Trump's Deal with Iran vs. Obama's Nuclear Pact: Two Fundamentally Different Approaches to Resolution
Donald Trump signed an agreement with Iran that halts the nearly four-month conflict and reopens the Strait of Hormuz. However, the new document is fundamentally different from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) signed by Barack Obama in 2015. The differences concern not only tactics but also the very philosophy of negotiations.
Sequence of Actions: Diplomacy vs. Coercive Pressure
Obama's JCPOA united the US, UK, France, Germany, Russia, China, and the European Union. The strategy was based on restraint: Tehran received sanctions relief in exchange for verifiable limits on its nuclear program. The agreement was designed to last at least ten years, with a gradual easing of restrictions.
Trump chose a fundamentally different path. He withdrew from the deal in 2018, imposed a maximum pressure campaign, and only returned to negotiations after recent strikes on Iran. The key difference lies in the sequence: Obama started with diplomacy, while Trump bet on economic and military pressure.
The new memorandum provides for a 60-day ceasefire regime, with discussions on the nuclear program postponed to the next stage. Obama's document was about 159 pages long and took about two years to develop. Trump reached an agreement much faster, with Qatar and Pakistan acting as mediators.
The Uranium Enrichment Issue: From Compromise to Prohibition
The JCPOA allowed Iran to enrich uranium on its territory, capped at 3.67% for 15 years. The document set a limit of 5,060 operational centrifuges and uranium stockpiles of no more than 300 kg under strict inspector control. These limits increased the time needed to create a nuclear weapon from two to three months to one year.
However, the restrictions were not permanent: after 10 years, limits on centrifuges began to be lifted, and after 15 years, enrichment conditions were eased. This part of the agreement was most often criticized by opponents of the JCPOA.
Trump took a tougher stance. His team pushed for a complete ban or strict limits on uranium enrichment in Iran and insisted on longer and stricter timelines. After the US withdrawal from the deal in 2018, the limits ceased to apply. In May 2025, the IAEA recorded stockpiles of over 400 kg of uranium enriched to 60% — far more than permitted under the agreement.
At such volumes, creating a nuclear device became possible within days. Iran remains the only non-nuclear-weapon state engaging in enrichment at this level. The 2026 memorandum has not yet resolved the fate of uranium enrichment — the coming weeks should determine what happens to Iran's stockpiles of enriched material.
The Sanctions Regime: From Unfreezing to Phased Lifting
The Obama administration opened up the benefits of the deal to Iran as quickly as possible: it unfroze Iranian assets and allowed oil exports. The US Treasury estimated that Tehran could immediately access approximately $50 billion.
The Trump team implemented a phased and reversible mechanism for lifting restrictions. Iranian media noted that within the 60-day window, about $24 billion in frozen funds were involved. Vance disagreed with this figure, noting that it is absent from the official text. A US representative clarified: the money will be transferred only after the terms of the deal are met.
The current scheme also suspends sanctions on Iranian oil and petrochemical exports. European countries have indicated they will lift restrictions only after Tehran confirms compliance with the agreements.
Frameworks and Leverage: From Narrow Focus to Broad Goals
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 also cover this area.
Trump links his proposals to broader goals: his memorandum ties progress to the unblocking of 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.
Tehran insists on preserving its rights to enrich uranium, while US 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.
Analytical Commentary from Cryptalist: The differences between the two approaches reflect a fundamental shift in US foreign policy. Trump's reliance on coercive pressure and phased sanctions relief creates a more fragile but potentially more controllable mechanism. However, the key question is whether the 60-day window can evolve into a sustainable agreement, or whether we will witness another round of escalation. Markets, especially oil and cryptocurrency, will closely watch every move by negotiators in the coming weeks.