali-Khamenei-criticises-arrogance-of-the-United-States-following-nuclear-deal.html |archive-date=12 January 2022 |access-date=24 August 2014 |work=The Daily Telegraph}}{{cbignore}}

{{see also|Iran and Libya Sanctions Act|Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act|Iran's 2018 lawsuit at ICJ against the United States}}

The U.S. certified in April 2017 and in July 2017 that Iran was complying with the deal.{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/19/iran-nuclear-deal-trump-administration-approves-agreement-but-review-looms|title=Iran nuclear deal: Trump administration approves agreement but review looms|date=19 April 2017|agency=Associated Press|access-date=14 May 2019}}{{cite news |last=Baker |first=Peter |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/17/us/politics/trump-iran-nuclear-deal-recertify.html |title= Trump Recertifies Iran Nuclear Deal, but Only Reluctantly |work=The New York Times |date=17 July 2017 |access-date=14 May 2019}}

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".{{cite news |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-iran-nuclear-deal-announcement-live-updates/|title= Trump: W.H. "cannot and will not" certify Iran's compliance| work =CBS News |access-date= 6 January 2018}}

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.{{cite news |last1= Landler |first1=Mark |last2=E. Sanger |first2= David |title= Trump Disavows Nuclear Deal, but Doesn't Scrap It |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/13/us/politics/trump-iran-nuclear-deal.html|newspaper= The New York Times|date=13 October 2017 }}

Rouhani,{{cite news |last1= Shugerman|first1=Emily|title= ran nuclear deal: EU condemns Donald Trump's decision to decertify agreement |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/iran-nuclear-deal-trump-eu-federica-mogherini-netanyahu-israel-a7999556.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220614/https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/iran-nuclear-deal-trump-eu-federica-mogherini-netanyahu-israel-a7999556.html |archive-date=14 June 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|newspaper= The Independent}} Theresa May, Emmanuel Macron, Angela Merkel, and European Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said the agreement was working well and that no one country could break it, reconfirming support for the deal. Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov confirmed that Iran was in compliance.

{{main|United States sanctions against Iran|United States withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action}}

File:Trump Withdraw Iran Deal (cropped 2).jpg

On 8 May 2018 the U.S. officially withdrew after Trump signed a Presidential Memorandum ordering sanctions reinstatement,{{Citation | publisher = CNN | url = https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-iran-nuclear-deal/ | title = Trump, Iran nuclear deal| date = 8 May 2018 }}. opting instead to seek a comprehensive and lasting solution working allies.{{cite news|title=FULL TRANSCRIPT OF TRUMP'S SPEECH PULLING U.S. OUT OF IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL|url=https://www.wsbradio.com/news/national/full-transcript-trump-speech-pulling-out-iran-nuclear-deal/htdRdreVy4HqnREDhO8n3O/|access-date=10 May 2018|agency=Cox Media Group|publisher=WSB Radio|date=8 May 2018|archive-date=27 June 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180627173350/https://www.wsbradio.com/news/national/full-transcript-trump-speech-pulling-out-iran-nuclear-deal/htdRdreVy4HqnREDhO8n3O/|url-status=dead}} IAEA continued to certify Iranian compliance.{{cite web|url=https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/statement-on-iran-by-the-iaea-spokesperson|title=Statement on Iran by the IAEA Spokesperson|date=1 May 2018|website=www.iaea.org}} Other signatories said they would comply with the deal even absent the U.S.{{cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear/europeans-work-to-save-iran-deal-and-business-after-trump-pulls-out-idUSKBN1I90D6|title=Europeans work to save Iran deal, and business, after Trump pulls out|first=Yara|last=Bayoumy|newspaper=Reuters|date=10 May 2018}}

{{Quote|text=I am announcing today that the United States will withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal. In a few moments, I will sign a presidential memorandum to begin reinstating U.S. nuclear sanctions on the Iranian regime. We will be instituting the highest level of economic sanction. Any nation that helps Iran in its quest for nuclear weapons could also be strongly sanctioned by the United States.|author=Donald Trump.}}

{{see also|Snapback (sanctions)}}

The U.S. adopted a policy of "maximum pressure", led by global sanctions.{{Cite journal |last1=Mallard |first1=Grégoire |last2=Sabet |first2=Farzan |last3=Sun |first3=Jin |date=2020-04-09 |title=The Humanitarian Gap in the Global Sanctions Regime: Assessing Causes, Effects, and Solutions |url=https://brill.com/view/journals/gg/26/1/article-p121_6.xml |journal=Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations |volume=26 |issue=1 |pages=121–153 |doi=10.1163/19426720-02601003 |issn=1942-6720|doi-access=free }}{{Cite news |date=2018-11-02 |title=Trump administration to reinstate all Iran sanctions |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46071747 |access-date=2024-04-15 |language=en-GB}}

The Iranian rial fell by some 20%,Congressional Research Service. (6 April 2021). "Iran Sanctions". [https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS20871.pdf Federation of American Scientists website] Retrieved 10 May 2021. from 35,000 to the dollar to 42,000 in 2021.[https://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=USD&to=IRR Xe website.] Retrieved 10 May 2021. International banks that traded with Iran paid heavy fines.{{Cite web |last=Mecklin |first=John |date=2021-02-19 |title=Foreign commercial banks: The essential partner in future discussions of the Iran nuclear deal |url=https://thebulletin.org/2021/02/foreign-commercial-banks-the-essential-partner-in-future-discussions-of-the-iran-nuclear-deal/ |access-date=2024-11-09 |website=Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists |language=en-US}} The American flag was set on fire in Iran's Parliament.{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/headlines/44055625/iranian-politicians-set-fire-to-us-flag-in-parliament|title=Video experience headlines|work=BBC News}} According to Israel Defense Forces sources, IRGC Quds Forces based in Syria launched rockets at Israeli military targets the next evening, the first time Iran had directly targeted Israel.{{cite news|last1=Liebermann|first1=Oren|last2=Abdelaziz|first2=Salma|title=Netanyahu says Iran 'crossed a red line' after Israel pounds Iranian targets in Syria|url=https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/09/middleeast/israel-rockets-syria/index.html|access-date=10 May 2018|work=CNN|date=10 May 2018}} All major European companies abandoned doing business with Iran out of fear of U.S. punishment.{{cite news |last1=Sharafedin |first1=Bozorgmehr |date=8 May 2019 |title=Iran rolls back pledges under nuclear pact abandoned by Washington |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-iran-rouhani-idUSKCN1SE0I5 |access-date=8 May 2019 |publisher=Reuters}}

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 holding discussions about Iran's ballistic missile program and regional activities.{{cite news|title=Iran's top leader sets 7 conditions to remain in nuclear deal |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/iran-nuclear-khamenei-conditions/irans-top-leader-sets-7-conditions-to-remain-in-nuclear-deal-official-website-idUSL5N1SU6LJ|access-date=10 May 2018|publisher=Reuters|date=23 May 2018}}

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

In May 2019, IAEA certified that Iran was abiding by the deal's main terms, but raised questions about the limits on advanced centrifuges.{{cite news |title=Iran Stays Within Nuclear Deal's Main Limits While Testing Another |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-iaea/iran-stays-within-nuclear-deals-main-limits-while-testing-another-idUSKCN1T11PW |website=Reuters |last=Murphy |first=Francois |date=31 May 2019 |access-date=1 June 2019}}

On 8 May, Iran announced it would suspend implementation of parts of JCPOA, threatening further action in 60 days absent exemption from U.S. sanctions.{{Cite web|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nuclear-deal-iran-announces-partial-withdrawal-2015-pact/|title=Iran news: Iranian President Hassan Rouhani announces partial withdrawal from 2015 nuclear deal|website=CBS News|date=8 May 2019 |language=en-US|access-date=8 May 2019}}

On 7 July, Iran announced that it had started to increase uranium enrichment beyond the agreed 3.67% limit. IAEA said its inspectors would verify Iran's actions. Zarif sent a letter to Mogherini notifying her about Iran's noncompliance.{{cite web |date=7 July 2019 |title=Iran to breach uranium enrichment limits set by landmark nuclear deal |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/07/middleeast/iran-nuclear-agreement-intl/index.html |access-date=7 July 2019 |work=CNN}}

On 4 November, Iran doubled the number of advanced centrifuges it operated. It began enriching uranium to 4.5%. On 5 November 2019, Iranian nuclear chief Ali Akbar Salehi announced that Iran would enrich uranium to 5% at Fordow, adding that it already had the capability to enrich uranium to 20%.{{Cite web|url=https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/iran-will-enrich-uranium-to-5-percent-at-fordow-nuclear-site-official-606964|title=Iran will enrich uranium to 5% at Fordow nuclear site -official|website=The Jerusalem Post {{pipe}} JPost.com|date=5 November 2019 }}

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.{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/26/world/middleeast/us-iran-nuclear-deal-pompeo.html|title=To Pressure Iran, Pompeo Turns to the Deal Trump Renounced|first=David E.|last=Sanger|newspaper=The New York Times|date=26 April 2020}}

New U.S. President Joe Biden stated his intention to reinstate the deal.{{Cite news |last=Erlanger |first=Steven |date=2020-11-17 |title=Biden Wants to Rejoin Iran Nuclear Deal, but It Won't Be Easy |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/17/world/middleeast/iran-biden-trump-nuclear-sanctions.html |access-date=2021-08-29 |work=The New York Times |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}} Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett advised against this, saying that stopping Iran's aggression and preventing Iran from building nuclear weapons should be the priority.{{Cite news |last1=Leary |first1=Alex |last2=Gordon |first2=Michael R. |date=2021-08-27 |title=Israel's Bennett Presses Biden Over Iran Nuclear Deal |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/israels-bennett-presses-biden-over-iran-nuclear-deal-11630089181 |access-date=2021-08-29 |work=The Wall Street Journal |language=en-US |issn=0099-9660}}

In April, talks between the original parties started in Vienna. Biden put the meetings on hold in June. Enrique Mora, E.U. coordinator for reviving negotiations with Iran, attended President Ebrahim Raisi's inauguration. Iran sought E.U. assurances that the U.S. withdrawal would not repeat. On 14 October, Iran and the E.U. agreed to further negotiations. Iranian deputy foreign minister Ali Bagheri reiterated Mora's statement that "the E.U. was ready to collaborate with Iran and the other parties".{{Cite web |date=2021-10-14 |title=Iran says agreed with EU on Brussels nuclear talks 'in days' |url=https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20211014-iran-says-agreed-with-eu-on-brussels-nuclear-talks-in-days |access-date=2024-11-08 |website=France 24 |language=en}}

A joint statement by French, German, U.K., and U.S. leaders on 30 October welcomed Biden's interest in reestablishing JCPOA.{{Cite web |last=House |first=The White |date=2021-10-30 |title=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 |url=https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/10/30/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-st/ |access-date=2024-11-09 |website=The White House |language=en-US}} Talks resumed on 29 November, with representatives from Iran, China, France, Germany, Russia, and the U.K.{{Cite web |last=Motamedi |first=Maziar |title=Iran and world powers resume Vienna talks to restore nuclear deal |url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/11/29/iran-and-world-powers-begin-vienna-talks-to-restore-nuclear-deal |access-date=2024-11-09 |website=Al Jazeera |language=en}}

Bagheri presented Iran's draft.{{Cite web |last=Carey |first=Paul |title=Iran presents drafts of sanctions plan to revive nuclear deal |url=https://www.thenationalnews.com/world/europe/2021/12/02/iran-presents-drafts-of-sanctions-plan-to-revive-nuclear-deal/ |access-date=2024-11-09 |website=The National |language=en}} Western negotiators rejected it. Iranian negotiators insisted that the U.S. lift all sanctions before Iran would scale back its nuclear program.[https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/03/world/middleeast/iran-nuclear-negotiations-europeans.html Iran Nuclear Talks Head for Collapse Unless Tehran Shifts, Europeans Say], Steven Erlanger, The New York Times, 3 December 2021. On 9 December, negotiations continued, with Russia and China pushing Iran to revise its stance.{{Cite news |last=Wintour |first=Patrick |last2=editor |first2=Patrick Wintour Diplomatic |date=2021-12-09 |title=Iran nuclear talks pulled back from brink as Tehran shifts stance |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/09/iran-nuclear-deal-pulled-back-from-brink-of-collapse-as-talks-resume-in-vienna |access-date=2024-11-09 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}

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 for reestablishing JCPOA.{{cite news |last1=Motamedi |first1=Maziar |title=Iran's parliament sets conditions for return to nuclear deal |url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/20/irans-parliament-sets-conditions-for-return-to-nuclear-deal |access-date=20 February 2022 |work=Al Jazeera |agency=AL Jazeera |date=20 February 2022}}

The U.S. engaged in indirect talks with Iran, 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. JCPOA would add about a million barrels/day of Iranian oil to the international market, which would lower crude oil prices.{{Cite web |last=Herb |first=Kylie Atwood,Jeremy |date=2022-03-03 |title=US getting closer to reviving Iran nuclear deal but officials warn efforts could still fail {{!}} CNN Politics |url=https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/03/politics/iran-nuclear-deal-us/index.html |access-date=2024-11-08 |website=CNN |language=en}}

Throughout the year, leaders on both sides made statements assessing the state of talks.{{Cite news |last1=Irish |first1=John |last2=Murphy |first2=Francois |date=2022-09-10 |title=Europeans doubt Iran's intentions in nuclear talks |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/france-britain-germany-say-irans-stance-iaea-probe-jeopardises-nuclear-talks-2022-09-10/ |access-date=2022-09-11 |work=Reuters |language=en}}{{Cite news |date=2022-09-10 |title=Iran: European criticism of nuclear demands 'unconstructive,' takes 'Zionist path' |url=https://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-european-criticism-of-nuclear-demands-unconstructive-takes-zionist-path/ |access-date=2022-09-12 |work=Times of Israel |language=en}}{{Cite AV media |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcbfEO9wQNo |title=Iran's president says he hasn't seen difference between Trump and Biden admins {{!}} 60 Minutes |date=2022-09-16 |last=60 Minutes |access-date=2024-11-09 |via=YouTube}}{{Cite news |date=2022-10-12 |title=U.S. says Iran nuclear deal is 'not our focus right now' |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/us-says-iran-nuclear-deal-is-not-our-focus-right-now-2022-10-12/ |access-date=2022-10-13 |work=Reuters |language=en}}{{cite news |last1=Nazaryan |first1=Alexander |date=17 October 2022 |title=Iran nuclear deal not happening 'anytime soon,' White House says |url=https://news.yahoo.com/iran-nuclear-deal-not-happening-anytime-soon-white-house-says-210156894.html |access-date=25 October 2022 |publisher=Yahoo! News}}{{cite web |date=October 21, 2022 |title=US Iran envoy: We're not wasting our time on the nuclear deal |url=https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-iran-envoy-were-not-wasting-our-time-on-the-nuclear-deal/ |url-status=live |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20221031215642/https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-iran-envoy-were-not-wasting-our-time-on-the-nuclear-deal/ |archivedate=October 31, 2022 |access-date=December 21, 2022 |language=en |newspaper=The Times of Israel}} Points of contention included:

• the IAEA investigation about undeclared materials from three nuclear sites;{{Cite news |last=Norman |first=Laurence |date=2022-08-07 |title=Iran, U.S. Close In on Nuclear Deal Text but Hurdles Remain |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-u-s-close-in-on-nuclear-deal-text-but-hurdles-remain-11659901796 |access-date=2022-08-08 |work=Wall Street Journal |language=en-US |issn=0099-9660}}{{Cite news |last=Norman |first=Laurence |date=2022-08-05 |title=Iran Demands End to U.N. Atomic Agency Probe to Restore Nuclear Deal |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-demands-end-to-u-n-atomic-agency-probe-to-restore-nuclear-deal-11659709375 |access-date=2022-08-08 |work=Wall Street Journal |language=en-US |issn=0099-9660}}
• the presence of IRGC on the list of terrorist organizations;{{cite web |date=24 May 2022 |title=Biden made final decision to keep Iran's IRGC on terrorist list |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/24/biden-final-decision-iran-revolutionary-guard-terrorist-00034789 |website=Politico}}{{cite web |date=26 May 2022 |title=Iran: Zionist control of US dooms JCPOA talks, other options on table |url=https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-707769}}{{Cite news |last=Chiacu |first=Doina |date=2022-07-05 |title=Iran adds demands in nuclear talks, enrichment 'alarming'-U.S. envoy |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/us-envoy-iran-adds-demands-nuclear-talks-makes-alarming-progress-enrichment-2022-07-05/ |access-date=2022-07-06 |work=Reuters |language=en}}
• Russian demands to explicitly protect its economic relations with Iran{{cite news |last1=Hafezi |first1=Pariza |title=Iran says agreed roadmap with IAEA to resolve nuclear issues |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iran-nuclear-official-kamlavandi-says-god-willing-there-will-be-an-understanding-2022-03-05/ |access-date=5 March 2022 |work=Reuters |agency=Reuters |date=5 March 2022}} (eventually Russia received U.S. guarantees to protect its trade with Iran from international sanctions);
• additional sanctions relief.{{cite web |date=9 April 2022 |title=Biden 'shares the view that IRGC Quds Forces are terrorists' |url=https://www.jpost.com/international/article-703688}}{{cite web |title=Bennett: Biden notified me last month of decision to keep Iran Guards on terror list |url=https://www.timesofisrael.com/bennett-biden-notified-me-of-decision-to-keep-iran-guards-on-terror-list/ |website=The Times of Israel}}

By May, talks had stalled.[https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/05/congress-warning-biden-iran-deal-00030448 "Congress fires its first warning shot on Biden's Iran deal"] politico.com. Retrieved 8 May 2022. On 7 May, Mora visited Iran to restart them.{{Cite web |last=Motamedi |first=Maziar |title=Iran confirms EU envoy visit to save stalled nuclear deal talks |url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/5/7/iran-confirms-eu-envoy-visit-to-save-stalled-nuclear-deal-talks |access-date=2024-11-09 |website=Al Jazeera |language=en}}

In June, Tehran said it was removing 27 U.N. surveillance cameras.{{cite news | url=https://www.ft.com/content/105e26a2-9dd4-438a-ae4e-641aca5c8305 | title=Crisis over cameras threatens to shutter Iran nuclear talks | newspaper=Financial Times | date=13 June 2022 }}

On 16 June, the Biden administration announced sanctions against Iran's petrochemical industry.{{cite news|title=US targets Chinese, UAE companies in new Iran sanctions|work=Al Jazeera|date=16 June 2022|access-date=16 June 2022|url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/6/16/us-targets-chinese-uae-companies-in-fresh-iran-sanctions}} On 6 July, the U.S. initiated legal proceedings against entities based in Singapore, Vietnam, and the United Arab Emirates for evading sanctions.[https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/7/6/us-imposes-new-iran-sanctions-amid-efforts-to-revive-nuclear-deal "US imposes new Iran sanctions amid efforts to revive nuclear deal"]. aljazeera.com. Retrieved & July 2022.

In July, indirect talks between the U.S. and Iran failed.[https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iran-doesnt-appear-want-nuclear-deal-british-spy-chief-says-2022-07-21/ "Iran doesn't want a nuclear deal, British spy chief says"] Reuters. Retrieved 27 July 2022.

In August European negotiators presented a "final" text, after another round.{{Cite web |date=2022-08-11 |title=Trump's shadow looms over last ditch effort to revive Iran nuclear deal {{!}} CNN |url=https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/10/middleeast/iran-talks-trump-shadow-mime-intl/index.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220811070156/https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/10/middleeast/iran-talks-trump-shadow-mime-intl/index.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=2022-08-11 |access-date=2024-11-09 }} The draft did not include removal of the IRGC's terrorism designation.{{Cite news |last1=Lee |first1=Matthew |author-link=Matt Lee (journalist) |last2=Madhani |first2=Aamer |date=2022-08-23 |title=US, Iran inch closer to nuke deal but high hurdles remain |language=en |work=Associated Press |url=https://apnews.com/article/salman-rushdie-middle-east-iran-donald-trump-nuclear-c19ec5ea158f488dae189ebb68fc4a79 |access-date=2022-08-30}}

In September, Iran increased its oil exports to China, circumventing sanctions.{{Cite web |title=Oil Gains 2% As Iran Deal Fades, Market Eyes Tight Supply |url=https://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/Oil-Gains-2-As-Iran-Deal-Fades-Market-Eyes-Tight-Supply.html |access-date=2024-11-09 |website=OilPrice.com |language=en}}

A delegation visited Tehran on 18 December to discuss the nuclear material discovered at three sites. Earlier Iran reported it had enriched uranium to its highest level of 60%, one step away from weapons grade.{{Cite web |last=Iordache |first=Natasha Turak,Ruxandra |date=2022-12-15 |title=UN nuclear watchdog to visit Tehran as Iran enriches uranium at its highest level ever |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/15/un-nuclear-watchdog-to-visit-tehran-as-iran-enriches-uranium-at-its-highest-level-ever.html |access-date=2024-11-09 |website=CNBC |language=en}}

On 20 December, a meeting was held in Amman, Jordan.{{Cite web |last=Motamedi |first=Maziar |title=Iran and EU signal continued work on nuclear deal in Jordan |url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/12/20/iran-and-eu-signal-continued-work-on-nuclear-deal-in-jordan |access-date=2024-11-09 |website=Al Jazeera |language=en}}

The IAEA censured Iran twice in 2022 for failing to cooperate.{{Cite web |date=2023-03-04 |title=Iran to allow more inspections at nuclear sites, U.N. says - CBS News |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-more-inspections-surveillance-cameras-nuclear-sites-united-nations-says/ |access-date=2024-11-09 |website=www.cbsnews.com |language=en-US}}

An IAEA report on the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant found that two cascades of IR-6 centrifuges were configured in a way "substantially different" from what Iran had previously declared. Iran claimed the difference was due to a human error. On 31 January, the U.S. State Department authorized a sanctions waiver, which allowed Russia to develop the enrichment site, a move that some criticized{{Who|date=May 2025}} because it allowed Iran to develop its nuclear program with Russian-state controlled firms.

On 4 March, Grossi met with Raisi and other top Iranian officials. Earlier, IAEA had detected uranium particles enriched up to 83.7% at Fordo. In the meantime, Iran gave assurances that it would reinstall monitoring equipment at sensitive locations.

In early April, IAEA confirmed that Iran would allow a 50% increase in inspections at the Fordow facility.{{Citation needed|date=November 2024}}

In early June, European powers resumed internal talks. Preliminary negotiations with France, Germany, the U.K., and Ali Bagheri Kani again took place in Oslo. A U.S. State Department official acknowledged that direct connections had been under way, the first since 2018.{{Cite news |last=England |first=Andrew |last2=Bozorgmehr |first2=Najmeh |last3=Schwartz |first3=Felicia |date=2023-06-02 |title=West resumes talks over how to deal with Iran nuclear crisis |url=https://www.ft.com/content/9139fda2-ad65-4713-847e-58ec62a05bde |access-date=2024-11-09 |work=Financial Times}} Both sides had released prisoners accused of espionage and terrorism.[https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-06-07/ty-article/.premium/major-progress-made-in-nuclear-talks-between-u-s-and-iran/00000188-94bd-df21-a1b8-b7bd413d0000 "Major Progress Made in Nuclear Talks Between U.S. and Iran in Preparation for a New Agreement"] Haaretz | Israel News. Accessed 8 June 2023

On 18 June, indirect talks between Iran and the U.S. began in Oman after the U.S. allowed the release of blocked Iraqi payments to Iran.{{Cite web |date=2023-06-16 |title=US, Iran eye release of detainees, unfreezing of assets in indirect talks to cool tensions |url=https://www.arabnews.com/node/2322536/middle-east |access-date=2024-11-09 |website=Arab News |language=en}} On 4 July, Iran-Iraq Joint Chamber of Commerce chairman Yahya Ale Eshaq confirmed the release of $10 billion, to be used for unsanctioned goods. This allowed Iran to double its trade with Iraq.{{Cite web |title=Why are the US and Iran holding talks and why does it matter? |url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/6/18/why-are-the-us-and-iran-holding-talks-and-why-does-it-matter |access-date=2024-11-09 |website=Al Jazeera |language=en}} As a consequence, IAEA imposed no additional punitive measures on Iran, as European allies saw no benefit. Israel said it opposed "mini-agreements" with Iran, as well as the original agreement.[https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-says-israel-opposes-nuclear-mini-agreements-with-iran/ Netanyahu says Israel opposes nuclear 'mini-agreements' with Iran] The Times Of Israel. Accessed 19 June 2023.

In late August, after months of negotiations, first in Oman and then with Qatari officials in New York, 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. Iranian oil sales reached their highest since 2018, allowing prices to drop below $85 a barrel. Skeptical analysts claimed this was simply to keep U.S. gasoline prices in check for the 2024 election. The U.S. State Department insisted on continued sanctions enforcement, while some reports indicated that Iran was slowing its uranium enrichment. Iranian oil production reached 3 million barrels per day in July, with a further increase to at least 3.4 million barrels in August.{{Cite web |title=For Global Oil Markets, a USA-Iran Deal Is Already Happening {{!}} Rigzone |url=https://www.rigzone.com/news/wire/for_global_oil_markets_a_usairan_deal_is_already_happening-26-aug-2023-173788-article/ |access-date=2024-11-09 |website=www.rigzone.com}}

In late August, IAEA confirmed that Iran had slowed its program to enrich uranium to 60%. Concurrently, the sale of Iranian crude increased. Some oil sanctions were lifted.{{Cite news |date=2023-08-31 |title=Iran Uranium Near Bomb-Grade Is Focus of Atomic Watchdog Report |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-31/iran-uranium-near-bomb-grade-is-focus-of-atomic-watchdog-report |access-date=2024-11-09 |work=Bloomberg.com |language=en}}

In the first week of September, the U.S. State Department officially released $6 billion in frozen assets and finalized an exchange of five prisoners each. The funds could be used only for unsanctioned goods.{{Cite web |date=2023-09-11 |title=The US moves to advance a prisoner swap deal with Iran and release $6 billion in frozen funds |url=https://apnews.com/article/us-iran-prisoners-blinken-3e834df0a845ef2cc5c52af14598c66f# |access-date=2024-11-09 |website=AP News |language=en}}

A September IAEA report confirmed an enrichment slowdown, but claimed that no reporting progress had been made and that the camera equipment at the enrichment site remained inaccessible.{{Cite web |date=2023-09-04 |title=UN nuclear watchdog report seen by AP says Iran slows its enrichment of near-weapons-grade uranium |url=https://apnews.com/article/iran-uranium-enrichment-iaea-us-tensions-af4a183a2e97375708a494d5324c2836 |access-date=2024-11-09 |website=AP News |language=en}}[https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iaea-reports-no-progress-iran-uranium-stock-enriched-60-grows-2023-09-04/ Iran expands stock of near-weapons grade uranium, IAEA reports no progress] Reuters. Sept 4, 2023.

In mid-September, the IAEA/Iran relationship further deteriorated when Iran rejected IAEA nuclear inspectors. This was formally permitted by Iran's safeguards agreement.[https://www.axios.com/2023/09/16/iran-iaea-nuclear-inspectors-grossi "IAEA: Iran expels several inspectors in "unprecedented" move] (16 Sep, 2023) axios.com. Accessed Sept 18 2023.

On 18 September, Raisi spoke at the U.N. General Assembly and said that Iran would never give up its right to peaceful nuclear energy. He urged Western powers to return to the nuclear deal. Israel left the assembly hall in protest.[https://apnews.com/article/iran-raisi-nuclear-energy-united-nations-ec413865363a0900cc769eac08a3a2e6 "Iran's president urges US to demonstrate it wants to return to the 2015 nuclear deal"] (Sep 20, 202) Accessed 21 Sep 2023.Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi addresses the 2023 United Nations General Assembly. PBS Newshour. (Sep 18 2023) YouTube.com. accessed 21 Sep 2023.

In October, Qatar and the U.S. put Iran's access to blocked funds on hold due to the Gaza war, although Iran denied any involvement in the attack.{{Cite news |date=2023-10-12 |title=US and Qatar Will Hold Off Giving Iran $6 Billion in Funds |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-10-12/us-and-qatar-agree-to-hold-off-giving-iran-6-billion-in-funds |access-date=2023-11-09 |work=Bloomberg.com |language=en}}[https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/12/world/middleeast/us-qatar-iran-prisoner-deal.html "U.S. and Qatar Deny Iran Access to $6 Billion From Prisoner Deal"]. NYT (Oct 12 2023). Accessed Oct 13 2023.{{Cite web |date=2023-11-30 |title=House passes resolution to block Iran's access to $6 billion from prisoner swap |url=https://apnews.com/article/iran-6-billion-biden-prisoner-exchange-congress-19623bb2c8ca9436e0526f9fafa596c5#:~:text=The%20measure%20%E2%80%94%20titled%20the%20No,terrorism%20in%20the%20Middle%20East. |access-date=2024-11-09 |website=AP News |language=en}}

Additional sanctions were imposed on the Iranian aviation sector due to its involvement with exports of missile components to Russia. Iran denied any deliveries. An IAEA report confirmed the expansion of Iran's enrichment program. Fordow was routinely enriching uranium to 60%. The report said that Iran informed the agency that eight clusters of advanced IR-6 centrifuges had been installed at the site but not brought online. The larger site at Natanz added 15 cascades, allowing an enrichment purity of 5%. IAEA board resolutions required Iran to cooperate with its investigations into uranium traces and called for inspectors to enter nuclear sites.{{Cite web |title=EU seeks to revive Iran nuclear talks with JCPOA parties |url=https://news.az/news/eu-seeks-to-revive-iran-nuclear-talks-with-jcpoa-parties |access-date=2024-11-09 |website=news.az |language=en}}[https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iaea-chief-grossi-hopes-hold-talks-with-iranian-president-by-november-2024-09-09/ "IAEA chief Grossi hopes to hold talks with Iranian president by November"] Reuters (Sep 08, 2024). Accessed Sep 14, 2024.

AEOI spokesman Behrouz Kamalvandi met with representatives of Russia's Joint Institute for Nuclear Research to exchange technical details.{{Cite web |title=Italian official: Italy ready to cooperate with Iran on JCPOA |url=https://nournews.ir/en/news/190121/Italian-official-Italy-ready-to-cooperate-with-Iran-on-JCPOA |access-date=2024-11-09 |website=nournews |language=en}}

On November 13, IAEA director Rafael Grossi visited Tehran where he was welcomed by Behrouz Kamalvandi, spokesman for the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI). Grossi, holding talks with Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and AEOI Chief Mohammad Eslami, had earlier said the JCPOA was an "empty shell" but that IAEA inspectors had no evidence that Iran was building a nuclear bomb. During the COP29 climate summit in Baku, he warned that "the international situation is becoming increasingly tense".{{Cite web|url=https://nournews.ir/en/news/199235/Grossi-JCPOA-is-an-empty-shell|title=Grossi: JCPOA is an empty shell|date=17 December 2024|website=nournews}}

[https://nournews.ir/en/news/199417/IAEA-chief-on-Tehran-visit-for-talks-with-Iranian-officials "IAEA chief on Tehran visit for talks with Iranian officials"] nournews. Accessed Nov 13 2024.

{{Portal|Politics|Iran|Nuclear technology|European Union}}

• 2016 U.S.–Iran naval incident
• Agreed Framework
• Begin Doctrine (The common term for the Israeli government's preventive strike to the potential enemies' capability to possess WMD)
• Black Cube (a private intelligence company founded by former Israeli intelligence officers)
• Budapest Memorandum
• Disarmament of Iraq
• Disarmament of Libya
• Iran–United States relations during the Obama administration
• Mehdi Sarram
• United Nations S.C. resolutions concerning the nuclear program of Iran
• U.S. national emergency with respect to Iran
• History and culture of negotiation in Iran

{{Notelist}}

{{reflist}}

{{Commons}}

• [https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/3244 "Joint statement by E.U. High Representative Federica Mogherini and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif"] at the European External Action Service (EEAS)
• Full text of the agreement:
• Via EEAS:
• [https://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/122460/full-text-of-the-iran-nuclear-deal.pdf "Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action"]
• [https://cdn1-eeas.fpfis.tech.ec.europa.eu/cdn/farfuture/zwI_3oMfldQKgFGglqM7SS_7AkplXR5pVjAxfZwoVNg/mtime:1476952840/sites/eeas/files/annex_1_nuclear_related_commitments_en.pdf "Annex I: Nuclear-related commitments"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190302090713/https://cdn1-eeas.fpfis.tech.ec.europa.eu/cdn/farfuture/zwI_3oMfldQKgFGglqM7SS_7AkplXR5pVjAxfZwoVNg/mtime:1476952840/sites/eeas/files/annex_1_nuclear_related_commitments_en.pdf |date=2 March 2019 }}
• [https://cdn1-eeas.fpfis.tech.ec.europa.eu/cdn/farfuture/33Sh04ihv4ay0Sy6vV6hn5LBsGrIGXsTqhOaEuIw9rQ/mtime:1476952864/sites/eeas/files/annex_2_sanctions_related_commitments_en.pdf "Annex II: Sanctions-related commitments"]
• [https://cdn4-eeas.fpfis.tech.ec.europa.eu/cdn/farfuture/r8y2Tnvs0lfX8q29i5TzegBwSA7qWC3UB_tOuo846ro/mtime:1476952898/sites/eeas/files/annex_1_attachements_en.pdf "Attachments to Annex II"]
• [https://cdn2-eeas.fpfis.tech.ec.europa.eu/cdn/farfuture/5jX_j0ahfZsaxkCOVJwxJQoueql9pu0Ui46KzqdY_ig/mtime:1476952921/sites/eeas/files/annex_3_civil_nuclear_cooperation_en.pdf "Annex III: Civil nuclear cooperation"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190302090750/https://cdn2-eeas.fpfis.tech.ec.europa.eu/cdn/farfuture/5jX_j0ahfZsaxkCOVJwxJQoueql9pu0Ui46KzqdY_ig/mtime:1476952921/sites/eeas/files/annex_3_civil_nuclear_cooperation_en.pdf |date=2 March 2019 }}
• [https://cdn3-eeas.fpfis.tech.ec.europa.eu/cdn/farfuture/Iv2WU7wg0WzD0wyfgMZ2EsEWI8r6hGslfsYCKo-_UvE/mtime:1476952956/sites/eeas/files/annex_4_joint_commission_en.pdf "Annex IV: Joint Commission"]
• [https://cdn2-eeas.fpfis.tech.ec.europa.eu/cdn/farfuture/-vu9nIxKT8YXnvbVLiy0CS98MqAo7cD7-dXPllO6oe0/mtime:1476952981/sites/eeas/files/annex_5_implementation_plan_en.pdf "Annex V: Implementation Plan"]
• {{cite web |url = https://medium.com/the-iran-deal |title = The Iran Deal |author = White House |author-link = White House |publisher =Medium |url-status=dead |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20150804195203/https://medium.com/the-iran-deal |archive-date=4 August 2015 |df=dmy-all }}

; Videos

• [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GVbJXdVvG5E Inside the Iran Nuclear Deal with the Lead U.S. Negotiator (2015)] - Miller Center
• [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ca8ddlS_qTE&feature=youtu.be On The Same Page: America's Middle East Allies and Regional Threats] - Foundation for Defense of Democracies — 1/15/2021
• UAE Minister of State Yousef Al Otaiba
• Bahrain Ambassador to the U.S. Rashid al-Khalifa
• Israel Ambassador to the U.S. Ron Dermer
• [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YkL7c8fdwDc Iran Nuclear Deal Progress Report] – Nuclear Threat Initiative (2017)
• [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03JdbYggUTs "The Iran Nuclear Deal Explained"] – The Wall Street Journal (2015)

{{Energy in Iran}}

{{Foreign relations of the European Union}}

{{Iran–United States relations}}

{{Iran–Russia relations}}

{{China–United States relations}}

{{France–United States relations}}

{{Germany–United States relations}}

{{Iran–United Kingdom relations}}

{{Russia–United States relations}}

{{United Kingdom–United States relations}}

{{Barack Obama}}

Category:2015 documents

Category:2010s in Vienna

Category:2015 in Austria

Category:2015 in international relations

Category:2015 in Iran

Category:2016 in Iran

Category:2015 controversies

Category:2016 controversies

Category:July 2015 in Austria

Category:Agreements

Category:Diplomatic conferences in Austria

Category:Presidency of Barack Obama

Category:Obama administration controversies

Category:Presidency of Hassan Rouhani

Category:John Kerry

Category:Middle East peace efforts

Category:Nuclear energy in Iran

Category:Nuclear program of Iran

Category:Nuclear weapons policy

Category:Foreign relations of Iran

Category:Foreign relations of China

Category:Iran–United States relations

Category:China–Iran relations

Category:France–Iran relations

Category:Germany–Iran relations

Category:Iran–Russia relations

Category:Iran–Oman relations

Category:Iran–United Kingdom relations

Category:Oman–United States relations

Category:United States–European Union relations

Category:China–European Union relations

Category:Iran–European Union relations

Category:Russia–European Union relations

Category:China–United States relations

Category:France–United States relations

Category:Germany–United States relations

Category:Russia–United States relations

Category:United Kingdom–United States relations