JCPOA remains alive ...
Page 1
On the other hand, Iran, joined at times by Russia and China, maintains that once the resolution’s timeframe expired, those UNSC-based mechanisms became void, making any attempt to revive them illegitimate or at least disputable.
As a result, we now see three camps:
(a) Some participants still treat the JCPOA as a living technical and political framework, using it as a reference point in talks or practical arrangements.
(b) Others interpret the resolution’s expiry as a weakening of its legal backbone, viewing the JCPOA as a deal under strain and constraint.
(c) A third group, including international organizations and neutral states, occupies a middle or ambiguous ground, guided largely by political calculus and national interests.
The JCPOA’s “life status” is no longer an undisputed international fact. Some still hold on to it as a technical benchmark; others write it off as obsolete or enforce its demise through parallel measures, such as sanctions. This divergence itself has become the greatest obstacle to the deal’s full and effective revival.
Can Iran’s stance, that the JCPOA lives on despite the resolution’s expiry, be read as a signal of diplomatic intent? How viable is this path?
Iran’s statement should be understood both as a legal-political position and a diplomatic signal. Strategically, it conveys a dual message: on one hand, Tehran affirms a degree of continued commitment to the JCPOA’s technical framework, showing it hasn’t shut the door on negotiations; on the other, it reasserts sovereign rights, especially over enrichment, as a domestic and international bargaining chip.
This can indeed be interpreted as a willingness to keep the diplomatic track open. But its success depends on several external variables: First, the West’s readiness to offer tangible economic benefits and credible guarantees. Second, the resolution, or at least management, of non-nuclear issues such as missiles and regional policies, which many Western states see as preconditions. Third, the level of mutual trust and the robustness of verification mechanisms Iran seeks. And fourth, domestic or geopolitical pressures that might stiffen or soften Iran’s resolve.
Without real economic incentives and credible assurances, a mere legal or diplomatic declaration won’t bring the JCPOA back to life in practice. But if the process is coupled with solid guarantees, economic packages, and verification tools, diplomacy could find a way back in, though success would neither be swift nor guaranteed, and would require complex, multi-party trade-offs.
Given the latest developments, can the JCPOA still serve as a framework for a renewed agreement, or does any future deal need to be drafted from scratch?
A realistic assessment requires a hybrid approach. The 2015 JCPOA offered a solid set of technical and institutional solutions, such as caps on nuclear activity, IAEA verification regimes, and joint decision-making mechanisms, that still provide a valuable “technical bank” for negotiators.
Reusing this framework as a starting point is often more efficient than reinventing the wheel, as it saves time and preserves measurable benchmarks. However, today’s realities, including new political alignments, lessons from past breaches, and questions over sunset clauses and enforcement, demand serious structural updates.
Any revival effort must therefore include new annexes or modifications: stronger verification and access provisions, clearer definitions of what happens when resolutions expire, robust economic and banking guarantees to make sanctions relief effective, and, if necessary, coordinated arrangements addressing extra-JCPOA issues.
The pragmatic way forward is neither to resurrect the 2015 deal unchanged nor to tear it up and start anew. The best course is to retain the JCPOA’s technical foundation while retrofitting it with structural reforms that patch its flaws. This approach combines a familiar, defensible baseline with the flexibility to adapt to current realities and may well be the only viable path that is both technically sound and politically negotiable.