How Trump’s Iran Deal Differs From Obama’s

With President Donald Trump announcing a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Iran, comparisons have quickly emerged with the landmark nuclear agreement negotiated by President Barack Obama in 2015. While both arrangements involve Iran and sanctions relief, the similarities largely end there.

Get today's headlines by email

ANALYSIS

The most important distinction is that Obama’s agreement — the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — was a completed nuclear accord. Negotiated among Iran, the United States, China, Russia, France, the United Kingdom, Germany and the European Union, it imposed specific restrictions on Iran’s nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief.

One Is a Nuclear Deal, the Other Is Not

Trump’s agreement is not a final nuclear deal. The MOU primarily establishes a framework to halt the current conflict, reopen the Strait of Hormuz and launch further nuclear negotiations. While Iran has again pledged not to obtain a nuclear weapon, details on verification and enforcement remain unresolved and are expected to be negotiated during a 60-day follow-up process.

As a result, the MOU resembles a ceasefire and negotiating framework more than a completed nuclear accord.

Diplomacy Versus Military Pressure

The paths leading to the two agreements were markedly different.

The Obama administration spent roughly 20 months conducting negotiations that culminated in the JCPOA.

The Trump administration also pursued diplomacy but ultimately concluded that military action was necessary. In July 2025, the United States launched strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, which experts said set back Tehran’s nuclear programme significantly.

Later, Washington and Israel conducted Operation Epic Fury, targeting nuclear infrastructure and military assets. Iran responded by disrupting shipping through the Strait of Hormuz and launching attacks against U.S. interests and regional partners. Israel meanwhile remained engaged in conflict with Iran-backed groups in Lebanon.

The fighting carried substantial costs. Thirteen U.S. service members were reported killed during Operation Epic Fury, while the overall conflict has been estimated to have cost American taxpayers more than $25 billion.

What Iran Received

Both agreements offered economic incentives to Iran, but the terms differed substantially.

Under the JCPOA, Iran gained access to frozen assets and received relief from U.S., European Union and United Nations sanctions. Restrictions on oil exports were eased, the Iranian central bank regained broader access to the global financial system and previously seized funds, including $1.7 billion, were returned.

In exchange, Iran agreed to major nuclear restrictions. These included reducing the number of operating centrifuges, limiting uranium enrichment activities, shrinking its stockpile of enriched uranium, modifying a heavy-water reactor and accepting inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Critics argued that some inspection provisions were insufficient and that the agreement’s limits would eventually expire.

Trump’s MOU also includes sanctions relief measures, the easing of oil restrictions and a proposed $300 billion reconstruction fund involving regional partners. However, much of the promised relief depends on future negotiations that have yet to produce a broader nuclear agreement.

In return, Iran agreed to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Critics note that this largely restores conditions that existed before the conflict. Moreover, the MOU leaves open questions about the future governance of the strategic waterway. One provision states that the strait will remain toll-free for 60 days, after which Iran and Oman will discuss future administration and maritime services.

How the Deals Are Being Sold

When Obama unveiled the JCPOA, he described it as the strongest nuclear non-proliferation agreement ever negotiated. He acknowledged that Iran would receive substantial economic benefits and argued that, despite its imperfections, the agreement was preferable to military conflict.

Trump has similarly promoted his MOU, saying it achieved more than his administration initially sought.

At the same time, he has emphasized the economic risks of allowing the conflict to continue. After previously dismissing Iran’s leverage, Trump said prolonged disruption could have triggered severe economic consequences, particularly through energy markets.

Speaking after the G7 summit in France, Trump said concerns about economic damage influenced his decision to pursue an agreement, noting that financial markets reacted positively whenever prospects for peace improved. He also warned that a prolonged crisis could have risked pushing the United States into an economic downturn.

Join the discussion?

Already a member?

Adapted by ASEAN Now. Source 19 June 2026

View full article