Comparative analysis: How Trump's deal with Iran overturns Obama's approach
Donald Trump signed an agreement with Iran that not only halts the nearly four-month-long conflict but also reopens the Strait of Hormuz. This document is fundamentally different from the nuclear pact signed by Barack Obama in 2015. The difference is not just in the details—it represents two fundamentally opposing views on diplomacy.
The new agreement establishes a 60-day extension of the ceasefire regime, while discussions on the nuclear program are postponed to the next stage. This sharply contrasts with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), from which Trump withdrew in 2018. The key difference lies in the sequence: Obama started with diplomacy, whereas Trump bet on economic and military pressure, only then moving to negotiations.
Two Agreements—Opposing Approaches
Obama's JCPOA united the US, UK, France, Germany, Russia, China, and the European Union. In exchange for verifiable limits on the nuclear program, some sanctions on Tehran were lifted. The strategy was built on containment—negotiators sought clear frameworks for at least ten years. Obama presented the deal as a way to buy time.
Trump chose a different tactic: he withdrew from the pact in 2018, imposed a maximum pressure campaign, and only reached an agreement after recent strikes on Iran. His approach is a path from strength to agreement, rather than the other way around.
At the Core—The Enrichment Issue
The JCPOA allowed Iran to enrich uranium domestically to 3.67% for 15 years, set a limit of 5,060 centrifuges, and a uranium stockpile of no more than 300 kg under strict inspector oversight. These limits increased the time needed to create a nuclear weapon from two to three months to one year.
Trump took a tougher line: his team pushed for a complete ban or strict restrictions on uranium enrichment in Iran and insisted on longer timelines. After the US withdrawal from the deal in 2018, the limits ceased to apply, and by May 2025, the IAEA recorded stockpiles of over 400 kg of uranium enriched to 60%—a level at which creating a warhead becomes a matter of days.
Currently, the 2026 memorandum has not resolved the fate of enrichment—the coming weeks will determine what happens to Iran's raw material stockpiles.
How Trump's Approach Changed the Sanctions Regime
The Obama administration opened access to the deal's benefits for Iran as quickly as possible: it unfroze assets and allowed oil exports. The US Treasury estimated that Tehran could have received about $50 billion—not the $100 billion claimed by critics.
Trump's team implemented a phased and reversible mechanism for lifting restrictions. According to Iranian media, within the 60-day window, this involved approximately $24 billion in frozen assets. However, Vice President Vance did not confirm this figure, noting it is absent from the official text. The money will only be transferred after the deal's conditions are met.
The current scheme also suspends sanctions on Iranian oil and petrochemical exports. European countries have indicated they will lift restrictions only after confirming compliance with the agreements.
Critics of the previous deal argued that the influx of money strengthened Iran's regional allies. Trump emphasized that his version involved virtually no upfront payments and was based on concrete results.
"If I make a deal with Iran, it will be really good and fair, unlike the one Obama signed—where Iran was given huge sums of cash and a direct path to nuclear weapons. Our deal is the complete opposite..." — The Hill quotes Trump.
Frameworks, Leverage, and Next Steps
The JCPOA dealt exclusively with the nuclear program. Issues of missiles and support for regional allies were not addressed. Trump demands that the new terms cover this area as well. In his memorandum, progress is tied to unblocking the Strait of Hormuz and overall regional security.
The differences are clear: Obama bet on compromise involving multiple countries, while Trump relies on pressure and stricter long-term conditions. Iran and the US interpret key provisions differently: Tehran insists on preserving enrichment rights, while American representatives emphasize tightening restrictions in the future.
Supporters of the previous deal warn that pressure could backfire. It was precisely after the US withdrawal in 2018 that Iran's program accelerated the most. The next 60 days of negotiations will reveal whether the bet on pressure can yield more than conventional diplomacy, especially after Trump's threat regarding Kharg Island.
Expert Opinion: Markets have already reacted to the news—oil has become cheaper, and gold has corrected. However, investors should remember: the 60-day window is not a final point, but merely a pause. If enrichment negotiations reach a deadlock, volatility will return with renewed force. For now, Trump's deal looks like a pragmatic but risky experiment.