Powered by
Share this page on
Article provided by Wikipedia

Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
""Iran Talks Vienna 14 July 2015 (19067069963).jpg
Officials announcing the agreement
Created 14 July 2015
"Ratified N/A (ratification not required)
"Date effective
  • 18 October 2015 (Adoption)[1]
  • 16 January 2016 (Implementation)[2]
Location "Vienna, "Austria
Signatories "China, "France, "Germany, "European Union, "Iran, "Russia, "United Kingdom, "United States ("withdrawing)[3]
Purpose "Nuclear non-proliferation

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA; "Persian: برنامه جامع اقدام مشترک‎, "translit. barnāmeye jāme‘e eqdāme moshtarak, "acronym: برجام BARJAM[4][5]), known commonly as the Iran nuclear deal or Iran deal, is an agreement on the "nuclear program of Iran reached in "Vienna on 14 July 2015 between "Iran, the "P5+1 (the five "permanent members of the United Nations Security Council—"China, "France, "Russia, "United Kingdom, "United States—plus "Germany),[a] and the "European Union.

Formal negotiations toward the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran's nuclear program began with the adoption of the "Joint Plan of Action, an interim agreement signed between Iran and the P5+1 countries in November 2013. For the next twenty months, Iran and the P5+1 countries engaged in negotiations, and in April 2015 agreed on an "Iran nuclear deal framework for the final agreement. In July 2015, Iran and the P5+1 confirmed agreement on the plan along with the "Roadmap Agreement" made between Iran and the IAEA.[8]

Under the agreement, 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 13 years. For the next 15 years, Iran will only enrich uranium up to 3.67%. Iran also agreed not to build any new "heavy-water facilities for the same period of time. Uranium-enrichment activities will be limited to a single facility using first-generation centrifuges for 10 years. Other facilities will be converted to avoid "proliferation risks. To monitor and verify Iran's compliance with the agreement, the "International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will have regular access to all Iranian nuclear facilities. The agreement provides that in return for verifiably abiding by its commitments, Iran will receive relief from U.S., European Union, and "United Nations Security Council nuclear-related economic "sanctions.

On 13 October 2017, U.S. President Donald Trump announced that the United States would not make the certification provided for under "U.S. domestic law, but stopped short of terminating the deal.[9] On 30 April 2018, the United States and Israel stated that Iran did not disclose a past "covert nuclear weapons program to the IAEA, which was required in the 2015 deal.[10][11]

"IAEA inspectors spend 3,000 calendar days per year in Iran, installing tamper-proof seals and collecting surveillance camera photos, measurement data and documents for further analysis. IAEA Director Yukiya Amano stated (in March 2018) that the organization has verified that Iran is implementing its nuclear-related commitments.[12]

On 8 May 2018, President Trump announced that the United States would "withdraw from the agreement.[13][14]



A "nuclear weapon uses a "fissile material to cause a "nuclear chain reaction. The most commonly used materials have been "uranium 235 (U-235) and "plutonium 239 (Pu-239). Both "uranium 233 (U-233) and "reactor-grade plutonium have also been used.[15][16][17] 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.[18] Plutonium is almost nonexistent in nature, and natural uranium is about 99.3% "uranium 238 (U-238) and 0.7% U-235. Therefore, to make a weapon, either uranium must be "enriched, or plutonium must be produced. Uranium enrichment is also frequently necessary for "nuclear power. For this reason, uranium enrichment is a "dual-use technology, a technology which "can be used both for civilian and for military purposes".[19] 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.[17][19]

Iranian development of "nuclear technology began in the 1970s, when the U.S. "Atoms for Peace program began providing assistance to "Iran, which was then led by the "Shah.[20] Iran signed the "Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in 1968 as a non-nuclear weapons state and ratified the NPT in 1970.[20]

In 1979 the "Iranian Revolution took place, and Iran's nuclear program, which had developed some baseline capacity, fell to disarray as "much of Iran's nuclear talent fled the country in the wake of the Revolution."[20] Ayatollah "Ruhollah Khomeini was initially opposed to nuclear technology; and Iran engaged in a "costly war with Iraq from 1980 to 1988.[20]

Starting in the later 1980s, Iran restarted its nuclear program, with "assistance from Pakistan (which entered into a "bilateral agreement with Iran in 1992), China (which did the same in 1990), and Russia (which did the same in 1992 and 1995), and from the "A.Q. Khan network.[20] Iran "began pursuing an indigenous "nuclear fuel cycle capability by developing a uranium mining infrastructure and experimenting with uranium conversion and enrichment".[20] According to the nonpartisan "Nuclear Threat Initiative, ""U.S. intelligence agencies have long suspected Iran of using its civilian nuclear program as a cover for clandestine weapons development."[20] Iran, in contrast, "has always insisted that its nuclear work is peaceful".[21]

In August 2002, the Paris-based "National Council of Resistance of Iran, an Iranian dissident group, publicly revealed the existence of two undeclared nuclear facilities, the "Arak heavy-water production facility and the "Natanz enrichment facility.[20][22] In February 2003, Iranian President "Mohammad Khatami acknowledged the existence of the facilities and asserted that Iran had undertaken "small-scale enrichment experiments" to produce low-enriched uranium for nuclear power plants.[20] In late February, "International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors visited Natanz.[22] In May 2003, Iran allowed IAEA inspectors to visit the Kalaye Electric Company, but refused to allow them to take samples, and an IAEA report the following month concluded that Iran had failed to meet its obligations under the previous agreement.[22]

In June 2003, Iran—faced with the prospect of being referred to the "UN Security Council—entered into diplomatic negotiations with France, Germany, and the United Kingdom (the EU 3).[20][22] The United States refused to be involved in these negotiations.[22] In October 2003, the Tehran Declaration was reached between Iran and the EU 3; under this declaration Iran agreed to cooperate fully with the IAEA, sign the Additional Protocol, and temporarily suspend all uranium enrichment.[20][22] In September and October 2003, the IAEA conducted several facility inspections.[20] This was followed by the Paris Agreement in November 2004, in which Iran agreed to temporarily suspend enrichment and conversion activities, "including the manufacture, installation, testing, and operation of centrifuges, and committed to working with the EU-3 to find a mutually beneficial long-term diplomatic solution".[20]

In August 2005, "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a hard-liner, was elected "president of Iran. He accused Iranian negotiators who had negotiated the Paris Accords of treason.[22][23] Over the next two months, the EU 3 agreement fell apart as talks over the EU 3's proposed 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".[20][22] Iran notified the IAEA that it would resume uranium conversion at "Esfahan.[20][22]

In February 2006, Iran ended its voluntary implementation of the Additional Protocol and resumed enrichment at Natanz, prompting the IAEA Board of Governors to refer Iran to the UN Security Council.[20][22] After the vote, Iran announced it would resume enrichment of uranium.[22] In April 2006, Ahmadinejad announced that Iran had nuclear technology, but stated that it was purely for power generation and not for producing weapons.[22] In June 2006, the EU 3 joined China, Russia, and the United States, to form the P5+1.[22] The following month, July 2006, the UN Security Council passed its first resolution demanding Iran stop uranium enrichment and processing.[22] Altogether, from 2006 to 2010, the UN Security Council subsequently adopted six resolutions concerning Iran's nuclear program: 1696 (July 2006), 1737 (December 2006), 1747 (March 2007), 1803 (March 2008), 1835 (September 2008), and 1929 (June 2010).[24] The legal authority for the IAEA Board of Governors referral and the Security Council resolutions was derived from the IAEA Statute and the "United Nations Charter.[24] The resolutions demanded that Iran cease enrichment activities and imposed sanctions on Iran, 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 order to pressure the country.[20][22] However, in Resolution 1803 and elsewhere the Security Council also acknowledged Iran's rights under Article IV of the NPT, which provides for "the inalienable right ... to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes".[24][b]

In July 2006, Iran opened the Arak heavy water production plant, which led to one of the Security Council resolutions.[20] In September 2009, U.S. President Barack Obama, revealed the existence of an underground enrichment facility in Fordow, near "Qom saying, "Iran's decision to build yet another nuclear facility without notifying the IAEA represents a direct challenge to the basic compact at the center of the non-proliferation regime."[30] Israel threatened to take military action against Iran.[22]

In a February 2007 interview with the "Financial Times, IAEA director general "Mohamed ElBaradei said that military action against Iran "would be catastrophic, counterproductive" and called for negotiations between the international community and Iran over the Iranian nuclear program.[31] ElBaradei specifically proposed a "double, simultaneous suspension, a time out" as "a confidence-building measure", under which the international sanctions would be suspended and Iran would suspend enrichment.[31] ElBaradei also said, "if I look at it from a weapons perspective there are much more important issues to me than the suspension of [enrichment]," naming his top priorities as preventing Iran from "go[ing] to industrial capacity until the issues are settled"; building confidence, with "full inspection" involving Iranian adoption of the "Additional Protocol; and "at all costs" preventing Iran from "moving out of the [treaty-based non-proliferation] system".[31]

A November 2007 U.S. "National Intelligence Estimate assessed that Iran "halted its nuclear weapons program" in 2003; that estimate and subsequent U.S. Intelligence Community statements also assessed that the Iranian government at the time had was "keeping open the 'option' to develop nuclear weapons" in the future.[32] A July 2015 "Congressional Research Service report said, "statements from the U.S. intelligence community indicate that Iran has the technological and industrial capacity to produce nuclear weapons at some point, but the U.S. government assesses that Tehran has not mastered all of the necessary technologies for building a nuclear weapon."[32]

U.S. Secretary of State "John Kerry 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 United States began a series of secret bilateral talks with Iranian officials in "Oman, led by "William Joseph Burns and "Jake Sullivan on the American side and Ali Asghar Khaji on the Iranian side.[22][33] In June 2013, "Hassan Rouhani was elected president of Iran.[22][34] Rouhani has been described as "more moderate, pragmatic and willing to negotiate than Ahmadinejad". However, in a 2006 nuclear negotiation with European powers, Rouhani said that Iran had used the negotiations to dupe the Europeans, saying that during the negotiations, Iran managed to master the conversion of uranium "yellowcake at Isfahan. The conversion of yellowcake is an important step in the nuclear fuel process.[35] In August 2013, three days after his inauguration, Rouhani called for a resumption of serious negotiations with the P5+1 on the Iranian nuclear program.[36] In September 2013, Obama and Rouhani had a telephone conversation, the first high-level contact between U.S. and Iranian leaders since 1979, and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry had a meeting with Iranian foreign minister "Mohammad Javad Zarif, signaling that the two countries had an opening to cooperation.[22][36] Former officials alleged that, in order to advance the deal, the Obama administration shielded "Hezbollah from the "Drug Enforcement Administration's "Project Cassandra investigation regarding drug smuggling and from the "Central Intelligence Agency.[37][38] As a result of the Politico report, Attorney General "Jeff Sessions ordered an investigation to determine the veracity of the allegations.[39]

After several rounds of negotiations, on 24 November 2013, the "Joint Plan of Action, an interim agreement on the Iranian nuclear program, was signed between Iran and the P5+1 countries in "Geneva, Switzerland. It consisted of a short-term freeze of portions of Iran's nuclear program in exchange for decreased economic sanctions on Iran, as the countries work towards a long-term agreement.[40] The IAEA began "more intrusive and frequent inspections" under this interim agreement.[36] The agreement was formally activated on 20 January 2014.[41] On that day, the IAEA issued a report stating that Iran was adhering to the terms of the interim agreement, including stopping enrichment of uranium to 20 percent, beginning the dilution process (to reduce half of the stockpile of 20 percent enriched uranium to 3.5 percent), and halting work on the Arak heavy-water reactor.[36][41]

A major focus on the negotiations was limitations on "Iran's key nuclear facilities: the "Arak "IR-40 "heavy water reactor and production plant (which was under construction, but never became operational, as Iran agreed as part of the November 2013 Joint Plan of Action (interim agreement) 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.[42]


Foreign Ministers from the P5+1 nations, the European Union, and Iran in "Vienna, Austria, on November 24, 2014

The agreement between the P5+1+EU and Iran on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is the culmination of 20 months of "arduous" negotiations.[43][44]

The agreement followed the "Joint Plan of Action (JPA), an interim agreement between the P5+1 powers and Iran that was agreed to on 24 November 2013 at "Geneva. The Geneva agreement was an interim deal,[45] in which Iran agreed to roll back parts of its nuclear program in exchange for relief from "some sanctions. This went into effect on 20 January 2014.[46] The parties agreed to extend their talks with a first extension deadline on 24 November 2014[47] and a second extension deadline set to 1 July 2015.[48]

An "Iran nuclear deal framework was reached on 2 April 2015. Under this framework Iran agreed tentatively to accept restrictions on its nuclear program, all of which would last for at least a decade and some longer, and to submit to an increased intensity of "international inspections under a framework deal. These details were to be negotiated by the end of June 2015. The negotiations toward a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action were extended several times until the final agreement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, was finally reached on 14 July 2015.[49][50] The JCPOA is based on the framework agreement from three months earlier.

Subsequently the negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 continued. In April 2015, a "framework deal was reached at "Lausanne. Intense marathon negotiations then continued, with the last session in "Vienna at the "Palais Coburg lasting for seventeen days.[51] At several points, negotiations appeared to be at risk of breaking down, but negotiators managed to come to agreement.[51] As the negotiators neared a deal, U.S. Secretary of State "John Kerry directly asked Iranian Foreign Minister "Mohammad Javad Zarif to confirm that he was "authorized to actually make a deal, not just by the [Iranian] president, but by the supreme leader?"[51] Zarif gave assurances that he was.[51]

Ultimately, on 14 July 2015, all parties agreed to a landmark comprehensive nuclear agreement.[52] At the time of the announcement, shortly before 11:00 GMT, the agreement was released to the public.[53]

The final agreement's complexity shows the impact of a public letter written by a bipartisan group of 19 U.S. diplomats, experts, and others in June 2015, written when negotiations were still going on.[54][55] That letter outlined concerns about the several provisions in the then-unfinished agreement and called for a number of improvements to strengthen the prospective agreement and win their support for it.[54] After the final agreement was reached, one of the signatories, Robert J. Einhorn, a former U.S. Department of State official now at the "Brookings Institution, said of the agreement: "Analysts will be pleasantly surprised. The more things are agreed to, the less opportunity there is for implementation difficulties later on."[54]

The final agreement is based upon (and buttresses) "the rules-based nonproliferation regime created by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and including especially the "IAEA safeguards system".[56]


Souvenir signatures of lead negotiators on the cover page of the JCPOA document. The "Persian 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]."[57]


The JCPOA is part of resolution 2231 voted by every member of the UN Security Council, with following timetable:

Summary of provisions[edit]

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) runs to 109 pages, including five annexes.[44] Major provisions of the final accord include the following:[44][58][59]


JCPOA summary of enrichment-related provisions
(sources: "The Economist[60] "Belfer Center[61]:29)
Capability Before JCPOA After JCPOA
(for 10-year period)
After 15 years
centrifuges installed
19,138 capped at 6,104 Unconstrained[U 1]
Advanced centrifuges installed 1,008 0
Centrifuge R&D Unconstrained Constrained
Stockpile of
low-enriched uranium
7,154 kg 300 kg
Stockpile of
medium-enriched uranium
196 kg 0 kg
The physical limits phase out over 10 to 15 years[61]
  1. ^ According to the JCPOA, "The sequence and milestones set forth above and in Annex V are without prejudice to the duration of JCPOA commitments stated in this JCPOA."

As a result of the above, the "breakout time"—the time in which it would be possible for Iran to make enough material for a single nuclear weapon—will increase from two to three months to one year, according to U.S. officials and U.S. intelligence.[44][62][91][d] An August 2015 report published by a group of experts at "Harvard University's "Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs concurs in these estimates, writing that under the JCPOA, "over the next decade would be extended to roughly a year, from the current estimated breakout time of 2 to 3 months".[61] The "Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation also accepts these estimates.[93][94] By contrast, Alan J. Kuperman, coordinator of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Project at the University of Texas at Austin, disputed the one-year assessment, arguing that under the agreement, Iran's breakout time "would be only about three months, not much longer than it is today".[95]

The longer breakout time would be in place for at least ten years; after that point, the breakout time would gradually decrease.[44][91] By the fifteenth year, U.S. officials state that the breakout time would return to the pre-JCPOA status quo of a few months.[44][91] The Belfer Center report states: "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."[61]


"Reuters reported that exemptions were granted to Iran prior to 16 January 2016. The reported purpose of the exemptions was so that sanctions relief and other benefits could start by that date, instead of Iran being in violation. The exemptions included: (a) Iran able to exceed the 300 Kg of 3.5% LEU limit in the agreement; (b) Iran able to exceed the zero Kg of 20% LEU limit in the agreement; (c) Iran to keep operating 19 "hot cells" that exceed the size limit in the agreement; (d) Iran to maintain control of 50 tonnes of heavy water that exceed the 130 tonne limit in the agreement by storing the excess at an Iran-controlled facility in Oman.[96] In December 2016, the IAEA published decisions of the Joint Commission that spell out these clarifications of the JCPOA.[97]


The following provisions regarding sanctions are written into the JCPOA:

Ankit Panda of "The Diplomat states that this will make impossible any scenario where Iran is non-compliant with the JCPOA yet escapes re-imposition of sanctions.[108] Mark Dubowitz of the "Foundation for Defense of Democracies (which opposes the agreement) argues, however, that because the JCPOA provides that Iran could treat reinstatement of sanctions (in part or entirely) as grounds for leaving the agreement, the United States would be reluctant to impose a "snapback" for smaller violations: "The only thing you'll take to the Security Council are massive Iranian violations, because you're certainly not going to risk the Iranians walking away from the deal and engaging in nuclear escalation over smaller violations."[109]

15 year term[edit]

After the 15 years, the treaty will come to its term; then the extraordinary restrictions will no longer be applicable.[110]

At that time, in 2030, it is understood that people involved in the 1979 revolution will no more be politically active.[110]

Some critics of the treaty consider as plausible that at its expiration Iran could make a bomb.[110]

In the same time, with this treaty Iran also ratified the Additional Protocol of the NPT and so, be subject to inspection and oversight by the IAEA after this delay.[110]


According to several commentators, JCPOA is the first of its kind in the annals of "non-proliferation and is in many aspects unique.[111][112][113][114][115] The 159-page JCPOA document and its five appendices, is the most spacious text of a multinational treaty since "World War II, according to "BBC Persian.[116]

This is the first time that the "United Nations Security Council has recognized the "nuclear enrichment program of a "developing country[116][117] and backs an agreement signed by several countries within the framework of a resolution ("United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231).[116][118] For the first time in the history of the "United Nations, a country—Iran—was able to abolish 6 UN resolutions against it—"1696, "1737, "1747, "1803, "1835, "1929—without even one day of implementing them.[116] "Sanctions against Iran was also lifted for the first time.[116]

Throughout the history of international law, this is the first and only time that a country subject to "Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter has managed to end its case and stop being subject to this chapter through "diplomacy.[116][119][120] All other cases have ended through either "regime change, "war or full implementation of the Security Council's decisions by the country.[121]

"Gary Sick states that during the history of the "Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), no country other than Iran has ever voluntarily agreed to put such extraordinary restrictions on its nuclear activities.[122]

During the final negotiations, "U.S. Secretary of State "John Kerry stayed in Vienna for 17 days, making him the top American official devoting time to a single international negotiation in more than four decades.[123] "Mohammad Javad Zarif broke the record of an "Iranian Foreign Minister being far from home with 18-days stay in Vienna,[116] and set the record of 106 days of negotiations in 687 days, a number higher than any other "chief nuclear negotiator in 12 years.[124] The negotiations became the longest continuous negotiations with the presence of all foreign ministers of the "permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.[116]

Pictured here, "Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs "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.[125]

The negotiations included 'rare events' in "Iran–United States relations not only since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, but also in the history of the bilateral relations. The U.S. Secretary of State and Iranian Foreign Minister met on 18 different dates—sometimes multiple occasions a day—and in 11 different cities, unprecedented since the beginning of the relations.[126] On 27 April 2015, John Kerry visited the official residence of the "Permanent Representative of Iran to the United Nations to meet his counterpart. The encounter was the first of its kind since the "Iran hostage crisis.[126][127] On the sidelines of the "70th session of the United Nations General Assembly, "U.S. President "Barack Obama shook hands with the Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif, marking the first such event in history. The event was also noted in form of "diplomatic ranks, as a "head of state shook hands with a "minister.[128] Obama is reported to have said in the meeting: "Too much effort has been put into the JCPOA and we all should be diligent to implement it."[129]


Political and diplomatic reactions[edit]

There was a significant worldwide response following the announcement of the agreement; more than 90 countries endorsed the agreement,[130] as did many international organizations.

From countries that are parties to the JCPOA[edit]

From other countries[edit]

From international organizations[edit]

Expert reactions[edit]

Following the unveiling of the agreement, "a general consensus quickly emerged" among nuclear experts and watchdogs that the agreement "is as close to a best-case situation as reality would allow".[217] In August 2015, 75 arms control and nuclear nonproliferation experts signed a statement endorsing the deal as "a net-plus for international nuclear nonproliferation efforts" that exceeds the historical standards for arms control agreements.[218] The "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists invited top international security experts to comment on the final agreement.[219]

In popular culture[edit]

The American TV series "Madam Secretary built a whole "season around the negotiations.[227] Five years before the deal, in "24's "season 8, the negotiations between the United States leaders and "President Hassan" of Islamic republic of Kamistan to abandon his nuclear technology programme was shown, which drew comparison to the US-Iran dispute.[228] However the deal was contrarily to "Homeland's "season 3 plot that "fueled nuclear paranoia" against Iran.[229]

After the deal, a joke began circulating in Iran that the name of city of "Arak would change to "Barack" in honor of Obama, and that in return, the United States would change the name of "Manhattan borough to "Mash Hassan" ("Persian: مش حسن‎) which is a very casual way of referring to Rouhani.[230]

"Javad Zarif's efforts in the negotiations drew comparisons to mythological "Arash the Archer, and two former Prime Ministers: "Mohammad Mosaddegh, who led the "withdrawal of foreigners and nationalization of the Iran oil industry and was overthrown by "American–British coup d'état, because both fought foreigners for Iran's rights; and "Amir Kabir, because both faced domestic hostility through their way to gain more interest for the nation.[231]

Public opinion surveys[edit]

United States (nationwide)[edit]

Public polling on the issue has yielded varied and sometimes contradictory results, depending on the question wording,[232] whether the poll explains the provisions of the agreement, and whether an "undecided" option is offered.[233] Polls have consistently shown polarization by party affiliation, with majorities of self-identified Democrats supporting the agreement and majorities of self-identified Republicans opposing it.[234][235][236][237]

Poll Sample Conducted "Sample size
margin of error
Question(s) Asked Findings Reference
"YouGov U.S. adults 14–16 July 1000; ±3.9% Support/oppose (major provisions described) 43% support, 30% oppose, 26% unsure [234][238]
Abt-SRBI for "Washington Post/"ABC News U.S. adults 16–19 July 1,002; ±3.5% Support/oppose (major provisions described)
Confidence that agreement will prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons
56% support, 37% oppose, 7% no opinion
35% very/somewhat confident, 64% not confident
"Pew Research Center U.S. adults 14–20 July 2,002; ±2.5; 1,672; ±2.7% Have you heard about agreement?
Support/oppose based on what you know (provisions not described)
34% heard a lot, 44% heard a little, 22% have not heard
(Among those who have heard at least a little) 48% disapprove, 38% approve, 14% do not know
"Steven M. Cohen/Social Science Research Solutions for "Los Angeles Jewish Journal U.S. adults 16–20 July 505 Support/oppose (major provisions described)
Should Congress vote to approve or oppose the deal?
28% support, 24% oppose, 48% don't know enough to say
41% approve, 38% disapprove, 21% undecided.
"Steven M. Cohen/Social Science Research Solutions for "Los Angeles Jewish Journal "Jewish American adults 16–20 July 501 Support/oppose (major provisions described)
Should Congress vote to approve or oppose the deal?
47.5% approve, 27.6% oppose, 24.6% don't know enough to say
53.6% approve, 34.7% oppose, 11.7% don't know
"YouGov for "The Economist U.S. adults 18–20 July 1000; ±4.3% Support/oppose (major provisions described)
Do you want your Senators to support or oppose the international agreement?
15% strongly support, 26% tend to support; 16% tend to oppose; 17% strongly oppose; 16% not sure
45% support; 27% oppose; 27% not sure
"Public Policy Polling U.S. registered voters 23–24 July 730; ±3.6% Support/oppose (major provisions described)
Should Congress allow agreement to go forward or block it?
35% strongly support; 19% somewhat support; 6% somewhat oppose; 32% strongly oppose; 8% not sure
54% go forward; 39% block; 7% not sure
ORC for CNN U.S. adults 22–25 July 1,017; ±3% Should Congress approve or reject the deal? 44% approve; 52% reject; 5% no opinion [246]
"Quinnipiac U.S. registered voters 23–28 July 1,644; ±2.4% Support/oppose (provisions not described) 28% support; 57% oppose; 15% don't know/NA [247]
Public Opinion Strategies & Hart Research Associates for "Wall Street Journal/"NBC News U.S. adults 26–30 July 500 Support/oppose (major provisions described) 35% support, 33% oppose, 32% do not know enough [237][248][249]
Anderson Robbins Research & Shaw & Company Research for "Fox News U.S. registered voters 11–13 August 1,008
In you were in Congress, would approve or reject the deal? 31% approve, 58% reject, 10% don't know [250][251]
ORC for "CNN U.S. adults 13–16 August 500
Favor/oppose a hypothetical agreement (major provisions explained) 50% favor, 46% oppose, 4% no opinion [252]
ORC for "CNN U.S. adults 13–16 August 500
Should Congress approve or reject the deal? (provisions not described) 41% approve, 56% reject, 2% no opinion [252]
"Quinnipiac U.S. registered voters 20–25 August 1,563; ±2.5% Support/oppose (provisions not described) 25% support; 55% oppose; 20% don't know/NA [253]
"Pew Research Center U.S. adults 3–7 September 1,004; ±3.6% Approve/disapprove the agreement 21% approve; 49% disapprove; 30% don't know/refused [254]
"University of Maryland Program on Public Consultation/"Center for International and Security Studies U.S. registered voters who took part in National Citizens Cabinet
(policymaking simulation involving a briefing and hearing of expert-vetted arguments from both sides of the debate)
17–20 September 702; ±3.7% Final recommendation after hearing alternatives 55% approve agreement; 14% pursue better terms; 23% ramp up sanctions; 7% threaten military force [255][256]

United States (specific communities)[edit]




Incorporated into international law by the United Nations Security Council[edit]

As provided for in the JCPOA, the agreement was formally endorsed by the UN Security Council,[265][266] incorporating it into "international law.[267][268] There was initially disagreement on if the deal is legally binding on the United States.[e]

On 15 July 2015, the "American ambassador to the UN, "Samantha Power, circulated a fourteen-page draft to Council members.[266] On 20 July 2015, the Security Council unanimously approved the fourteen-page resolution—"United Nations Security Council resolution 2231[275]—in a 15–0 vote.[268] The resolution delays its official implementation for 90 days, to allow for U.S. Congressional consideration under the "Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015.[267][268] The resolution lays out the steps for terminating sanctions imposed by seven past "Security Council resolutions, but retains an "arms embargo and ballistic missile technology ban.[265][268] The resolution also did not affect the sanctions imposed separately by the United States and the European Union.[268] The resolution also codifies the "snapback" mechanism of the agreement, under which all Security Council sanctions will be automatically reimposed if Iran breaches the deal.[265]

Speaking immediately after the vote, Power told the Security Council that sanctions relief would start only when Iran "verifiably" met its obligations. Power also called upon Iran "to immediately release all unjustly detained Americans", specifically naming "Amir Hekmati, "Saeed Abedini, and "Jason Rezaian, were imprisoned by Iran was detained at the time, and "Robert A. Levinson, who has been missing in the country.[268][276] Hekmati, Abedini, and Rezaian were subsequently released in a January 2016 prisoner exchange, which Secretary of State Kerry said had been accelerated by the nuclear agreement.[277]

Approved by European Union[edit]

On the same day that the Security Council approved a resolution, the European Union formally approved the JCPOA via a vote of the EU "Foreign Affairs Council (the group of EU foreign ministers) meeting in "Brussels. This sets into motion the lifting of certain EU sanctions, including those prohibiting the purchase of Iranian oil.[268][278] The EU continues its sanctions relating to human rights and its sanctions "prohibiting the export of ballistic missile technology.[268] The approval by the EU was seen as a signal to the U.S. Congress.[278]

Review period in the United States Congress[edit]

Secretary of State John Kerry, Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, and Secretary of the Treasury Jack Lew defending the JCPOA at a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on 23 July 2015

Under U.S. law, the JCPOA is a non-binding political commitment.[279][280] According to the U.S. State Department, it specifically is not an "executive agreement or a "treaty.[281] There are widespread incorrect reports that it is an executive agreement.[282][283] In contrast to treaties, which require two-thirds of the Senate to consent to ratification, political commitments require no congressional approval, and are not legally binding as a matter of domestic law (although in some cases they may be binding on the U.S. as a matter of international law).[282][f]

On 22 May 2015, President Obama signed the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 into law;[g] this legislation passed by the Senate in a 98-1 vote and the House in a 400-25 vote, and was approved by President Obama on 22 May 2015.[291] Under the Act, once a nuclear agreement was negotiated with Iran, Congress had sixty days in which it could pass a resolution of approval, a resolution of disapproval, or do nothing.[292] The Act also included additional time beyond the sixty days for the president to veto a resolution and for Congress to take a vote on whether to override or sustain the veto.[293] Republicans could only defeat the deal if they mustered the two-thirds of both houses of Congress needed to override an expected veto by Obama of any resolution of disapproval.[292][294]

On 19 July 2015, the State Department officially transmitted to Congress the JCPOA, its annexes, and related materials.[295] These documents included the Unclassified Verification Assessment Report on the JCPOA and the "Intelligence Community's Classified Annex to the Verification Assessment Report.[295] The sixty-day review period began the next day, 20 July,[295][296][292] and ended 17 September.[297] Senator "Ted Cruz introduced a "resolution seeking a delay in the review period, arguing that the sixty-day congressional review under the Act should not begin until the Senate obtains a copy of all bilateral Iran-IAEA documents. This resolution did not pass.[298][299] Ultimately, a resolution of disapproval was brought to the Senate floor, but failed. A resolution of approval was brought to the House floor, but it, too, failed. As a result, the agreement went into effect following congressional review period.[300]

Obama administration[edit]

The "international community had long sought a landmark diplomatic agreement with Iran on its nuclear program, and such an agreement was also a long-sought "foreign-policy goal of the Obama administration.[301][302][303]

In comments made in the "East Room of the White House on 15 July 2015, President Obama urged Congress to support the agreement, saying "If we don't choose wisely, I believe future generations will judge us harshly, for letting this moment slip away."[304] Obama stated that the inspections regime in the agreement was among the most vigorous ever negotiated, and criticized opponents of the deal for failing to offer a viable alternative to it.[304] Obama stated: "If 99 percent of the world's community and the majority of nuclear experts look at this thing and they say 'this will prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb,' and you are arguing either that it does not ... then you should have some alternative to present. And I haven't heard that."[305][306] The same day, Obama made a case for the deal on the agreement in an interview with New York Times columnist "Thomas Friedman.[307] Obama stated:

With respect to Iran, it is a "great civilization, but it also has an authoritarian theocracy in charge that is anti-American, anti-Israeli, anti-Semitic, sponsors terrorism, and there are a whole host of real profound differences that we [have with] them... [T]heir argument was, 'We're entitled to have a peaceful nuclear program.'... You know, I have a lot of differences with "Ronald Reagan, but where I completely admire him was his recognition that [we] were "able to verify an agreement that [was negotiated] with the "evil empire [the "Soviet Union] that was "hellbent on our destruction and was a far greater existential threat to us than Iran will ever be... I had a lot of disagreements with "Richard Nixon, but he understood there was the prospect, the possibility, that "China could take a different path. You test these things, and as long as we are preserving our security capacity—as long as we are not giving away our ability to respond forcefully, militarily, where necessary to protect our friends and our allies—that is a risk we have to take. It is a practical, common-sense position. It's not naïve; it's a recognition that if we can in fact resolve some of these differences, without resort to force, that will be a lot better for us and the people of that region.[307]

Also on 15 July, Vice President Joe Biden met with Senate Democrats on the Foreign Relations Committee on Capitol Hill, where he made a presentation on the agreement.[308]

On 18 July, Obama devoted his "weekly radio address to the agreement, stating, "this deal will make America and the world safer and more secure" and rebutting "a lot of overheated and often dishonest arguments about it".[309] Obama stated "as "commander-in-chief, I make no apology for keeping this country safe and secure through the hard work of diplomacy over the easy rush to war."[309] On 23 July, President Obama met in the "White House Cabinet Room with about a dozen undecided House Democrats to speak about the agreement and seek their support.[310]

The debate over the agreement was marked by acrimony between the White House and with Republicans inside and outside of Congress. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas said that under the agreement "the Obama administration will become the leading financier of terrorism against America in the world."[311] Former Governor "Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, called the president "naive" and repeatedly invoked the "Holocaust, saying that the president's policy would "take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven".[312] This comparison was denounced by the "Anti-Defamation League, the "National Jewish Democratic Council, and various Israeli government officials.[312][313][314] At a 27 June news conference, Obama specifically criticized Huckabee, Cruz, and Cotton, saying that such remarks were "just part of a general pattern we've seen that would be considered ridiculous if it weren't so sad", especially from "leaders in the Republican Party".[311] Obama stated that "fling[ing] out "ad hominem attacks like that ... doesn't help inform the American people" and stated: "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. And so when you get rhetoric like this, maybe it gets attention and maybe this is just an effort to push "Mr. Trump out of the headlines, but it's not the kind of leadership that is needed for America right now."[315]

On 5 August, Obama gave a speech before an audience of around 200 at "American University, marking a new phase in the administration's campaign for the agreement.[316][317] Obama stated: "Let's not mince words: The choice we face is ultimately between diplomacy and some form of war—maybe not tomorrow, maybe not three months from now, but soon. How can we in good conscience justify war before we've tested a diplomatic agreement that achieves our objectives?"[316] In his speech, Obama also invoked a speech made by "John F. Kennedy at American University in 1963 in favor of the "Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.[316] Obama also said that the opponents of the agreement were the same people who created the "drumbeat of war" that led to the "Iraq War and criticized "knee-jerk partisanship that has become all too familiar, rhetoric that renders every decision made to be a disaster, a surrender".[316]

New York Senator "Chuck Schumer, a senior Democrat, made a different assessment of prospects for war by distinguishing between nuclear and non-nuclear aspects of the agreement. In each case he asked whether we are better off with the agreement or without it and 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." Then Schumer assessed the Iranian government, saying, "Who's to say this dictatorship will not prevail for another ten, twenty, or thirty years? To me, the very real risk that Iran will not moderate and will, instead, use the agreement to pursue its nefarious goals is too great." And, finally, Schumer concluded: "I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because I believe war is a viable or desirable option, nor to challenge the path of diplomacy. It is because I believe Iran will not change, and under this agreement it will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while ultimately retaining its nuclear and non-nuclear power."[318]

In the same speech, Obama stated: "Just because Iranian hard-liners chant '"Death to America' does not mean that that's what all Iranians believe. In fact, it's those hard-liners who are most comfortable with the status quo. It's those hard-liners chanting 'Death to America' who have been most opposed to the deal. They're making common cause with the Republican caucus."[317][319] This statement was criticized by congressional Republican leaders. Senate Majority Leader "Mitch McConnell called it "crass political rhetoric" that was a strategy to "Demonize your opponents, gin up the base, get the Democrats all angry, and rally around the president." McConnell said "This is an enormous national security debate that the president will leave behind, under the Constitution, a year and a half from now, and the rest of us will be dealing with the consequences of it. So I wish he would tone down the rhetoric and let's talk about the facts" and promised that Republicans would discuss the agreement respectfully in September.[320][321] Republican Senator "Bob Corker, the chairman of Foreign Relations Committee, asserted that the president was "trying to shut down debate by saying that those who have legitimate questions, legitimate questions—are somehow unpatriotic, are somehow compared to hardliners in Iran".[322] The president subsequently stood by his statement, with White House Press Secretary "Josh Earnest calling it a "statement of fact"[320] and the president saying in an interview, "Remember, what I said was that it's the hard-liners in Iran who are most opposed to this deal. And I said, in that sense, they're making common cause with those who are opposed to this deal here. I didn't say that they were equivalent."[319] In the same interview, Obama said: "A sizable proportion of the Republicans were opposed before the ink was even dry on the deal."[319]

In comments made at the Aspen Security Forum in "Aspen, Colorado in July 2015, "Director of National Intelligence "James Clapper said that the JCPOA will improve the U.S. ability to monitor Iran, saying "[The agreement] puts us in a far better place in terms of insight and access" than no agreement.[323] While Clapper remains "concerned about compliance and deceit", but "pointed out that during the negotiation period [Iran] complied with rules" negotiated under the interim agreement (the Joint Plan of Action).[323]

Public debate[edit]

An intense public debate in the United States took place during the congressional review period.[324] "Some of the wealthiest and most powerful donors in American politics, those for and against the accord", became involved in the public debate,[325] although "mega-donors" opposing the agreement have contributed substantially more money than those supporting it.[326] From 2010 to early August 2015, the foundations of "Sheldon Adelson, "Paul Singer, and "Haim Saban contributed a total of $13 million (at least $7.5 million, at least $2.6 million, and at least $2.9 million, respectively) to advocacy groups opposing an agreement with Iran.[326] On the other side, three groups lobbying in support of the agreement have received at least $803,000 from the "Ploughshares Fund, at least $425,000 from the "Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and at least $68,500 from "George Soros and "his foundation.[326] Other philanthropists and donors supporting an agreement include "S. Daniel Abraham, "Tim Gill, "Norman Lear, "Margery Tabankin, and "Arnold Hiatt.[325]

Many "Iranian Americans, even those who fled repression in Iran and oppose its government, welcomed the JCPOA as a step forward.[327] The "National Iranian American Council (NIAC), "Iranian American Bar Association, and other Iranian American organizations welcomed the JCPOA.[328] The NIAC released a statement saying: "Our negotiators have done their job to win a strong nuclear deal that prevents an Iranian nuclear weapon, all the while avoiding a catastrophic war. Now is the time for Congress to do theirs. Make no mistake: if Congress rejects this good deal with Iran, there will be no better deal forthcoming and Congress will be left owning an unnecessary war."[329] NIAC created a new group, NIAC Action, to run advertisements supporting the agreement.[326] NIAC also organized an open letter from 73 Middle East and foreign affairs scholars stating, "reactivating diplomatic channels between the United States and Iran is a necessary first step" to reduce conflict in the region, and that while "the nuclear deal will not automatically or immediately bring stability to the region ... Ultimately, a Middle East where diplomacy is the norm rather than the exception will enhance U.S. national security and interests,"[330] Signatories to the letter include "John Esposito, "Ehsan Yarshater, "Noam Chomsky, "Peter Beinart, "John Mearsheimer, and "Stephen Walt.[330]

U.S. pro-Israel groups divided on the JCPOA.[331] The "American Israel Public Affairs Committee opposes the agreement, and formed a new "501(c)(4) group, Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran, to run a television advertising campaign against the JCPOA.[316][331][332][333] In August 2015, it was reported that AIPAC and Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran plan to spend between $20 million and $40 million on its campaign.[334] From mid-July to 4 August 2015, AIPAC's Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran spent more than $11 million running network television "political advertisements opposing the agreement in 23 states, spending more than $1 million in the large states of California, Florida, New York, and Texas.[334][335] In the first week of August, AIPAC said that it had 400 meetings with congressional offices as part of its campaign to defeat the agreement.[334]

In contrast to AIPAC, another pro-Israel organization, "J Street, supports the agreement, and plans a $5 million advertising effort of its own to encourage Congress to support the agreement.[334][336] During the first week of August, J Street launched a $2 million, three-week ad campaign in support of the agreement, with television ads running in Colorado, Maryland, Michigan, Oregon, and Pennsylvania.[337][338] From mid-July through early August, J Street reported having 125 meetings with congressional offices.[334] J Street has also paid to fly prominent Israelis who support the agreement (including "Amram Mitzna, a retired Israeli general, member of the "Knesset, and mayor of "Haifa) to the United States to help persuade members of Congress to support the agreement.[334]

The group "United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) opposes the agreement and committed to spending more than $20 million on a national "TV, radio, print and digital campaign" against the agreement.[326][339] After UANI announced its opposition, the group's president and co-founder, nonproliferation expert "Gary Samore, announced that he had concluded "that the accord was in the United States' interest" and supported the agreement.[326][340] Samore thus stepped down as president and was replaced by ex-Senator "Joseph I. Lieberman.[340] By 20 August, UANI had released its third national television ad against the agreement.[339]

Anti-JCPOA "bus advertisement in "New York City. The bus ad was sponsored by New York Assemblyman "Dov Hikind, an opponent of the agreement.[341]

Various other groups that have also run ad campaigns for or against the agreement. "John R. Bolton's Foundation for American Security and Freedom has run advertisements against the agreement, as has "Veterans Against the Deal", a group which "does not disclose its donors.[342] Various pro-agreement ads were run by MoveOn.org (which ran an ad with the title "Let Diplomacy Work" theme), Americans United for Change (which warned "They're back—the Iraq war hawks are fighting the Iran deal, want more war" over photos of Bolton, "Dick Cheney, and "Donald Rumsfeld), and "Global Zero (which ran a humorous ad featuring actors "Jack Black, "Morgan Freeman, and "Natasha Lyonne).[342]

The New York-based Iran Project, a nonprofit led by former high-level U.S. diplomats and funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, along with the "United Nations Association of the United States, supports the agreement.[343] The Rockefeller fund has also supported the San Francisco-based "Ploughshares Fund, which has spent several years marshaling support for an agreement.[343]

On 17 July 2015, a bipartisan open letter endorsing the Iran agreement was signed by more than 100 former U.S. ambassadors and high-ranking State Department officials.[344][345] The ex-ambassadors wrote: "If properly implemented, this comprehensive and rigorously negotiated agreement can be an effective instrument in arresting Iran's nuclear program and preventing the spread of nuclear weapons in the volatile and vitally important region of the Middle East. In our judgment the [plan] deserves Congressional support and the opportunity to show it can work. We firmly believe that the most effective way to protect U.S. national security, and that of our allies and friends is to ensure that tough-minded diplomacy has a chance to succeed before considering other more costly and risky alternatives."[344][345] Among the signatories to the letter were "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.[345]

A separate public letter to Congress in support of the agreement from five former U.S. ambassadors to Israel from administrations of both parties, and three former "Under Secretaries of State was released on 26 July 2015.[346] This letter was signed by "R. Nicholas Burns, "James B. Cunningham, "William C. Harrop, "Daniel Kurtzer, Thomas R. Pickering, "Edward S. Walker Jr., and "Frank G. Wisner.[347] The former officials wrote: "We are persuaded that this agreement will put in place a set of constraints and monitoring measures that will arrest Iran's nuclear program for at least fifteen years and assure that this agreement will leave Iran no legitimate avenue to produce a nuclear weapon during the next ten to fifteen years. This landmark agreement removes the threat that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose to the region and to Israel specifically."[347]

Another public letter to Congress urging approval of the agreement was signed by a bipartisan group of more than sixty "national-security leaders", including politicians, retired military officers, and diplomats.[346] This letter, dated 20 July 2015, stated: "We congratulate President Obama and all the negotiators for a landmark agreement unprecedented in its importance for preventing the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran.... We have followed carefully the negotiations as they have progressed and conclude that the JCPOA represents the achievement of greater security for us and our partners in the region."[346][348] Among the Republicans who signed this letter are former Treasury Secretary "Paul O'Neill, former "U.S. Trade Representative "Carla Anderson Hills, and former Senator "Nancy Landon Kassebaum.[346] Among the Democrats who signed the letter are former Secretary of State "Madeleine Albright; former Senate Majority Leaders "George J. Mitchell and "Tom Daschle, former Senator "Carl Levin, and former Defense Secretary "William Perry.[346][349] Also signing were former National Security Advisors "Zbigniew Brzezinski and "Brent Scowcroft; Under Secretaries of State "R. Nicholas Burns and "Thomas R. Pickering; U.S. Ambassadors "Ryan Crocker and "Stuart Eizenstat; Admiral "Eric T. Olson; "Under Secretary of Defense for Policy "Michele Flournoy; and Assistant Secretary for Nonproliferation Robert Einhorn.[349]

On 8 August 2015, 29 prominent U.S. scientists, mostly "physicists, published an open letter endorsing the agreement.[350][351] The letter, addressed to President Obama, says: "We congratulate you and your team on negotiating a technically sound, stringent and innovative deal that will provide the necessary assurance in the coming decade and more than Iran is not developing nuclear weapons, and provides a basis for further initiatives to raise the barriers to nuclear proliferation in the Middle East and around the globe."[351] The letter also states that the agreement "will advance the cause of peace and security in the Middle East and can serve as a guidepost for future nonproliferation agreements".[350][351] The 29 signatories included "some of the world's most knowledgeable experts in the fields of nuclear weapons and arms control", many of whom have held "Q clearances and have been longtime advisers to Congress, the White House, and federal agencies.[350] The five primary authors were "Richard L. Garwin (a nuclear physicist who played a key role in the development of the first "hydrogen bomb and who was described by The New York Times as "among the last living physicists who helped usher in the nuclear age"); Robert J. Goldston (Director of the Princeton Program on Science and Global Security and former director of the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory); R. Scott Kemp (an MIT professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering and a former science advisor for nonproliferation and arms control at the State Department); "Rush D. Holt (a physicist and former U.S. Representative who is now the president of the "American Association for the Advancement of Science); and Frank N. von Hippel (Princeton Professor of Public Policy and former assistant director for national security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy). Six "Nobel Prize in Physics laureates co-signed the letter: "Philip W. Anderson of "Princeton University; "Leon N. Cooper of "Brown University; "Sheldon L. Glashow of "Boston University; "David Gross of the "University of California, Santa Barbara; "Burton Richter of "Stanford University; and "Frank Wilczek of the "Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[350] Among the other scientists to sign are "Siegfried S. Hecker (a Stanford physicist and the former director of "Los Alamos National Laboratory); "Freeman Dyson (of Princeton), and "Sidney Drell (of Stanford).[350]

On 11 August 2015, an open letter endorsing the agreement signed by 36 retired military "generals and "admirals, titled "The Iran Deal Benefits U.S. National Security: An Open Letter from Retired Generals and Admirals", was released.[352][353] The letter, signed by retired officers from all five branches of the "U.S. armed services, said that the agreement was "the most effective means currently available to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons", and said, "If at some point it becomes necessary to consider military action against Iran, gathering sufficient international support for such an effort would only be possible if we have first given the diplomatic path a chance. We must exhaust diplomatic options before moving to military ones."[353] The signers included General "James E. "Hoss" Cartwright of the "Marine Corps, former "Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; General "Joseph P. Hoar of the Marine Corps, the former commander of the "U.S. Central Command; and Generals "Merrill McPeak and "Lloyd W. Newton of the "Air Force.[352][353] Other signers include Lieutenant Generals "Robert G. Gard Jr. and "Claudia J. Kennedy; Vice Admiral "Lee F. Gunn; Rear Admirals "Garland Wright and "Joseph Sestak; and Major General "Paul D. Eaton.[353]

The above letter was answered on 25 August 2015, by a letter signed by more than 200 retired generals and admirals opposing the deal.[354][355][356] The letter asserted: "The agreement does not 'cut off every pathway' for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. To the contrary, it provides Iran with a legitimate pathway for doing exactly that simply by abiding by the deal.... The JCPOA would threaten the national security and vital interests of the United States and, therefore, should be disapproved by the Congress."[356][357] This letter was organized by "Leon A. "Bud" Edney; other signers included Admiral "James A. Lyons; Lieutenant General "William G. Boykin, former Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence; and Lieutenant General "Thomas McInerney, former vice commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe.[355]

Retired Marine Corps General "Anthony Zinni said that he had refused requests from both sides to sign their letters, saying to Time magazine: "I'm convinced that 90% of the guys who signed the letter one way or the other don't have any clue about whether it's a good or bad deal. They sign it because somebody's asked them to sign it." As to the JCPOA Zinni said: "The agreement's fine, if you think it can work. But if this is a Neville Chamberlain then you're in a world of shit."[357]

On 13 August, retired Senators "Carl Levin of Michigan, a Democrat, and "John Warner of Virginia, a Republican, co-wrote an op-ed in support of the agreement—titled "Why hawks should also back the Iran deal"—published in "Politico.[358] Levin and Warner, both past chairmen of the Senate Armed Services Committee, argued, "If we reject the agreement, we risk isolating ourselves and damaging our ability to assemble the strongest possible coalition to stop Iran" in the event that military action was needed in the future.[358] Levin and Warner wrote, "The deal on the table is a strong agreement on many counts, and it leaves in place the robust deterrence and credibility of a military option. We urge our former colleagues not to take any action which would undermine the deterrent value of a coalition that participates in and could support the use of a military option. The failure of the United States to join the agreement would have that effect."[358] On 14 August, retired senators "Richard Lugar of Indiana, a Republican, and "J. Bennett Johnston of Louisiana, a Democrat, also wrote in support of the agreement.[359] In a column for "Reuters, Lugar and Johnston argued, "Rejection of the agreement would severely undermine the U.S. role as a leader and reliable partner around the globe. If Washington walks away from this hard-fought multilateral agreement, its dependability would likely be doubted for decades."[359] They also wrote: "Tehran would be the winner of this U.S. rejection because it would achieve its major objective: the lifting of most sanctions without being required to accept constraints on its nuclear program. Iran could also claim to be a victim of American perfidy and try to convince other nations to break with U.S. leadership and with the entire international sanctions regime."[359]

On 17 August 2015, a group of 75 arms control and nuclear nonproliferation experts issued a joint statement endorsing the agreement.[360][361] The statement says, "the JCPOA is a strong, long-term, and verifiable agreement that will be a net-plus for international nuclear nonproliferation efforts" and that the JCPOA's "rigorous limits and transparency measures will make it very likely that any future effort by Iran to pursue nuclear weapons, even a clandestine program, would be detected promptly, providing the opportunity to intervene decisively to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon".[360][361] The letter was organized through the nonpartisan "Arms Control Association.[361] Among the 75 signatories are the "Valerie Plame and "Joseph C. Wilson; former IAEA director-general "Hans Blix; "Morton H. Halperin; and experts from the "Brookings Institution, "Stimson Center, and other "think tanks.[360][361] On 3 September, an open letter to President Obama signed by 56 people was issued criticizing the JCPOA as "unverifiable". The letter said: "Guided by our experience with U.S. and foreign nuclear weapons programs—as well as with the history and practice of arms control, nonproliferation, and intelligence matters, we judge the current JCPOA to be a very bad deal indeed."[362] Signers included Boykin; Bolton; ex-CIA director "James Woolsey, former national security advisor "Robert McFarlane; "Paula A. DeSutter, former "Assistant Secretary of State for Verification, Compliance, and Implementation; various former "ACDA officials; and former "Sandia National Laboratories president/director "C. Paul Robinson.[362]

Foreign diplomats are also involved in the congressional debate. The "Israeli ambassador to the United States "Ron Dermer appeared on cable television shows to attack the agreement, while ambassadors from European nations, including Sir "Peter Westmacott, the "British ambassador to the United States, "came on to say the precise opposite".[363] Dermer also lobbied members of Congress on Capitol Hill against the agreement,[364] while diplomats from France, Britain, and Germany made the rounds on Capitol Hill to advocate for the agreement.[365] On 4 August, P5+1 diplomats held "a rare meeting of world powers' envoys on Capitol Hill" with about 30 Senate Democrats to urge support for the agreement, saying, "If Congress rejects this good deal, and the U.S. is forced to walk away, Iran will be left with an unconstrained nuclear program with far weaker monitoring arrangements, the current international consensus on sanctions would unravel, and international unity and pressure on Iran would be seriously undermined."[366]

On "Meet the Press on 6 September 2015, former Secretary of State "Colin Powell expressed support for the nuclear agreement with Iran, saying that it was "a pretty good deal".[367] Powell said that various provisions accepted by Iran—such as the reduction in centrifuges and the uranium stockpile and the agreement to shut down its plutonium reactor—were "remarkable changes" that stopped the Iranian pathway to a nuclear weapons program. Powell also defended the verification provisions of the agreement, saying: "I think a very vigorous verification regime has been put into place."[367]

Former Ambassador "Dennis Ross, a longtime American negotiator in the Middle East, wrote that he was not yet convinced by either proponents or opponents of the agreement.[368] Ross wrote that the United States should be focused on "deterring the Iranians from cheating" (e.g., by producing highly enriched uranium) after year fifteen of the agreement.[368] Ross wrote, "President Obama emphasizes that the agreement is based on verification not trust. But our catching Iran cheating is less important than the price they know they will pay if we catch them. Deterrence needs to apply not just for the life of the deal."[368] As part of a deterrence strategy, Ross proposed transferring to Israel the U.S. "Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) ""bunker buster" bomb at some point before year fifteen of the agreement.[368] In a 25 August op-ed in The Washington Post, Ross and "David H. Petraeus again argued for transferring the MOP to Israel.[369]

The "Jewish American community was divided on the agreement. On 19 August 2015, leaders of the Reform Jewish movement, the largest Jewish denomination in the United States, issued a lengthy public statement expressed a neutral position on the agreement.[370][371] The statement, signed by the leaders of the "Union for Reform Judaism, "Central Conference of American Rabbis, "Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism and Association of Reform Zionists of America, reflected what "Rabbi "Rick Jacobs, president of the URJ, called "deep divisions within the movement".[370] On 20 August 2015, a group of 26 prominent current and foreign American Jewish communal leaders published a full-page ad in The New York Times with a statement backing the agreement; signers included three former chairs of the "Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations as well as former AIPAC executive director "Tom Dine.[372] Separately, a group of 340 rabbis organized by "Ameinu issued a public letter to Congress on 17 August 2015, in support of the agreement, saying: "We, along with many other Jewish leaders, fully support this historic nuclear accord."[373] The signers were mostly Reform rabbis, but included at least 50 rabbis from the Conservative movement and at least one Orthodox rabbi.[374] Prominent rabbis who signed this letter included "Sharon Brous, "Burton Visotzky, "Nina Beth Cardin, "Lawrence Kushner, "Sharon Kleinbaum, and "Amy Eilberg.[373] In a separate letter released 27 August, eleven Democratic Jewish former members of Congress urged support for the agreement; the letter noted the signatories' pro-Israel credentials and said that the agreement "halts the immediate threat of a nuclear-armed Iran", while a rejection of the deal would "put Iran back on the path to develop a nuclear weapon within two to three months".[375] Signatories included former Senator "Carl Levin and former Representatives "Barney Frank, "Mel Levine, "Steve Rothman, and "Robert Wexler.[375]

Conversely, a group of 900 rabbis signed an open letter written by "Kalman Topp and Yonah Bookstein in late August, calling upon Congress to reject the agreement.[376] The "Orthodox Union and "American Jewish Committee also announced opposition to the agreement.[377][378]

The Roman Catholic Church has expressed support for the agreement. In a 14 July 2015 letter to Congress, Bishop "Oscar Cantú, chairman of the Committee on International Justice and Peace of the "United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, stated that the JCPOA was "a momentous agreement" which "signals progress in global nuclear non-proliferation".[379][380] Cantú wrote that Catholic bishops in the United States "will continue to urge Congress to endorse the result of these intense negotiations because the alternative leads toward armed conflict, an outcome of profound concern to the Church".[379][380]

On 25 August 2015, a group of 53 Christian faith leaders from a variety of denominations sent a message to Congress urging them to support the agreement.[381] The Christian leaders wrote: "This is a moment to remember the wisdom of Jesus who proclaimed from the "Sermon on the Mount, 'Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God' ("Matthew 5:9). ... There is no question we are all better off with this deal than without it."[381] The letter was coordinated by a "Quaker group, the "Friends Committee on National Legislation.[381] Signatories to the letter included "Jim Wallis of "Sojourners; "John C. Dorhauer, general minister and president of the "United Church of Christ; "Shane Claiborne; Adam Estle of Evangelicals for Middle East Understanding; Archbishop Vicken Aykazian of the "Armenian Orthodox Church; A. Roy Medley, the head of "American Baptist Churches USA; the Reverend Paula Clayton Dempsey of the "Alliance of Baptists, senior pastor "Joel C. Hunter of Northland, A Church Distributed; and Sister "Simone Campbell, a leader of the Catholic ""Nuns on the Bus" campaigns.[381][382]

Congressional committee hearings[edit]

A hearing on the JCPOA before the "Senate Foreign Relations Committee took place on 23 July 2015. Secretary of State Kerry, "Treasury Secretary "Jack Lew, and Energy Secretary Moniz testified.[310][383] Republican Senator "Bob Corker of "Tennessee, the committee chairman, said in his opening statement that when the talks began the goal was to dismantle the Iranian nuclear program, whereas the achieved agreement codified "the industrialization of their nuclear program".[384][385] Corker, addressing Secretary of State Kerry, said, "I believe you've been fleeced" and "... what you've really done here is you have turned Iran from being a pariah to now Congress, Congress being a pariah."[365] Corker asserted that a new threshold in U.S. foreign policy was crossed and the agreement would "enable a state sponsor of terror to obtain sophisticated, industrial nuclear development program that has, as we know, only one real practical need".[386] The committee's ranking Democratic member, Senator "Benjamin Cardin of Maryland, said he had many questions and his hope was that the answers will cause a debate "in Congress and the American people".[386] Democrats, led by Senator "Barbara Boxer of California, expressed support for the agreement, with Boxer saying that criticisms by Republicans were "ridiculous", "unfair", and "wrong".[310][365] Corker and Cardin sent a letter to Obama saying the bilateral IAEA-Iran document should be available for Congress to review.[365]

At the hearing Kerry, Lew, and Moniz "were unequivocal in their statements that the accord was the best that could be achieved and that without it, the international sanctions regime would collapse".[310] Kerry warned that if the United States would be "on our own" if it were to walk away from a multi-lateral agreement alongside the five global powers.[365] Kerry stated that the belief that "some sort of "unicorn arrangement involving Iran's complete capitulation" could be achieved was "a fantasy, plain and simple".[310] The Washington Post reported, "Moniz emerged as the calm center of the proceedings, beginning his interjections with recitations of what he described as 'facts,' and mildly observing that Republican characterizations were 'incorrect.'"[365] Kerry, Lew, and Moniz faced "uniform animus of Republicans" at the hearing,[310] with Republican senators giving "long and often scathing speeches denouncing what they described as a fatally flawed agreement and accusing the administration of dangerous naivete" and showing "little interest in responses" from the three cabinet secretaries.[365] The Washington Post reported on twelve issues related to the agreement over which the two sides disagreed at the hearing.[387]

On 28 July, Kerry, Moniz, and Lew testified before the "House Committee on Foreign Affairs.[388] Committee chairman "Ed Royce, Republican of California, said in his opening statement, "we are being asked to consider an agreement that gives Iran permanent sanctions relief for temporary nuclear restrictions."[388][389] "Royce also said the inspection regime 'came up short' from 'anywhere, anytime' access to Iran's nuclear facilities and criticized the removal of restrictions on Iran's ballistic missile program and conventional arms."[390] The committee's "ranking member, Representative "Eliot Engel, Democrat of New York, said he has "serious questions and concerns" about the agreement.[390][391] Kerry, Lew, and Moniz spent four hours testifying before the committee.[392][393] At the hearing, Kerry stated that if Congress killed the deal, "You'll not only be giving Iran a free pass to double the pace of its uranium enrichment, to build a heavy-water reactor, to install new and more efficient centrifuges, but they will do it all without the unprecedented inspection and transparency measures that we have secured. Everything that we have tried to prevent will now happen."[394]

Senators John McCain (Republican of Arizona), the committee chair, and Jack Reed (Democrat of Rhode Island), the committee ranking member, at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee on the JCPOA, 29 July 2015.

On 29 July, "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 in a three-hour hearing.[395] Carter and Dempsey had been invited to testify by Republican Senator "John McCain of Arizona, the chairman of the committee; Kerry, Moniz, and Lew attended the hearing at the invitation of "the Pentagon.[396][397] In his opening statement, McCain said that if this agreement failed and U.S. armed forces were called to take action against Iran, they "could be at greater risk because of this agreement". He also asserted that the agreement may lead American allies and partners to fateful decisions and result in "growing regional security competition, new arms races, nuclear proliferation, and possibly conflict".[398] The committee's ranking Democratic member, Senator "Jack Reed of Rhode Island, said Congress had an obligation "to independently validate that the agreement will meet our common goal of stopping Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon" and stated, "the agreement, no matter your position on it, is historic and, if implemented scrupulously, could serve as a strategic inflection point in the world's relations with Iran, for international non-proliferation efforts, and for the political and security dynamics in the Middle East."[399][400]

Carter said the agreement prevented Iran from "getting a nuclear weapon in a comprehensive and verifiable way".[396] He assured the committee that the deal would not limit the U.S. ability to respond with military force if needed.[401] In response to a question from McCain, Carter said he had "no reason to foresee" that the agreement would cause Iran's threatening behavior to change more broadly, stating "That is why it's important that Iran not have a nuclear weapon."[397][402] Dempsey offered what he described as a "pragmatic" view.[395] He neither praised nor criticized the deal, but did testify that the agreement reduced the chances of a near-term military conflict between the United States and Iran.[395] Dempsey said that the agreement works to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons, but does not address other concerns about Iran's malign activities in the region, ranging from "ballistic missile technology to weapons trafficking, to ... malicious activity in cyberspace".[403] Dempsey testified, "Ultimately, time and Iranian behavior will determine if the nuclear agreement is effective and sustainable" and stated that he would continue to provide military options to the president.[403] Senator "Joni Ernst expressed disagreement with President Obama who stated that the choice was the Iran nuclear deal or war. When General "Martin Dempsey testified that the United States had "a range of options" and he presented them to the president, Ernst said: "it's imperative everybody on the panel understand that there are other options available."[404][405]

Under the JCPOA, Iran must submit a full report on its nuclear history before it can receive any sanctions relief.[406] The IAEA has confidential technical arrangements with many countries as a matter of "standard operating procedure.[406][407][408] "Republican lawmakers refer to these agreements as 'secret side deals' and claim that the JCPOA hinges on a set of agreements no one in the administration has actually seen."[407] Senator "Tom Cotton of Arkansas, a Republican opponent of the agreement, said that Kerry had "acted like "Pontius Pilate" and "washed his hands, kicked it to the IAEA, knowing Congress would not get this information unless someone went out to find it."[409] On 30 July, Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas introduced a "resolution seeking a delay in the review period, arguing, "The 60-calendar day period for review of such agreement in the Senate cannot be considered to have begun until the Majority Leader certifies that all of the materials required to be transmitted under the definition of the term 'agreement' under such Act, including any side agreements with Iran and United States Government-issued guidance materials in relation to Iran, have been transmitted to the Majority Leader."[298][299] On 5 August, "Yukiya Amano, director general of the IAEA, spoke with members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in a closed briefing about two IAEA documents: an agreement on inspection protocols with Iran and an agreement with Iran regarding Iranian disclosure of its previous nuclear activity (known as Possible Military Dimensions).[407][410] Following this briefing with Amano, Republican Senator Bob Corker, the committee chairman, told reporters: "The majority of members here left with far more questions than they had before the meeting took place" and "We can not get him to even confirm that we will have physical access inside of Parchin." The committee's ranking Democratic member, Senator Benjamin Cardin told reporters: "I thought today was helpful, but it was not a substitute for seeing the document."[411]

State Department spokesman "John Kirby responded, "There's no secret deals between Iran and the IAEA that the P5+1 has not been briefed on in detail" and stated "These kinds of technical arrangements with the IAEA are a matter of standard practice, that they're not released publicly or to other states, but our experts are familiar and comfortable with the contents, which we would be happy to discuss with Congress in a "classified setting."[408] The "Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation writes that: "The arrangement specifies procedural information regarding how the IAEA will conduct its investigation into Iran's past nuclear history, including mentioning the names of informants who will be interviewed. Releasing this information would place those informants, and the information they hold, at risk."[406] Mark Hibbs of the Nuclear Policy Program at the "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Thomas Shea, a former IAEA safeguards official and former head of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs at the "Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, wrote that the charges of a "secret side deal" made by opponents of the agreement were a ""manufactured controversy".[81] Hibbs and Shea noted: "The IAEA has safeguards agreement with 180 countries. All have similar information protection provisions. Without these, governments would not open their nuclear programs for multilateral oversight. So IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano was acting by the book on August 5 when he told members of Congress that he couldn't share with them the details of [the] verification protocol the IAEA had negotiated with Iran as part of a bilateral 'roadmap.'"[81] "David Albright, founder and president of the "Institute for Science and International Security and a former IAEA nuclear inspector, stated that the demands for greater transparency regarding the agreement between Iran and IAEA "aren't unreasonable" and, "Iran is a big screamer for more confidentiality. Nonetheless, if the IAEA wanted to make it more open, it could."[412] Albright also proposed that the United States "should clearly and publicly confirm, and Congress should support with legislation, that if Iran does not address the IAEA's concerns about the past military dimensions of its nuclear programs, U.S. sanctions will not be lifted".[413]

Congressional support and opposition[edit]

Republican leaders vowed to attempt to kill the agreement as soon as it was released, even before classified sections were made available to Congress, and "Republican lawmakers raced to send out news releases criticizing it."[414] According to The Washington Post, "most congressional Republicans remained deeply skeptical, some openly scornful, of the prospect of relieving economic sanctions while leaving any Iranian uranium-enrichment capability intact."[415] Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, said the deal "appears to fall well short of the goal we all thought was trying to be achieved, which was that Iran would not be a nuclear state".[415] A New York Times news analysis stated that Republican opposition to the agreement "seems born of genuine distaste for the deal's details, inherent distrust of President Obama, intense loyalty to Israel and an expansive view of the role that sanctions have played beyond preventing Iran's nuclear abilities".[414] The Washington Post identified twelve issues related to the agreement on which the two sides disagreed, 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.[387][h]

One area of disagreement between supporters and opponents of the JCPOA is the consequences of walking away from an agreement, and whether renegotiation of the agreement is a realistic option.[387] Senator "Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, an opponent of the agreement, called for the U.S. government to keep sanctions in place, strengthen them, and "pursue the hard-trodden path of diplomacy once more, difficult as it may be".[318] Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee, said that he believed that it was "hyperbole" to say that the agreement was the only alternative to war.[387] President Obama, by contrast, argued that renegotiation of the deal is unrealistic, stating in his American University speech, "the notion that there is a better deal to be had. ... relies on vague promises of toughness" and stated, "Those making this argument are either ignorant of Iranian society, or they are not being straight with the American people. ... Neither the Iranian government, or the Iranian opposition, or the Iranian people would agree to what they would view as a total surrender of their sovereignty."[317] Obama also argued, "those who say we can just walk away from this deal and maintain sanctions are selling a fantasy. Instead of strengthening our position, as some have suggested, Congress' rejection would almost certainly result in multi-lateral sanctions unraveling," because "our closest allies in Europe or in Asia, much less China or Russia, certainly are not going to enforce existing sanctions for another five, 10, 15 years according to the dictates of the U.S. Congress because their willingness to support sanctions in the first place was based on Iran ending its pursuit of nuclear weapons. It was not based on the belief that Iran cannot have peaceful nuclear power."[317] Secretary of State Kerry has echoed these remarks, saying in July 2015 that the idea of a "'better deal,' some sort of unicorn arrangement involving Iran's complete capitulation .... is a fantasy, plain and simple, and our intelligence community will tell you that".[387][423] Senator "Al Franken, Democrat of Minnesota, a supporter of the agreement wrote: "Some say that, should the Senate reject this agreement, we would be in position to negotiate a "better" one. But I've spoken to representatives of the five nations that helped broker the deal, and they agree that this simply wouldn't be the case."[424][i]

On 28 July 2015, Representative "Sander M. Levin, Democrat of Michigan, the longest-serving Jewish member now in Congress, announced in a lengthy statement that he would support the JCPOA, saying, "the agreement is the best way" to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and that a rejection of the agreement would lead the international sanctions regime to "quickly fall apart", as "sanctions likely would not be continued even by our closest allies, and the United States would be isolated trying to enforce our unilateral sanctions as to Iran's banking and oil sectors."[392][428][429]

A key figure in the congressional review process is Senator "Benjamin Cardin of "Maryland, a Democrat who is the "ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.[294] Cardin took a phone call from Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu opposing the agreement and participated in a private 90-minute session with Energy Secretary Moniz supporting the agreement.[294] On 21 July, Cardin said that if the agreement is implemented, the United States should increase military aid to Israel and friendly Gulf states.[294]

On 4 August 2015, three key and closely watched Senate Democrats—"Tim Kaine of Virginia (a Foreign Relations Committee member), "Barbara Boxer of California (also a Foreign Relations Committee member), and "Bill Nelson of Florida—announced their support for the agreement.[430] In a floor speech that day, Kaine said that the agreement is "far preferable to any other alternative, including war" and, "America has honored its best traditions and shown that patient diplomacy can achieve what isolation and hostility cannot."[430] In a similar floor speech the same day, Nelson said that: "I am convinced [that the agreement] will stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon for at least the next 10 to 15 years. No other available alternative accomplishes this vital objective"[431][432] and "If the U.S. walks away from this multinational agreement, I believe we would find ourselves alone in the world with little credibility."[433] Conversely, another closely watched senator, "Chuck Schumer of New York, who is expected to make a bid to become Senate Democratic leader,[324] announced his opposition to the agreement on 6 August, writing, "there is a strong case that we are better off without an agreement than with one"[318][434]

According to an Associated Press report, the classified assessment of the "United States Intelligence Community on the agreement concludes that because Iran will be required by the agreement to provide international inspectors with "unprecedented volume of information about nearly every aspect of its existing nuclear program", Iran's ability to conceal a covert weapons program will be diminished.[435][436] In a 13 August letter to colleagues, ten current and former Democratic members of the "House Select Committee on Intelligence (including House Minority Leader "Nancy Pelosi and Intelligence Committee ranking member "Adam Schiff) referred to this assessment as a reason to support the agreement, writing, "We are confident that this monitoring and the highly intrusive inspections provided for in the agreement—along with our own intelligence capabilities—make it nearly impossible for Iran to develop a covert enrichment effort without detection."[436][437] The ten members also wrote "You need not take our word for it" and referred members to the classified assessment itself, which is located in an office in the "Capitol basement and is available for members of Congress to read.[436][437]

Congressional votes[edit]

A resolution of disapproval was initially expected to pass both the House and Senate, meaning, "the real challenge for the White House is whether they can marshal enough Democrats to sustain the veto."[438][439] Two-thirds of both houses (the House of Representatives and the Senate) are required to override a veto, meaning that one-third of either house (146 votes in the House, or 34 in the Senate) could sustain (uphold) President Obama's veto of a resolution of disapproval.[440][441]

By early September 2015, 34 Senators had publicly confirmed support for the deal, a crucial threshold because it ensured that the Senate could sustain (i.e., uphold) any veto of a resolution of disapproval.[442] Senator "Barbara Mikulski of Maryland announced support on 2 September, a day after "Chris Coons of Delaware and "Bob Casey, Jr. of Pennsylvania also announced support, reaching 34 votes and assuring that an eventual disapproval resolution passed in the Senate could not override an Obama veto.[443] By the following day, 38 Democratic senators supported the deal, 3 were opposed, and 5 were still undecided.[444]

By 8 September, all senators had made a commitment on the agreement, with 42 in support (40 Democrats and two independents) and 58 opposed (54 Republicans and four Democrats).[442] It is possible for senators in support of the agreement to kill the disapproval resolution outright in the Senate by effectively "filibustering it, making it unnecessary for Obama to veto a disapproval resolution at all.[442] However, this is only possible if at least 41 vote to do so, and several senators in support of the agreement, including Coons, "have suggested they'd prefer an up-or-down vote on the deal instead of blocking it altogether".[442]

The apparent success of a strategy to marshal congressional support for the deal, linked to a carefully orchestrated rollout of endorsements (although "Democratic Senate Whip "Dick Durbin and other officials disputed the suggestion of coordination[445]) was attributed to lessons learned by the White House and congressional Democrats during struggles in previous summers with Republicans, in particular, over Obama's health care legislation.[446] 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 the negotiating table was reported to be particularly crucial.[446] Senator Coons said: "They were clear and strong that we will not join you in re-imposing sanctions."[446]

On 20 August 2015, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said that House Democrats had the votes to uphold a veto of a resolution of disapproval.[447] To sustain a veto, Pelosi would need to hold only 146 of the 188 House Democrats;[448] by 20 August, about 60 House Democrats have publicly declared their support for the final agreement,[449] and about 12 had publicly declared their opposition.[447] In May 2015, before the final agreement was announced, 151 House Democrats signed in support for the broad outlines in the April framework agreement; none of those signatories have announced opposition to the final agreement.[441]

It was originally expected that the House would vote on a formal resolution of disapproval introduced by Representative Ed Royce, Republican of California, the chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.[450][j] As the Senate moved toward a vote on a resolution of disapproval, House leadership (under Republican control) planned to vote on a similar resolution of disapproval.[453] However, conservative Republicans "revolted in protest" as "the chamber's right flank wanted tougher action from its leader" and the House Republican leadership (under Speaker John Boehner) planned to vote instead chose to bring a resolution of approval to the floor "as a way to effectively force Democrats who had voiced support for the president to formally register such endorsement".[453] On 11 September 2015, the resolution failed, as expected, on a 162-269 vote; 244 Republicans and 25 Democrats voted no, while 162 Democrats and no Republicans voted yes.[453][454] On the same day, House Republicans held two additional votes, one on a resolution claiming that the Obama administration had failed to meet the requirements of a congressional review period on the deal and another resolution which would prevent the United States from lifting any sanctions.[453][455] The former resolution passed on a party-line vote, with all Republicans in favor and all Democrats opposed; the latter resolution passed on nearly a party-line vote, with all Republicans and two Democrats in favor and every other Democrat opposed.[453][455][456] The House action against the resolution was a "symbolic vote that will have no consequence for the implementation of the deal", and the two anti-agreement measures passed by the House were seen as "unlikely to even reach Obama's desk".[455][456]

On 10 September, the day before the vote, House speaker Boehner threatened to "use every tool at our disposal to stop, slow and delay this agreement from being fully implemented" and said that a lawsuit by House Republicans against the president (claiming that the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act was not followed) was "an option that is very possible".[455][457] Four months later, however, House Republicans abandoned their plans for a lawsuit against the administration over the JCPOA.[458]

Conservative legal activist "Larry Klayman filed a lawsuit against President Obama and members of Congress in July 2015 in "federal court in West Palm Beach, Florida, asserting that the agreement should be considered a treaty requiring Senate ratification.[459][460] Klayman's suit was dismissed for lack of "standing in September 2015.[461]

Review period in Iran[edit]

Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei issued a letter of guidelines to President Rouhani, ordering him on how to proceed with the deal.[140][141] On 21 June 2015, the "Iranian Parliament (Majlis) decided to form a committee to study the JCPOA and to wait at least 80 days before voting on it.[462] Foreign minister "Mohammad Javad Zarif and Atomic Energy Organization of Iran chief "Ali Akbar Salehi, defended the deal in Parliament on the same day.[462] Although the "Iranian constitution gives Parliament the right to cancel the deal, it was reported that this outcome is unlikely.[462] The New York Times reported, "the legislators have effectively opted to withhold their judgment until they know whether the American Congress approves of the deal."[462]

In televised remarks made on 23 July 2015, Iranian President "Hassan Rouhani rejected domestic criticism of the JCPOA from Iranian hardliners, "such as the "Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its allies", which "have criticized the accord as an invasive affront to the country's sovereignty and a capitulation to foreign adversaries, particularly the United States".[463] In remarks described by The New York Times as "blunt" and uncharacteristically frank, Rouhani claimed a popular mandate to make an agreement based on "his election in 2013 and warned that the alternative was "an economic Stone Age" brought on by sanctions which (as the Times described) have "shriveled oil exports and denied the country access to the "global banking system".[463] On 26 July, a two-page, top-secret directive sent to Iranian newspaper editors from Iran's "Supreme National Security Council surfaced online.[464] In the document, newspapers are instructed to avoid criticism of the agreement and to avoid giving the impression of "a rift" at the highest levels of government.[464] The "BBC reported that the document appears to be aimed at constraining criticism of the JCPOA by Iranian hardliners.[464]

On 3 September, Iranian supreme leader Khamenei said that the Majlis should make the final decision on the agreement.[465] On the same day, "Ali Larijani, the "speaker of the parliament, said that he support the agreement and that: "The agreement needs to be discussed and needs to be approved by the Iranian parliament. There will be heated discussions and debates."[465]

"Abbas Milani and "Michael McFaul wrote: "those [in Iran] supporting the deal include moderates inside the government, many opposition leaders, a majority of Iranian citizens, and many in the Iranian American diaspora—a disparate group that has rarely agreed on anything until now."[466] Within the government, Rouhani and Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, who negotiated the agreement, "are now the most vocal in defending it against Iranian hawks".[466] Also vocally supporting the agreement are former presidents Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami and moderates within parliament.[466] The agreement is also supported by most prominent opposition leaders, including "Mir-Hossein Mousavi, a "2009 presidential candidate who is under house arrest for his role as a leader of the "Green Movement.[466]

Conversely, "the most militantly authoritarian, conservative, and anti-Western leaders and groups within Iran oppose the deal."[466] The anti-agreement coalition in Iran includes former president "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, former head of "Atomic Energy Organization of Iran "Fereydoon Abbasi, ex-nuclear negotiator "Saeed Jalili; and various conservative clerics and "Revolutionary Guard commanders.[466] This group has "issued blistering attacks on the incompetence of Iran's negotiating team, claiming that negotiators caved on many key issues and were outmaneuvered by more clever and sinister American diplomats".[466]

Anti-JCPOA representatives of Islamic Consultative Assembly protested Ali Akbar Saheli and made death threats toward him[467]

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.[468]

The "Majlis special commission for examining the JCPOA, has invited "Ali Shamkhani, as well as members of former "nuclear negotiation team including "Ali Bagheri and "Fereydoon Abbasi to comment on the deal.[469] During the session, "Saeed Jalili, ex-chief negotiator has slammed the deal, stating "approximately 100 absolute rights" of Iran were conceded to the opposing side. He believes the deal is "unacceptable" because Iran makes an "exceptional [nuclear case], replacing 'permission' with 'right' under the "NPT, and accepting unconventional measures".[470] He also believes that the deal has crossed the "red lines drawn by the "Supreme leader of Iran. His testimony was criticized by commission members "Masoud Pezeshkian and Abbas Ali Mansouri Arani.[471] In another session, current negotiatiors "Abbas Araqchi and "Majid Takht-Ravanchi defended the deal, led by "Javad Zarif.[472]

In the Iranian media, the leading reformist newspapers, "Etemad and "Shargh, "continue to write approvingly of the negotiations and their outcome".[473] Conversely, the leading conservative paper "Ettelaat has criticized the agreement.[473] The most "bombastic and hard-line criticism of the deal" has come from "Kayhan, which is edited by "Hossein Shariatmadari and closely associated with Khamenei, the supreme leader.[473]

The agreement is supported by many Iranian dissidents, including "Nobel Peace Prize laureate, human rights activist, and Iranian exile "Shirin Ebadi, who "labeled as 'extremists' those who opposed the agreement in Iran and America".[466] Likewise, dissident journalist and former "political prisoner "Akbar Ganji expressed hope, "step-by-step nuclear accords, the lifting of economic sanctions and the improvement of the relations between Iran and Western powers will gradually remove the warlike and securitized environment from Iran."[466] Citing "Iran's human rights situation and the "lack of "religious and political freedom in the country", some dissidents opposed the agreement, including "Ahmad Batebi, "Nazanin Afshin-Jam, and "Roozbeh Farahanipour, who signed an open letter arguing, "more pressure should be applied to the regime, not less."[474]

On 13 October, The New York Times and many other major U.S. news sources reported that the Iranian Parliament had approved the JPCOA by a vote of 161 votes in favor, 59 against and 13 abstentions. Major Iranian news sources including "Fars News Agency and "Press TV, referred to as a semi-official government source by U.S. media, reported that what was actually approved was a document consisting of the text of the JPCOA, supplemented by text unilaterally added by Iran and not agreed by the P5+1.[475][476][477][478][479][480]

Adoption Day[edit]

On 18 October 2015, EU High Representative Mogherini and Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif jointly announced "Adoption Day" for the JCPOA, noting actions taken and planned by the EU, Iran, the IAEA, and the United States, and stating, "All sides remain strongly committed to ensuring that implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action can start as soon as possible."[481]

Implementation Day[edit]

Last meeting between diplomatic teams of Iran and the United States, at the Palais Coburg Hotel in Vienna

After the IAEA confirmed that Iran met the relevant requirements under the JCPOA, all nuclear sanctions were lifted by the UN, the EU and the United States on 16 January 2016.[482]

Washington imposed new sanctions on 11 companies and individuals for supplying Iran's ballistic missile program on the first day of the implementation.[483][484][485] According to Kerry, $1.7 billion in debt with interest is to be paid to "Tehran. However, some Iranian financial institutions including Ansar Bank, "Bank Saderat, Bank Saderat PLC, and Mehr Bank remain on the SDN List[486] and a number of U.S. sanctions with respect to Iran including existing terrorism, human rights and ballistic missiles-related sanctions will remain in place.[487]

Deterring Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons[edit]

Some argue that deterrence is the key to ensuring not just that Iran is in compliance with the agreement but also to preventing them from developing nuclear weapons.[488] Former Assistant Secretary for Nonproliferation Robert Einhorn, a supporter of the agreement, wrote it would be better to have permanent or longer-term restrictions on Iran's enrichment program, but preventing a nuclear-armed Iran is possible, "provided the United States and key partners maintain a strong and credible deterrent against a future Iranian decision to go for the bomb".[489] According to Michael Eisenstadt, Director of the Military and Security Studies Program at the "Washington Institute for Near East Policy, "deterring Iran from developing or acquiring nuclear weapons will remain the core imperative driving U.S. policy in the coming years".[490]

Four days after the JCPOA was adopted, Khamenei delivered a speech, highlighting his "fatwa and rejecting the claim that the nuclear talks rather than Iran's religious abstinence prevented Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. He said:

The Americans say they stopped Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. They know it's not true. We had a fatwa (religious ruling), declaring nuclear weapons to be religiously forbidden under Islamic law. It had nothing to do with the nuclear talks.[491]

In a letter[492] addressed to Representative "Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York, President Barack Obama raised the issue about U.S. ability to deter Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons:

The JCPOA, moreover, does not remove any of our options when it comes to preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. As I have repeatedly emphasized, my Administration will take whatever means are necessary to achieve that goal, including military means. Should Iran seek to dash toward a nuclear weapon, all of the options available to the United States—including the military option—will remain available through the life of the deal and beyond.[492]

Ambassador "Dennis Ross, former top Mideast official, and General "David Petraeus, former CIA director, wrote in a Washington Post op-ed, "Bolstering deterrence is essential in addressing key vulnerabilities" of the agreement. Petraeus and Ross asserted that if Iran decide to race toward a nuclear weapon "there is a need not to speak of our options but of our readiness to use force", since the threat of force is far more likely to deter the Iranians. They said the president could resolve their concerns by stating that he would use military force to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, including producing highly enriched uranium, even after the deal ends in 15 years. It is "critically important for the president to state this clearly, particularly given his perceived hesitancy to use force", they said.[488][493]

In the same letter, Obama detailed the possible non-military unilateral and multilateral responses to be employed should Iran violate the agreement, however, the president made it clear: "Ultimately, it is essential that we retain the flexibility to decide what responsive measures we and our allies deem appropriate for any non-compliance."[492] Flexibility meant that Obama rejected specifying "the penalties for smaller violations of the accord" in advance.[494]

The open letter, which was signed by more than 100 former U.S. ambassadors and high-ranking State Department officials endorsing the agreement, begins with the words: "The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran stands as a landmark agreement in deterring the proliferation of nuclear weapons."[345][346] In contrast, "Michael Mandelbaum, the Christian A. Herter Professor at the "Johns Hopkins University, "School of Advanced International Studies, wrote that nuclear nonproliferation in the Middle East ultimately depended "not on the details of the Vienna agreement but on the familiar Cold-War policy of deterrence". Mandelbaum added that if President Obama will leave office without Iran building the bomb, "the responsibility for conducting a policy of effective deterrence will fall on his successor."[495] Harvard law professor "Alan Dershowitz expressed his view on deterring Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons as follows: "Nothing currently on the table will deter Iran. Sanctions are paper protests to an oil-rich nation. Diplomacy has already failed because Russia and China are playing both sides."[496]




With the prospective lifting of some sanctions, the agreement was expected to have a significant impact on both the "economy of Iran and global markets. The energy sector is particularly important, with Iran having nearly 10 percent of global "oil reserves and 18 percent of natural gas reserves.[497] Millions of barrels of Iranian oil might come onto global markets, lowering the price of "crude oil.[497][498] However, the impact would not be immediate, because Iran would not be able to implement measures that are needed to lift sanctions until the end of 2015.[498] Technology and investment from global integrated oil companies were expected to increase capacity from Iran's oil fields and refineries, which have been in "disarray" in recent years, plagued by mismanagement and underinvestment.[497][498] Senior executives from oil giants "Royal Dutch Shell, "Total S.A, and "Eni met with the Iranian oil minister in Vienna in June, the month before the JCPOA was announced, and sought business opportunities in Iran.[498]

The economic impact of a partial lifting of sanctions extends beyond the energy sector; The New York Times reported that "consumer-oriented companies, in particular, could find opportunity in this country with 81 million consumers," many of whom are young and prefer Western products.[497] Iran is "considered a strong "emerging market play" by investment and trading firms.[497]

French "auto manufacturer "PSA Peugeot Citroën was one of the first Western companies to re-establish commercial ties following the deal.[499]

In February 2016, after the end of a four year restriction, Iranian banks—except "Mehr, Ansar and "Saderat banks—[500]reconnected to the "SWIFT.[501] However, many Iranian observers including critics of "Rouhani's administration, economists and private sector representatives claimed the news was false. According to "Financial Times's report, Iran's banks are indeed being reconnected to SWIFT but there have been "too few" transactions because european and US banks are "worried about the risks" of dealing with them and "scarred by a string of multibillion-dollar fines".[500]

Three months after implementation, Iran was unable to tap about $100 billion held abroad. One 15 April 2016, "Central Bank of Iran Governor "Valiollah Seif said in an interview with "Bloomberg Television that Iran has gotten "almost nothing" from the accord. He also met "Secretary of Treasury "Jack Lew on the sidelines of his Washington's trip to discuss the concerns.[502] "Josh Earnest, the White House Press Secretary, said that "the agreement that's included in the JCPOA does not include giving Iran access to the US financial system or to allow the execution of so-called "U-turn transactions."[503]

On 20 April 2016, the "Supreme Court of the United States decided on "Bank Markazi v. Peterson and ruled that almost $2 billion of "Iranian frozen assets must be given to families of people killed in the "1983 Beirut barracks bombings. The court accused Iran of being responsible for the incident.[504] Iranian foreign minister "Zarif called the ruling "highway robbery", lashing the court for its previous ruling of holding Iran responsible for "9/11, adding that the Supreme Court is "the Supreme Court of the United States, not the Supreme Court of the world. We're not under its jurisdiction, nor is our money."[505][506]

On 27 November 2016, "Schlumberger, the largest oil service company in the world, announced that it had signed a preliminary deal to study an Iranian oil field. According to Schlumberger's spokesperson, this was a memorandum of understanding with the state-run National Iranian Oil Company "for the non-disclosure of data required for a technical evaluation of a field development prospect".[507]


In July 2015, Richard Stone wrote in the journal "Science in July 2015 that if the agreement is fully implemented, "Iran can expect a rapid expansion of scientific cooperation with Western powers. As its nuclear facilities are repurposed, scientists from Iran and abroad will team up in areas such as "nuclear fusion, "astrophysics, and radioisotopes for "cancer therapy."[508]


In August 2015, the "British embassy in Tehran reopened almost four years after it was closed after "protesters attacked the embassy in 2011.[509] At a reopening ceremony, Hammond said that since Rouhani's election as president, British-Iranian relations had gone from a "low point" to steady "step-by-step" improvement.[509] Hammond said: "Last month's historic nuclear agreement was another milestone, and showed the power of diplomacy, conducted in an atmosphere of mutual respect, to solve shared challenges. Re-opening the embassy is the logical next step to build confidence and trust between two great nations."[509] The "BBC's diplomatic correspondent, Jonathan Marcus, reported that the nuclear agreement "had clearly been decisive in prompting the UK embassy to be reopened", stating that British-Iranian "ties have slowly been warming but it is clearly the successful conclusion of the nuclear accord with Iran that has paved the way for the embassy reopening".[510]

In May 2018, The Observer revealed that the White House had hired an Israeli intelligence firm in May 2017 to search for unsavory information on Obama administration officials "Ben Rhodes and Colin Kahl. Former UK Foreign Secretary "Jack Straw said that these efforts by Trump and Netanyahu appear to have been intended "not so much to discredit the [Iran] deal but to undermine those around it.”[511]

Continued tensions[edit]

After the adoption of the JCPOA, the United States imposed several new non-nuclear "sanctions against Iran, some of which were condemned by Iran as possible violations of the deal. According to "Seyed Mohammad Marandi, professor at the "University of Tehran, the general consensus in Iran while the negotiations were taking place was that the United States would move towards increasing sanctions on non-nuclear areas. He said that these post-JCPOA sanctions could "severely damage the chances for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action bearing fruit".[512][513]["neutrality is "disputed]

On 8 and 9 March 2016, the IRGC conducted ballistic missile tests as part of its military drills, with one of the "Qadr H missiles carrying the inscription, "Israel should be wiped off the Earth."[514] Israel called on Western powers to punish Iran for the tests,[515] which U.S. officials said do not violate the nuclear deal, but may violate "United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231.[516] Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif insisted that the tests were not in violation of the UNSC resolution.[517] On 17 March, the "U.S. Treasury Department sanctioned Iranian and British companies for involvement in the Iranian ballistic missile program.[518]

On 21 May 2016, Zarif, the foreign minister of Iran, persisted that "U.S. must take practical steps" in the meeting with his New Zealander counterpart "Murray McCully. [519]

Iran–U.S. prisoner exchange[edit]

Hours before the official announcement of the activation of JCPOA on 16 January 2016, Iran released four imprisoned "Iranian AmericansWashington Post reporter "Jason Rezaian, who had been convicted of espionage,[520] former "Marine Corps infantryman "Amir Hekmati, who had been convicted of co-operating with hostile governments,[521][522] Christian pastor "Saeed Abedini, who was convicted on national security charges,[523] and former Iranian infantryman Nosratollah Khosravi-Roodsari, who was convicted of violating "alcohol prohibitions and awaiting trial on espionage charges[524]—in exchange for the United States' release of seven Iranian Americans—Bahram Mechanic, Khosrow Afghahi and Tooraj Faridi, charged with sanctions violations,[525] Nader Modanlo, convicted of helping launch Iranian satellite "Sina-1,[525] Arash Ghahreman, convicted of money laundering and sanctions violations for exporting navigation equipment to Iran,[525] Nima Golestaneh, convicted of hacking,[525] and Ali Saboonchi, convicted of sanctions violations[525]—and the dismissal of outstanding charges against 14 Iranians outside the United States.[526][527] A fifth American, student and researcher Matthew Trevithick, left Iran in a separate arrangement.[528][529][530]

As part of the exchange, the U.S. government dropped charges and "Interpol red notices against "14 Iranians for whom it was assessed that extradition requests were unlikely to be successful." Senior U.S. officials defended the agreement as a good deal for the U.S., but some Justice Department officials and FBI and DHS agents were critical because this disrupted the National Counterproliferation Initiative efforts "to lure top Iranian targets into traveling internationally in order to arrest them".[531]

Continued criticism[edit]

Shahi Hamid of The Atlantic wrote that the agreement "had a narrow—if understandable—focus on the minutia of Iran's nuclear program", and "[t]he Obama administration repeatedly underscored that the negotiations weren't about Iran's other activities in the region: They were about the nuclear program."[532] The U.S. government and observers noted from the time that the framework was entered into in April 2015 "that the United States and Iran still find themselves on opposite sides of most of the conflicts that have pitched the Arab world into chaos" and that the agreement was "unlikely" to cause Iran to become a firm partner of the West.[533]

The narrow nuclear non-proliferation focus of the deal was criticized by the agreement's opponents (such as Lawrence J. Hass of the "American Foreign Policy Council), who argued that the agreement was faulty because it did not address anti-Semitism and threats against Israel, hostility and rhetoric against America and the West in general, illegal missile testing, supplying of arms to terrorist groups, and efforts to destabilize ongoing conflicts in Syria and Yemen.[534]

In October 2015 The Wall Street Journal noted that Iran had recently carried out ballistic missile tests, announced the conviction of "Washington Post journalist "Jason Rezaian, launched military operations to maintain Bashar al-Assad's administration in Syria, and continued shipping arms and money to Houthi rebels in Yemen, the latter two actions fueling fears of a broader regional war.[535]

     Major "Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict locations

"Israel and "Saudi Arabia expressed concern about Iran's ability to use diplomatic cover and unfrozen money from the deal to strengthen its regional position and that of its allies.[535] Critics in Washington accused the Obama administration of having been duped by Iran and Russia into accepting a deal that was antithetical to American interests.[535]

Meanwhile, the administration was also accused of whitewashing Iran's failure to cooperate fully with the IAEA investigation into the possible military dimensions of its past nuclear work.[536]

In November 2015, "The New York Times wrote, "[a]nyone who hoped that Iran's nuclear agreement with the United States and other powers portended a new era of openness with the West has been jolted with a series of increasingly rude awakenings over the past few weeks."[537] The Times reported, variously, that the Iranian government had invited a Lebanese-American to visit the country, and then arrested him for spying; the Ayatollah made a public statement that the slogan "Death to America" was "eternal"; a wave of anti-American billboards went up in the capital; a backlash by political hard-liners began and the Revolutionary Guard intelligence apparatus "started rounding up journalists, activists and cultural figures"; state media circulated conspiracy theories about the United States, including that the CIA had downed a Russian civilian passenger jet in Egypt; Iranian and Lebanese citizens in Iran holding dual American citizenship were targeted for arrest on charges of "spying"; clothing manufacturers were prohibited from selling items featuring the American or British flags; and a state-sponsored demonstration was held outside the former "U.S. embassy in Tehran on the anniversary of the takeover and hostage crisis in 1979.[537]

"Business Insider reported that a variety of factors made it more likely that Iran's stance would harden once the agreement was in place, with one Iran expert saying that Iran's "nice, smiling face" would now disappear as the country pursued more adversarial stances, and policy analysts saying that by negotiating the deal with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, Obama had "made an investment in the stability of the [IRGC] regime".[538]

The "National Review wrote that the U.S. administration's unwillingness to acknowledge any Iranian noncompliance had left the Iranians in control, and that the deal was undermining international security by emboldening Iran to act as a regional hegemon, at the expense of U.S. influence and credibility.[539]

The Wall Street Journal editorial page editor Paul Gigot argued in February 2016 that Iran's prohibited missile tests, capture of U.S. naval personnel, and other provocations were a sign that rapprochement hoped for by Iran's Western negotiating partners was not going to happen, saying the government had no interest in accommodating U.S. interests, seeking instead to humiliate the United States and spread propaganda. [540] Gigot noted Iran's desire to be the dominant power in the Mideast and would work to promote instability there while using the nuclear agreement as a "shield" to protect from criticism of its "imperialist" behavior.[540]

Protest against the Iran Nuclear deal in "Washington, D.C., 9 September 2015

"James S. Robbins, an American political commentator and a senior fellow on the "American Foreign Policy Council, criticized the nuclear deal as "impotent" because it does not limit Iran's ballistic missile program, and UNSC Resolution 2231, which was adopted along with the deal, weakened the limits Iran's ballistic missile program that had been imposed by previous UNSC resolutions.[541]

On 4 March 2016, Olli Heinonen, former Deputy Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, wrote "the International Atomic Energy Agency's most recent report on Iran's nuclear activities provides insufficient details on important verification and monitoring issues," and said that the report's lack of detailed data prevented the international community from verifying whether Iran was complying with the deal.[542]

On 20 March 2017, the Trump administration formally certified that Iran was in compliance with JCPOA, but added that the country will be subject to non-nuclear, terrorism related, sanctions.[543] The Trump administration refused to recertify Iran's compliance in October 2017, however, citing multiple violations. [544]


On 9 November 2016 "Deutsche Welle, citing an alleged source from the IAEA, reported that "Iran has violated the terms of its nuclear deal."[545]

On 1 December 2016, the U.S. Senate voted to renew the "Iran Sanctions Act (ISA) for another decade. The Obama Administration and outside experts said the extension would have no practical effect and risked antagonizing Iran.[546] Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah "Khamenei,[547] President "Rouhani,[548][549] and Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman said that the extension of sanctions would be a breach of the nuclear deal.[550] Some Iranian officials said that Iran might ramp up uranium enrichment in response.[551] In January 2017, representatives from Iran, P5+1 and EU gathered in Vienna's Palais Coburg hotel to address Iran's complaint about the US congressional bill.[548]

The Trump administration said that Trump personally lobbied dozens of European officials against doing business with Iran during the May "2017 Brussels summit; this likely violated the terms of the JCPOA, which expressly states that the U.S. may not pursue "any policy specifically intended to directly and adversely affect the normalization of trade and economic relations with Iran". The Trump administration certified in July 2017 that Iran had upheld its end of the agreement.[552] In October 2017, however, the Trump administration refused to recertify Iran's compliance with the deal, saying that "Iran has violated the agreement multiple times." [553]

The IAEA, EU, Russia and China have all affirmed that Iran is respecting the limitations on its nuclear program.[554] The IAEA, the foremost authority on the matter, has repeatedly deemed Iran in compliance with the nuclear deal. The U.S. State Department has also certified that Iran is holding up its end of the bargain, and a host of experts affirmed these findings.[555] IAEA Director General Amano said that "Iran is subject to the world's most robust nuclear verification regime."[556] According to "David Makovsky, a Middle East scholar at the "Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Iran was not in compliance, because under the terms of the deal, Iran was supposed to reveal all of its research into nuclear weapons, and that based on evidence presented by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on April 30,2018, “it seems clear that they did not.”[557]

Dispute over access to military sites[edit]

Ali Khamenei banned allowing international inspectors into military sites.[558] Trump and his administration said that Iranian military facilities could be used for nuclear-related activities barred under the agreement.[559] Iran rejected Trump's request to allow inspection of Iran's military sites.[560] However, Amano insisted that IAEA inspectors were entitled to inspect military sites under the agreement, although the IAEA has avoided requesting access to any military sites since the deal went into effect.[561] [562]

Legal Status[edit]

In a letter sent to then U.S. Representative Mike Pompeo, the U.S. State Department said that the JCPOA "is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document".[563]

According to the Congressional Research Service, different definitions for 'treaty' are used in international law and in domestic U.S. law. Under 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. Vienna Convention, art. 1(a). Under domestic law, “treaty” signifies only those binding international agreements that have received the advice and consent of the Senate."[564]

Denial of Re-certification[edit]

On 13 October 2017, U.S. President Donald 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 so that the Iranian regime can never threaten the world with nuclear weapons".[565]

Declaring that he would not decide to certify the deal, President Trump left it to Congress whether to reimpose sanctions on Iran and "blow up" the deal. However, Trump's aides sought to enact rules indicating how the United States could "reimpose sanctions" and the president listed three items which could provide such a "trigger" for leaving the deal: Iran's intercontinental ballistic missile, Iranian rejection of "an extension of the deal's existing constraint on its nuclear activities", and "evidence that Iran could manufacture a bomb in less than 12 months". Trump described the deal as "one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into".[566]

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani stated that getting out from the Iran nuclear deal would "carry a high cost" for the United States.[567] Also he said that no president was allowed to "single-handedly revoke" the deal signed by the UN.[568]

After Trump said that he "cannot and will not" recertify the nuclear deal with Iran, Theresa May, Emmanuel Macron and Angela Merkel supported the deal in a joint statement. The European Union's foreign policy chief, Mogherini said that the agreement was working well and that no one country could break the deal concluded by Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China and the European Union. She suggested a "collective process" for keeping the deal. Russia's foreign minister confirmed that Iran was abiding by the nuclear deal.[568]

US withdrawal[edit]

Trump announces US withdrawal on May 8th.

On May 8, 2018, the United States officially withdrew from the agreement after President Donald Trump signed a Presidential Memorandum ordering the reinstatement of harsher sanctions.[569] In his May 8 speech, Trump called the Iran deal "horrible" and said the United States would "work with our allies to find a real, comprehensive, and lasting solution" to prevent Iran from developing nuclear arms.[570] The IAEA has continued to assess that Iran has been in compliance with JCPOA and that it had "no credible indications of activities in Iran relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device after 2009" [571] Other parties to the deal stated that they will work to preserve the deal even after the US withdrawal. [572]

Consequences of US withdrawal[edit]

The Iranian currency dropped significantly right after Trump announced the US withdrawal. The leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, stated: "I said from the first day: don't trust America".[573] The American flag was set on fire in Iran's Parliament.[574] The next evening, May 9, according to the government of Israel, Iranian Revolutionary Guard "Quds Forces based in Syria launched rockets at Israeli military targets. Reporters for CNN said that, "if confirmed," it appears to be "the first time Iranian forces have fired rockets directly at Israeli forces."[575]

Ali Khamenei's conditions for Europe to preserve the JCPOA[edit]

Following the U.S. withdrawal from JCPOA, Iran supreme leader "Ali Khamenei presented 7 conditions for Europe to meet its commitments. Among these conditions, he said European powers must set up steps to preserve business relations with Iranian banks and purchase Iranian oil despite U.S. pressure. He also said there was no need to hold new discussions about Iran's "ballistic missile program and regional activities.[576]

See also[edit]


  1. ^ The P5+1 are also sometimes referred to as the "E3+3", for the ""EU three" countries (France, the UK, and Germany) plus the three non-EU countries (the U.S., Russia, and China). The terms are interchangeable; this article uses the "P5+1" phrase.[6][7]
  2. ^ The meaning of Article IV of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, and its application to Iran, is a matter of dispute.[25][26] "Gary Samore writes, "Whether the NPT guarantees signatories a right to enrichment is a long-standing dispute among the parties to the treaty."[27] 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.[28][29] 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.[28] 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.[26][28] 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."[28] 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.'"[26][27][28] 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 its a peaceful program."[25] 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.[29]
  3. ^ 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.[74] 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.[74] "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."[74] 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.[75] (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).[76] The AP said that the draft "diverges from normal procedures".[75] 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."[77] 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.[78] 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."[79] 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."[80] 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."[81] Hibbs and Shea wrote that the claims that Iran would be in charge of inspections at Parchin were "wholly specious" and "unfounded".[81] 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."[77] 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."[77] 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".[82][83]
  4. ^ 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."[92]
  5. ^ 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.[269] 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.[269][270] 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."[269] 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."[269] 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.[269]
    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."[271] (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.[272]) 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."[273] 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".[273] "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".[274]
  6. ^ The "vast majority of international agreements" negotiated by the United States, especially in recent decades, have been executive agreements, rather than treaties.[282][284] 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."[283][285] 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.[286][287] 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",[288] and by "John Yoo, who wrote that the executive agreement form of the JCPOA is consistent with the "Treaty Clause of the Constitution.[289]
  7. ^ The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, Pub.L. 114–17, was an amendment to the "Atomic Energy Act of 1954.[290]
  8. ^ "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".[416] 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".[417]
    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.[418] 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.[419]
    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."[416] 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".[420] 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)[421] 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").[422]
  9. ^ 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".[425] "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."[426] 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,[427] and law professor "Orde Kittrie of "Arizona State University argued that Congress could send the JCPOA back for renegotiation.[274]
  10. ^ 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).[438][451][452] But Roskam's resolution "is not the formal disapproval measure that the House is expected to take up in September";[438] and it was expected that it is the resolution by Royce, as the relevant committee chair, will be the one ultimately voted upon.[451] Ultimately, neither resolution was voted upon.[453]


  1. ^ "EU officially announces October 18 adoption day of JCPOA". Islamic Republic News Agency. 18 October 2015. 
  2. ^ "UN chief welcomes implementation day under JCPOA". Islamic Republic News Agency. 17 January 2016. 
  3. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2018/may/08/iran-nuclear-deal-donald-trump-latest-live-updates
  4. ^ pronounced "[bæɾˈdʒɒːm]
  5. ^ "Zarif: We've never claimed nuclear deal only favors Iran". "Tehran Times. 22 July 2015. 
  6. ^ Joshua Keating, "You say P5+1, I say E3+3", Foreign Policy (30 September 2009).
  7. ^ Jeffrey Lewis, "E3/EU+3 or P5+1", Arms Control Wonk (13 July 2015).
  8. ^ Daniel,, Joyner,. Iran's nuclear program and international law : from confrontation to accord (First ed.). New York, NY. "ISBN "9780190635718. "OCLC 945169931. 
  9. ^ Bucher, Chris (13 October 2017). "LIVE STREAM: President Trump Announces Iran Nuclear Deal Strategy". Heavy.com. Retrieved 6 January 2018. 
  10. ^ "Trump Hints He Plans to Quit the Iran Nuclear Deal". Bloomberg.com. 2018-04-30. Retrieved 2018-04-30. 
  11. ^ Tibon, Amir; Landau, Noa (2018-04-30). "Trump: Netanyahu's Speech on Iran Deal Proves That I Was 100% Right on Iran Deal". Haaretz. Retrieved 2018-04-30. 
  12. ^ Amano, Yukia (5 March 2018). "IAWA director general: Introductory remarks at press conference". "International Atomic Energy Agency.
  13. ^ Mark Landler (8 May 2018). "Trump Announces U.S. Will Withdraw From Iran Nuclear Deal". MSN. 
  14. ^ "Trump Withdraws U.S. From 'One-Sided' Iran Nuclear Deal". The New York Times. Retrieved 8 May 2018. 
  15. ^ Holdren, John; Matthew Bunn (1997). "Managing Military Uranium and Plutonium in the United States and the Former Soviet Union" (PDF). Annual Review of Energy and the Environment. 22: 403–496. "doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.22.1.403. Retrieved 29 March 2014. 
  16. ^ Barnaby, Frank (5 March 2014). Barnaby; Douglas Holdstock, eds. Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Retrospect and Prospect. p. 25. "ISBN "9781135209933. 
  17. ^ a b Matthew Bunn; John P. Holdren. "Managing military uranium and plutonium in the United States and the Former Soviet Union" (PDF). pp. 403–409. 
  18. ^ Union of Concerned Scientists. "Weapon Materials Basics (2009)". 
  19. ^ a b Jonas Schneider & Oliver Thränert, Dual Use: Dealing with Uranium Enrichment, CSS Analyses in Security Policy, No. 151 (April 2014).
  20. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r "Country Profiles: Iran: Nuclear", "Nuclear Threat Initiative (last updated July 2015).
  21. ^ Iran nuclear talks: 'Historic' agreement struck, BBC News (14 July 2015).
  22. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s "Iran nuclear talks: timeline", The Guardian (14 July 2015).
  23. ^ Hadley, Stephen. "Iran Primer: The George W. Bush Administration". 
  24. ^ a b c Paul K. Kerry, "Iran's Nuclear Program: Tehran's Compliance with International Obligations", Congressional Research Service (25 June 2015).
  25. ^ a b Daniel Politi, "Does Iran Deal Include Right to Enrich Uranium? Depends on Whom You Ask", Slate (24 November 2013).
  26. ^ a b c Fredrik Dahl, "Q&A: Is there a 'right' to enrich uranium? Iran says yes, U.S. no", Reuters (23 November 2013).
  27. ^ a b Gary Samore, "Nuclear Rights and Wrongs: Why One Legal Term Stalled Negotiations With Iran", Foreign Affairs (14 November 2013).
  28. ^ a b c d e William O. Beeman, "Does Iran Have the Right to Enrich Uranium? The Answer Is Yes", The Huffington Post (31 December 2013).
  29. ^ a b Kelsey Davenport, "Myths and Misconceptions: The Right to Enrich", Arms Control Association (18 September 2014).
  30. ^ "A Growing Concern that Iran is Refusing to Live Up to Those International Responsibilities". 
  31. ^ a b c Daniel Dombey, Transcript of the Director General's Interview on Iran and DPRK, Financial Times (19 February 2007).
  32. ^ a b Kenneth Katzman & Paul K. Kerr, "Report: Iran Nuclear Agreement", "Congressional Research Service (30 July 2015).
  33. ^ Laura Rozen, "Three days in March: New details on how US, Iran opened direct talks", Al-Monitor (8 January 2014).
  34. ^ "Optimism as Iran nuclear deal framework announced; more work ahead". CNN. 3 April 2015. Retrieved 3 April 2015. 
  35. ^ Sciolino, Elaine. "Showdown at U.N.? Iran Seems Calm". 
  36. ^ a b c d "Timeline of Nuclear Diplomacy With Iran", Arms Control Association (July 2015).
  37. ^ Obama Administration Reportedly Shielded Hezbollah From DEA and CIA to Save Iran Nuclear Deal, Haaretz, 18 December 2017
  38. ^ A Global Threat Emerges, Politico, 18 December 2017
  39. ^ "Sessions wants review of Obama-era Hezbollah investigations". The Washington Post. Associated Press. 22 December 2017. Retrieved 6 January 2018. 
  40. ^ Anne Gearan; Joby Warrick (23 November 2013). "World powers reach nuclear deal with Iran to freeze its nuclear program". The Washington Post. Retrieved 3 April 2015. 
  41. ^ a b Frederick Dahl; Justyna Pawlak (3 April 2015). "West, Iran activate landmark nuclear deal". Reuters. Retrieved 21 January 2014. 
  42. ^ a b c d e f "Iran's key nuclear sites", BBC News (14 July 2015).
  43. ^ Jethro Mullen & Nic Robertson, "Landmark deal reached on Iran nuclear program", CNN (14 July 2015).
  44. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Michael R. Gordon & David E. Sanger, "Deal Reached on Iran Nuclear Program; Limits on Fuel Would Lessen With Time", The New York Times (14 July 2015).
  45. ^ "Iran, world powers reach historic nuclear deal", The Washington Post
  46. ^ "IAEA Head Reports Status of Iran's Nuclear Programme". International Atomic Energy Agency. 20 January 2014. Retrieved 23 February 2014. 
  47. ^ Louis Charbonneau; Parisa Hafezi (18 July 2014). "Iran, powers extend talks after missing nuclear deal deadline". Reuters. Retrieved 19 July 2014. 
  48. ^ Matthew Lee; George Jahn (24 November 2014). "Iran nuclear talks to be extended until July". Associated Press. Archived from the original on 29 November 2014. Retrieved 24 November 2014. 
  49. ^ Pamela Dockins (30 June 2015). "Iran Nuclear Talks Extended Until July 7". Voice of America. Retrieved 30 June 2015. 
  50. ^ Paul Richter (7 July 2015). "Iran nuclear talks extended again; Friday new deadline". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 8 July 2015. 
  51. ^ a b c d Karen DeYoung & Carol Morello, "The path to a final Iran nuclear deal: Long days and short tempers", The Washington Post (15 July 2015).
  52. ^ Jethro Mullen and Nic Robertson, CNN (14 July 2015). "Landmark deal reached on Iran nuclear program". CNN. 
  53. ^ a b "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". Europa (web portal). 
  54. ^ a b c d e William J. Broad, "Iran Accord's Complexity Shows Impact of Bipartisan Letter", The New York Times (14 July 2015).
  55. ^ "Public Statement on U.S. Policy Toward the Iran Nuclear Negotiations Endorsed by a Bipartisan Group of American Diplomats, Legislators, Policymakers, and Experts", Washington Institute for Near East Policy (24 June 2015).
  56. ^ George Perkovich, Mark Hibbs, James M. Acton, & Toby Dalton, "Parsing the Iran Deal", Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (8 August 2015).
  57. ^ "تير مچگيري كوچك زاده از ظريف به سنگ خورد" (in Persian). "Etemaad. 3 September 2015. p. 3. 
  58. ^ "Iran nuclear deal: world powers reach historic agreement to lift sanctions". The Guardian. 14 July 2015. Retrieved 14 July 2015. 
  59. ^ "The Iran Nuclear Deal: What You Need To Know About The JCPOA" (PDF). The White House. 14 July 2015. Archived from the original (PDF) on 29 August 2016. Retrieved 24 July 2016. 
  60. ^ "Making the world a bit safer: An imperfect deal that is better than the alternatives" (chart), The Economist (18 July 2015).,
  61. ^ a b c d e "The Iran Nuclear Deal: A Definitive Guide" (PDF). p. 6. 
  62. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Eric Bradner, "What's in the Iran nuclear deal? 7 key points", CNN (2 April 2015).
  63. ^ a b c d e f Eyder Peralta, "6 Things You Should Know About The Iran Nuclear Deal", NPR (14 July 2015).
  64. ^ a b c d e f "Key Excerpts of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)", Office of the Press Secretary (14 July 2015).
  65. ^ a b c d e "Press Availability on Nuclear Deal With Iran", U.S. Department of State (14 July 2015).
  66. ^ "The odd reality of Iran's centrifuges: Enough for a bomb, not power". 
  67. ^ Resolution 2231, page 29
  68. ^ a b Kagan, Frederick (15 July 2015). "Evaluating President Obama's statements on the nuclear deal". American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. Retrieved 15 July 2015. 
  69. ^ Justin Fishel, "Iran Nuclear Deal: A Look at the Winners and Losers", ABC News (14 July 2015).
  70. ^ Resolution 2231, page 21-22
  71. ^ George Jahn. "AP Exclusive: Diplomats: Iran to Get Natural Uranium Batch". The Associated Press. Archived from the original on 9 January 2017. Retrieved 9 January 2017. 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 
  72. ^ Resolution 2231, page 21-24
  73. ^ "Factsheet: Iran and the Additional Protocol", Center for Arms Control and Non-proliferation (14 July 2015).
  74. ^ a b c "The Iran Nuclear Deal: A Definitive Guide", Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, pp. 43-44.
  75. ^ a b George Jahn (19 August 2015). "AP Exclusive: UN to let Iran inspect alleged nuke work site". "Associated Press. Retrieved 19 August 2015. 
  76. ^ "Text of draft agreement between IAEA, Iran". 
  77. ^ a b c Max Fisher, "The AP's controversial and badly flawed Iran inspections story, explained", Vox (20 August 2015).
  78. ^ Tom Nichols (24 August 2015). "Iran Deal Truthers". The Daily Beast. 
  79. ^ Nasralla, Shadia. "IAEA says report Iran to inspect own military site is 'misrepresentation'". 
  80. ^ Kelsey Davenport & Daryl G. Kimball, "Would the IAEA Depend on Iran for Nuclear Residue Testing? No.", Arms Control Association (30 July 2015).
  81. ^ a b c d Mark Hibbs & Thomas Shea, No, Iran is not allowed to inspect itself, The Hill (21 August 2015).
  82. ^ Jahn, George. "UN agency: Iran's role in nuclear probe meets standards". 
  83. ^ Murphy, Francois; Nasralla, Shadia. "Samples taken at Iran's Parchin military site: U.N. nuclear watchdog". 
  84. ^ a b Oren Dorell, "High-tech scrutiny key to Iran nuclear deal", USA Today (16 July 2015).
  85. ^ a b Ishaan Tharoor, "How the nuclear deal can keep Iran from 'cheating,' according to a former U.N. inspector", The Washington Post blogs (15 July 2015).
  86. ^ a b c d e Rebecca Kaplan, "Obama says inspectors get access to 'any' site in Iran. Is it true?", CBS News (14 June 2015).
  87. ^ Tim Mak, "The Spy Tech That Will Keep Iran in Line", The Daily Beast (7 July 2015).
  88. ^ "The Iran nuclear accord: Making the world a bit safer". "The Economist. 18 July 2015. Retrieved 20 July 2015. 
  89. ^ a b Mohammed, Arshad (15 July 2015). "U.S., Iran finesse inspections of military sites in nuclear deal". Reuters. Retrieved 15 July 2015. 
  90. ^ a b Carol Morello & Karen DeYoung, "Historic deal reached with Iran to limit nuclear program", The Washington Post (14 July 2015).
  91. ^ a b c Obama: Iran Will Face Longer 'Breakout Time,' Though Not Indefinitely, All Things Considered, NPR (11 August 2015). See also "Transcript: President Obama's Full NPR Interview On Iran Nuclear Deal", NPR (7 April 2015).
  92. ^ Ali Vaez, "Missing the point on Iran;s nuclear breakout time", International Crisis Group (republished by al-Jazeera America) (2 March 2015).
  93. ^ "Factsheet: Longevity of Major Iran Nuclear Agreement Provisions", Center for Arms Control and Proliferation (14 July 2015).
  94. ^ Richard Nephew, "Based on breakout timelines, the world is better off with the Iran nuclear deal than without it", Brookings Institution (17 July 2015).
  95. ^ Alan Kuperman. "The Iran deal is built on a lie". 
  96. ^ "U.S., others agreed 'secret' exemptions for Iran after nuclear deal: t". Reuters. 1 September 2016. Retrieved 6 January 2018. 
  97. ^ "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", IAEA, INFCIRC/907, 23 December 2016.
  98. ^ Jackie Northam, "Lifting Sanctions Will Release $100 Billion To Iran. Then What?", All Things Considered, NPR (16 July 2015).
  99. ^ a b Felicia Schwartz, "When Sanctions Lift, Iranian Commander Will Benefit", The Wall Street Journal blogs (15 July 2015).
  100. ^ a b Ellie Geranmayeh, "Explainer: The Iran nuclear deal", European Council on Foreign Relations (17 July 2015)
  101. ^ Kenneth Katzman (4 August 2015). "Iran Sanctions" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. Retrieved 5 September 2015. 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). 
  102. ^ Kenneth Katzman (4 August 2015). "Iran Sanctions" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. Retrieved 5 September 2015. The U.S. sanctions that are to be suspended are primarily those that sanction foreign entities and countries for conducting specified transactions with Iran (so called "secondary sanctions"). U.S. sanctions that generally prohibit U.S. firms from conducting transactions with Iran are not being altered under the JCPA. 
  103. ^ "Timeline: Implementation of the Iran nuclear agreement", Reuters (14 July 2015).
  104. ^ "Nuclear Deal with Iran Establishes Plan for Sanctions Relief Archived 7 April 2016 at the "Wayback Machine., 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.")
  105. ^ Bryan Bender, "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", Politico (14 July 2015).
  106. ^ Elizabeth Whitman, "What Sanctions Against Iran Won't Be Lifted? Bans For Terrorism Support, Human Rights Abuses To Remain Intact", International Business Times (14 July 2015).
  107. ^ a b Jessica Simeone & Anup Kaphle, "Here Are The Highlights of the Iran Nuclear Agreement", Buzzfeed News (14 July 2015).
  108. ^ a b c d Ankit Panda, "How the Iran Deal's 'Snap Back' Mechanism Will Keep Tehran Compliant", The Diplomat (15 July 2015).
  109. ^ Jackie Northam. "A Look At How Sanctions Would 'Snap Back' If Iran Violates Nuke Deal". NPR. 
  110. ^ a b c d https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/iran/2015-09-07/iran-after-deal
  111. ^ Sharma, Sheel Kant (23 July 2015). "More than a silver lining: The Iran nuclear deal could be a trigger for a far-reaching transformation". The Indian Express. Retrieved 19 October 2015. 
  112. ^ Piotrowski, Marcin Andrzej (23 July 2015). "Effects of the P5+1 Nuclear Deal with Iran". Bulletin. Warsaw: The Polish Institute of International Affairs. Retrieved 19 October 2015. 
  113. ^ Parviz, Salman (16 October 2015). "Guardian Council approves JCPOA amid stormy Majlis session". Islamic Republic News Agency. Retrieved 19 October 2015. 
  114. ^ Parsi, Trita (24 June 2015). "The Iran Deal Proves That Peace Is Possible". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 19 October 2015. 
  115. ^ Irani, Omid (11 August 2015). "A Win for Diplomacy and the World". Iran Review. Retrieved 19 April 2016. 
  116. ^ a b c d e f g h "چه رکوردهايي در جريان مذاکرات اتمي ايران شکسته شد؟" (in Persian). BBC. 22 July 2015. Retrieved 19 October 2015. 
  117. ^ "Security Council Resolution, Building Block for Lifting of Sanctions". Iranian Diplomacy. 23 July 2015. Retrieved 19 October 2015. 
  118. ^ "Historic resolution at UNSC". Islamic Republic News Agency. 22 July 2015. Retrieved 19 October 2015. 
  119. ^ "Source Rejects AP Report on Provisional Agreement". Fars News Agency. 12 July 2015. Retrieved 19 October 2015. 
  120. ^ Jones, Sam; Barker, Alex; Secastopulo, Demetri; Bozorgmehr, Najmeh (14 July 2015). "Iran agrees breakthrough nuclear deal". Financial Times. Retrieved 19 April 2016. 
  121. ^ Mohammadi, Ja'far (29 July 2015). "Will Iran's Nuclear Negotiating Team Introduce the "Fourth Option" in History of the Security Council?". Iran Review. Retrieved 19 October 2015. 
  122. ^ "Sic, Gary G. (7 September 2015). "Iran After the Deal: What to Do When the JCPOA Expires". Foreign Affairs. Retrieved 19 April 2016. 
  123. ^ "Nuclear talks: Kerry setting records with long Vienna stay". Associated Press. 10 July 2015. Retrieved 19 October 2015. 
  124. ^ Salari, Maryam (17 September 2015). "ظريف 189 روز، جليلي 16 روز: بررسي آماري "ايران" از كارنامه 2 تيم هسته?اي فعلي و سابق" [Zarif 189 days, Jalili 16 days: Statistical Survey of Iran from Current and Existing Nuclear Team] (in Persian). Magiran. p. 21. 
  125. ^ Bier, Jeryl (27 September 2013). "Kerry Shakes Hands With Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif". The Weekly Standard. Retrieved 19 October 2015. 
  126. ^ a b "چه 'اتفاقات نادري' در دوره اوباما ميان ايران و آمريکا رخ داده؟" (in Persian). BBC. 30 September 2015. Retrieved 19 October 2015. 
  127. ^ Foroohar, Kambiz (28 April 2015). "Kerry Visits a Piece of Iran on Manhattan's Upper East Side". Bloomberg. Retrieved 19 October 2015. 
  128. ^ Wright, Robin (6 October 2015). "Iran's Javad Zarif on Russia and Peace in Syria". The New Yorker. Retrieved 19 October 2015. 
  129. ^ "نقل‌ قول شفيعي از ظريف در کميسيون امنيت‌ملي: اوباما براي دست دادن با روحاني برنامه‌ريزي کرده بود" (in Persian). Iranian Students' News Agency. 13 October 2015. Retrieved 19 October 2015. 
  130. ^ Jacob J. Lew, "The High Price of Rejecting the Iran Deal", The New York Times (13 August 2015).
  131. ^ "Wang Yi: China Plays Unique and Constructive Role in Reaching Comprehensive Agreement on Iranian Nuclear Issue" Archived 18 July 2015 at the "Wayback Machine., Minister of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China (14 July 2015) [dead link].
  132. ^ a b c d e Parisa Hafezi, Louis Charbonneau, John Irish & Arshad Mohammed, "Iran deal reached, Obama hails step toward 'more hopeful world'", Reuters (14 July 2015).
  133. ^ "Statement by President Donald Tusk on the agreement on Iran's nuclear programme", European Council (15 July 2015).
  134. ^ a b Associated Press, "French President Hollande calls on Iran to help in Syrian conflict" U.S. News & World Report (14 July 2015).
  135. ^ a b "Iran deal 'sufficiently robust' for 10 years, says France's foreign minister Laurent Fabius", The Economic Times, Reuters (14 July 2015).
  136. ^ Thomas Erdbrink, "Laurent Fabius, French Foreign Minister, Visits Iran", The New York Times (29 July 2015).
  137. ^ "Fabius visit stirs bad blood in Iran". Al-Monitor. Retrieved 3 August 2015. 
  138. ^ a b Robin Millard, "World leaders voice relief at Iran nuclear deal", Yahoo! News, AFP (14 July 2015).
  139. ^ a b c Gabriel heads off to forge business links with Iran, Deutsche Welle (19 July 2015).
  140. ^ a b "Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei's Letter Of Guidelines To President Rohani On JCPOA Sets Nine Conditions Nullifying Original Agreement Announced July 14, 2015". MEMRI. Retrieved 6 January 2018. 
  141. ^ a b "Expert: Khamenei's letter to Rouhani voids deal". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 6 January 2018. 
  142. ^ "Iran's Khamenei threatens to 'set fire' to nuclear deal if West violat". Reuters. 14 June 2016. Retrieved 6 January 2018. 
  143. ^ Reuters, "Iran's Zarif, EU say nuclear deal is new chapter of hope" (16 July 2015).
  144. ^ "Iran Calls Nuclear Deal Great Defeat for Israel: 'Never Has the Zionist Regime Been So Isolated'". "Haaretz. Reuters. 21 July 2015. 
  145. ^ Newman, Marissa. "Zarif in Beirut: Nuke deal 'historic opportunity' to face Israeli threats". 
  146. ^ a b c d Thomas Erdbrink, "Iran Celebrates Nuclear Deal, Tempered by Cynicism and Hard-Liner Warnings", The New York Times (14 July 2015).
  147. ^ a b c Thomas Erdbrink, "Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei Urges 'Careful Scrutiny' of Iran Deal", The New York Times (15 July 2015).
  148. ^ a b Thomas Erdbrink, "Iranian Hard-Liners Say Nuclear Accord Crosses Their Red Lines", The New York Times (16 July 2015).
  149. ^ a b Ali Akbar Dareini, "Iran's Supreme Leader Says Nuclear Deal Won't Change Policy Toward 'Arrogant' U.S.", The New York Times, Associated Press (18 July 2015).
  150. ^ "Khamenei: Opposition to US persists after nuclear deal". 
  151. ^ Thomas Erdbrink, "Ayatollah Khamenei, Backing Iran Negotiators, Endorses Nuclear Deal", The New York Times (18 July 2015).
  152. ^ Wiklin, Sam (14 July 2015). "Iran's Khamenei lent cautious support to pursuit of nuclear deal". Reuters. Retrieved 17 July 2015. 
  153. ^ a b Greg Botelho, "Iran nuclear deal full of complex issues and moving parts", CNN (14 July 2015).
  154. ^ Maria Stromova & Alastair Jamieson, "Iran Nuclear Deal: Russia Hails 'Positive Step' for Middle East", NBC News (14 July 2015).
  155. ^ a b c Claire Phipps. "Iran nuclear deal: historic agreement in Vienna". The Guardian. 
  156. ^ Barak Ravid, "Israel prefers permanent standoff to any Iran deal, says U.K.'s foreign secretary", Haaretz (15 July 2015).
  157. ^ a b Associated Press, "Netanyahu and Hammond spar over Iran nuclear agreement", The Guardian (16 July 2015).
  158. ^ Ray Locker, "First take: Obama's winning streak continues with Iran deal", USA Today (14 July 2015).
  159. ^ a b c d e Paul Lewis, "Obama vows to veto any Republican attempt to derail Iran nuclear deal", The Guardian (14 July 2015).
  160. ^ Carrie Dann, 2016 "Republican Candidates Slam Iran Nuke Deal", NBC News (14 July 2015).
  161. ^ Tom LoBianco & Sophie Tatum, "GOP 2016 hopefuls slam Iran nuclear deal", CNN (14 July 2015).
  162. ^ a b Adam Wollner, "How the 2016 Presidential Candidates Are Reacting to the Iran Deal", National Journal (14 July 2015).
  163. ^ Lawder, David (14 July 2015). Trott, Bill, ed. "U.S. House Speaker Boehner says Iran accord looks like a 'bad deal'". Retrieved 15 July 2015. 
  164. ^ a b Nora Kelly, "Nancy Pelosi Is On Board With the Iran Nuclear Deal", National Journal (16 July 2015).
  165. ^ "McConnell: Iran Deal a Result of 'Flawed Perspective'". "ABC News Radio. 14 July 2015. Retrieved 24 July 2015. 
  166. ^ Reuters, "Reid calls for 'level-headed' review of Iran nuclear deal" (14 July 2015).
  167. ^ Associated Press, "Reid Says He's Going to Support Obama's Iran Nuclear Deal", The New York Times (23 August 2015).
  168. ^ Sarah Mimms, The GOP's Iran Deal Point Man Is Holding His Fire, National Journal (14 July 2015).
  169. ^ Troyan, Mary. "Corker warns of 'breathtaking' concessions on Iran deal". 
  170. ^ "An Iran Nuclear Deal That Reduces the Chance of War" (Editorial), The New York Times (14 July 2015).
  171. ^ "Trump Withdraws U.S. From 'One-Sided' Iran Nuclear Deal". The New York Times. Retrieved 8 May 2018. 
  172. ^ "Trump: U.S. 'Will Withdraw' From Iran Nuclear Deal". NPR. Retrieved 8 May 2018. 
  173. ^ Antonia Blumberg, "Vatican Says It Views Iran Deal In a 'Positive Light'", The Huffington Post (14 July 2015).
  174. ^ Itamar Sharon; Jonathan Beck; Avi Lewis (14 July 2015). "Netanyahu: Israel 'not bound' by Iran deal, will defend itself". The Times of Israel. Retrieved 14 July 2015. 
  175. ^ a b c d e f g Peter Beaumont, "Netanyahu denounces Iran nuclear deal but faces criticism from within Israel", The Guardian (14 July 2015).
  176. ^ "Poll: Israelis overwhelmingly certain Iran still wants nukes". The Times of Israel. 16 July 2015. 
  177. ^ "Goldberg, Jeffrey (16 July 2015). "Israeli Opposition Leader: Iran Deal Will Bring Chaos to the Middle East". The Atlantic. 
  178. ^ Bender, Arik (15 July 2015). "Lapid says Iran nuclear deal 'Israel's biggest foreign policy failure ever'". The Jerusalem Post. 
  179. ^ a b Tamar Pileggi, Arab Israeli MKs welcome Iran nuclear agreement, The Times of Israel (14 July 2015).
  180. ^ a b Jonathan Alter, "Ex-Intel Chief: Iran Deal Good for Israel", 'he Daily Beast (21 July 2015).
  181. ^ a b Carol Giacomo, "In Israel, Some Support the Iran Deal", The New York Times Taking Note blog (23 July 2015).
  182. ^ Chuck Freilich, "Op-ed: A Good Deal for Israel", The New York Times (20 July 2015).
  183. ^ "Iran: Renzi satisfied for the nuclear deal", Government of Italy (14 July 2015).
  184. ^ a b "Statement by the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan in connection with progress in the implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran's nuclear programme". Akorda. 
  185. ^ a b Nabih Bulos, "Iran deal: Arab world's cautious reaction reflects deep fault lines", Los Angeles Times (14 July 2015).
  186. ^ a b Sarah MacDonald, "His Majesty lauded for his role as global peacemaker", Times of Oman (22 July 2015).
  187. ^ Jay Solomon, Secret Dealings With Iran Led to Nuclear Talks: Years of clandestine exchanges between the two countries helped build a foundation for nuclear negotiations, The Wall Street Journal (28 June 2015).
  188. ^ Christa Case Bryant, "The man behind secret US-Iran talks: Sultan Qaboos", The Christian Science Monitor (24 November 2013).
  189. ^ "Qatar Welcomes Iran Nuclear Deal", Kuwait News Agency (15 July 2015).
  190. ^ "Official Source on Nuclear Deal between Iran and P5+1 Group", Saudi Press Agency (14 July 2015).
  191. ^ a b Helene Cooper, "Saudi Arabia Approves of Iran Nuclear Deal, U.S. Defense Chief Says", The New York Times (22 July 2015).
  192. ^ Xinhua, "Afghan president welcomes Iran nuclear deal" GlobalPost (14 July 2015).
  193. ^ Mindock, Clark (14 July 2015). "Iran Nuclear Deal Reactions: Egypt Hopes Agreement Will Avoid Middle East Arms Race". International Business Times. Retrieved 15 July 2015. 
  194. ^ "Pakistan, global powers welcome Iran nuclear deal". The Express Tribune. AFP. 14 July 2015. .
  195. ^ Mateen Haider, "Zardari welcomes Iran nuclear deal", Dawn (15 July 2015).
  196. ^ AFP, "Syria's Assad praises Iran deal as 'great victory'", Yahoo! News (14 July 2015).
  197. ^ Deniz Arslan, "Turkey welcomes Iran's nuclear deal with West" Archived 21 July 2015 at the "Wayback Machine., Today's Zaman (14 July 2015).
  198. ^ Cengiz Çandar, "How Turkey Really Feels About the Iran Deal", U.S. News & World Report, Al-Monitor (21 June 2015).
  199. ^ Katharine Murphy, "Tony Abbott welcomes Iran nuclear deal – with great caution", The Guardian (14 July 2015).
  200. ^ "Minister Nicholson Comments on Nuclear Deal Reached by P5+1 and Iran", Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development (14 July 2015).
  201. ^ Graham Clark, "Canada to keep sanctions against Iran despite nuclear deal", The Globe and Mail (14 July 2015).
  202. ^ John Paul Tasker, "Analysis: Iran sanctions lifted by Canada, but Justin Trudeau still faces 'delicate dance'", CBC News (13 February 2016).
  203. ^ Adriaan Alsema, "Santos says Iran nuclear deal is 'another triumph of diplomacy over confrontation'", Colombia Reports (14 July 2015).
  204. ^ "India welcomes JCPOA implementation". Tehran Times. 17 January 2016. Retrieved 6 January 2018. 
  205. ^ James Pearson & Seung Yun Oh, "North Korea says not interested in Iran-like nuclear talks with U.S.", Reuters (21 July 2015).
  206. ^ "Norway hails 'historic' Iran deal", The Local (14 July 2015).
  207. ^ "Statement on the Iran Nuclear Deal". Department of Foreign Affairs. Retrieved 17 July 2015. 
  208. ^ "U.N. Leader Welcomes Iran Deal", The New York Times (14 July 2015).
  209. ^ UN applauds 'historic' deal on Iranian nuclear programme, UN News Centre (14 July 2015).
  210. ^ "Director General's Statement on the Announcement by the E3/EU + 3 and Iran on the Agreement of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action", International Atomic Energy Agency (14 July 2015).
  211. ^ "Statement on Iran Nuclear agreement", North Atlantic Treaty Organization (15 July 2015).
  212. ^ Doug Bolton, "Arab League chief Nabil Elaraby calls out 'double standard' of international attitude to Israeli nuclear programme", The Independent (16 July 2015).
  213. ^ a b Jay Solomon & Carol E. Lee, "Gulf Arab States Voice Support for Iran Nuclear Deal", The Wall Street Journal (3 August 2015).
  214. ^ a b Matthew Lee, "Asian nations endorse Iran nuke deal as Kerry says Hiroshima anniversary shows accord's import", The Globe and Mail (6 August 2015).
  215. ^ "Statement on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action To Address Iran's Nuclear Programme by Ministers Participating in The 5th East Asia Summit Foreign Ministers' Meeting", U.S. State Department (6 August 2015).
  216. ^ "The Triumph of Nuclear Diplomacy". International Crisis Group. 
  217. ^ a b Aaron Mehta & Barbara Opall-Rome, "Experts Praise Iran Deal, Despite Congressional Concerns", "Defense News (18 July 2015).
  218. ^ Michael Crowley, "Nuclear experts fall in behind Obama: The deal with Iran exceeds historical standards for arms control agreements, 75 experts say", Politico (18 August 2015).
  219. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t John Mecklin, "The experts assess the Iran agreement of 2015", Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (14 July 2015).
  220. ^ a b c d Max Fisher, "'I would give it an A': Why nuclear experts love the Iran deal", Vox (15 July 2015).
  221. ^ Fleitz, Fred. "Iran nuclear deal much worse than experts predicted". 
  222. ^ "U.S. Energy Secretary: Deal Keeps Iran Further Away From A Nuclear Weapon", All Things Considered, NPR (15 July 2015).
  223. ^ Kristina Peterson & Amy Harder, "The Nuclear Physicist Answering Lawmakers' Questions on Iran Deal", The Wall Street Journal (16 July 2015).
  224. ^ a b c d e Gordon, Michael (23 July 2015). "Verification Process in Iran Deal Is Questioned by Some Experts". The New York Times. 
  225. ^ Peggy McInerny, "Give nuclear agreement with Iran a chance, say experts", UCLA International Institute (21 September 2015).
  226. ^ Fürtig, Henner (2015). "The Nuclear Agreement with Iran: Successful Settling of an International Crisis" (PDF). GIGA Focus. German Institute of Global and Area Studies (6). "ISSN 2196-3940. 
  227. ^ Wright, Robin (4 May 2015). ""Madam Secretary" and the Real Iran Deal". The New Yorker. Retrieved 19 October 2015. 
  228. ^ Reinl, James (7 February 2010). "UN finds TV show too hot to handle". "The National. Retrieved 19 October 2015. 
  229. ^ Hendel, John (26 November 2013). "How Obama's Iran deal screwed up Homeland's third season". The Week. Retrieved 19 October 2015. 
  230. ^ Omidi, Ali (17 November 2015). "Will Rouhani and Zarif defy Khamenei by holding direct talks with US on Syria?". Al-Monitor. Retrieved 1 May 2016. 
  231. ^ Karimi, Arash (14 July 2015). "Zarif's domestic popularity soars with nuclear deal". Al-Monitor. Retrieved 1 May 2016. 
  232. ^ Ariel Edwards-Levy, "Contradictory Iran Polls Show Why It Matters How You Ask: People sometimes fall back on partisan cues when they lack information", The Huffington Post (21 July 2015).
  233. ^ Greg Sargent, "What does the American public really think of the Iran deal?", The Washington Post (3 August 2015).
  234. ^ a b c William Jordan, "Americans tend to favor Iran deal, despite serious doubts", YouGov (17 July 2015).
  235. ^ "CNN/ORC International Poll". "CNN/ORC. 20 August 2015. Retrieved 23 August 2015. 
  236. ^ a b "Iran Nuclear Agreement Meets With Public Skepticism". "Pew Research Center. 21 July 2015. Retrieved 27 July 2015. 
  237. ^ a b Laura Meckler; Kristina Peterson (3 August 2015). "U.S. Public Split on Iran Nuclear Deal – WSJ/NBC Poll". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 10 August 2015. 
  238. ^ Full YouGov tables.
  239. ^ Scott Clement, "56 percent of people support Obama's Iran deal. But they don't think it will work", The Washington Post (20 July 2015). See also poll details, The Washington Post.
  240. ^ a b Steven M. Cohen, "New poll: U.S. Jews support Iran deal, despite misgivings", Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles (23 July 2015).
  241. ^ a b "The Iran Deal Poll". "The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles. 
  242. ^ Tables from the survey of the American general population.
  243. ^ "Tables from the survey of American Jews". Scribd. 
  244. ^ Kathy Frankovic (24 July 2015). "The Economist/YouGov Poll" (PDF). YouGov. Retrieved 11 August 2015. 
  245. ^ Tom Jensen, "Americans Strongly in Favor of Iran Deal", Public Policy Polling (27 July 2015).
  246. ^ Jennifer Agiesta (28 July 2015). "CNN/ORC poll: Majority wants Congress to reject Iran deal". "CNN. Retrieved 29 July 2015.  (see also full results, CNN)
  247. ^ "American Voters Oppose Iran Deal 2-1, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds..." "Quinnipiac University. 3 August 2015. Retrieved 5 August 2015. 
  248. ^ Laura Meckler and Kristina Peterson, "Poll: American Public Split on Iran Nuclear Deal – WSJ/NBC Poll", The Wall Street Journal blogs (3 August 2015).(subscription required)
  249. ^ NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by Hart Research Associates (D) and Public Opinion Strategies (R). 26-30 July 2015. N=approx. 500 adults nationwide..
  250. ^ Dana Blanton (15 August 2015). "Fox News Poll: Majority would reject Iran nuke deal". "Fox News Channel. Retrieved 15 August 2015. 
  251. ^ "Fox News Poll: Iran deal and Clinton emails". Fox News Channel. 
  252. ^ a b Jennifer Agiesta; Jeremy Diamond (20 August 2015). "Poll: Most Americans want Congress to reject Iran deal". CNN. Retrieved 23 August 2015. . See also Full results. CNN.
  253. ^ "Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds". "Quinnipiac University. 31 August 2015. Retrieved 5 September 2015. 
  254. ^ "Support for Iran Nuclear Agreement Falls". "Pew Research Center. 8 September 2015. Retrieved 11 September 2015. 
  255. ^ Nancy Gallagher, "Say Something Nice or Nothing at All", U.S. News & World Report (11 September 2015).
  256. ^ "UMD Study Finds that After Weighing Options, a Majority of Americans Approve Iran Nuclear Deal", University of Maryland Program on Public Consultation/University of Maryland School of Public Policy Center for International and Security Studies; see also Assessing the Iran Deal: A Survey of the National Citizen Cabinet (full report).
  257. ^ Hannah Volmar (22 June 2015). "Iranian Americans and the American public at large support efforts to reach a nuclear agreement with Iran". PAAIA. Archived from the original on 12 August 2015. Retrieved 14 August 2015. 
  258. ^ a b c "New Poll: Majority of American Jews Support Iran Nuclear Deal", J Street (28 July 2015).
  259. ^ Maurice Carroll (11 August 2015). "New York City Voters Oppose Iran Nuclear Pact, Quinnipiac University Poll Finds" (PDF). Quinnipiac University. Retrieved 13 August 2015. 
  260. ^ Tom Jensen, "New York City Voters Strongly Support Iran Deal", Public Policy Polling (13 August 2015).
  261. ^ "Jews Back Iran Deal by Narrow Margin, Poll Says", The Forward, Jewish Telegraphic Agency (11 September 2015).
  262. ^ Nancy Gallagher; Ebrahim Mohseni; Clay Ramsay (23 June 2015). "Majority of Iranian Public Approves of Pursuing Nuclear Agreement, New Study Finds". University of Maryland School of Policy. Retrieved 14 August 2015. 
  263. ^ Entekhab (6 August 2015). "جهانگیری: مخالفان توافق هسته ای 4 درصد هستند، پس لحن طلبکارانه نداشته باشند و در حد همان 4 درصد حرف بزنند". Entekhab. Retrieved 14 August 2015. 
  264. ^ Geneive Abdo. "Iran Wants a Nuclear Deal". "The National Interest. Retrieved 14 September 2015. 
  265. ^ a b c "Iran nuclear deal: UN Security Council likely to vote next week: US diplomats to promote deal to UN counterparts in coming days", CBC, Thomson Reuters (15 July 2015).
  266. ^ a b Somini Sengupta, Consensus Gives Security Council Momentum in Mideast, but Question Is How Much, The New York Times (16 July 2015).
  267. ^ a b CBS News/Associated Press, Iran deal set to become international law (17 July 2015).
  268. ^ a b c d e f g h Somini Sengupta, "U.N. Moves to Lift Sanctions on Iran After Nuclear Deal", The New York Times (20 July 2015).
  269. ^ a b c d e Steven Nelson, "Iran Deal May Bind Next President: Scholars say the nuclear agreement could be binding under domestic and international law", U.S. News & World Report (15 July 2015).
  270. ^ David Golove, "Presidential Authority to Conclude an Iran Nuclear Agreement—and the Senate's Self-Defeating Bill", Just Security (20 August 2014).
  271. ^ Michael J. Glennon, "The Iran Nuclear Deal: The Dispensability of Obligation", Just Security (16 March 2015).
  272. ^ Felicia Schwartz, "Iran Nuclear Deal, If Reached, Wouldn't Be 'Legally Binding,' Kerry Says", The Wall Street Journal (11 March 2015).
  273. ^ a b Zachary Laub, "How Binding Is the Iran Deal?" (interview with John B. Bellinger III), Council on Foreign Relations (23 July 2015).
  274. ^ a b "Orde Kittrie (12 August 2015). "Congress Can Rewrite the Iran Deal". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 16 August 2015. 
  275. ^ "United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015)", adopted by the Security Council at its 7488th meeting, on 20 July 2015
  276. ^ Samantha Power, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, "Explanation of Vote at a UN Security Council Vote on Resolution 2231 on Iran Non-proliferation" Archived 23 July 2015 at the "Wayback Machine. U.S. State Department (20 July 2015).
  277. ^ Michael Pearson & Elise Labott, 5 Americans released by Iran, 4 as part of prisoner swap, CNN (16 January 2016).
  278. ^ a b Robin Emmott & Francesco Guarascio, "Europe backs Iran nuclear deal in signal to U.S. Congress", Reuters (20 July 2015).
  279. ^ "Dealing with Iran: A Primer on the President's Options for a Nuclear Agreement". Retrieved 9 December 2015. 
  280. ^ "International documents of a non-legally binding character" (PDF). U.S. State Department. Retrieved 9 December 2015. 
  281. ^ Cite error: The named reference auto was invoked but never defined (see the "help page).
  282. ^ a b c Amber Phillips, "Can Congress stop the Iran deal?", The Washington Post (1 July 2015).
  283. ^ a b Scott Bomboy, "Veto showdown on tap for Congress after Iran nuclear deal", National Constitution Center (15 July 2015).
  284. ^ Matthew Fleming, "Iran Deal: Treaty or Not?", Roll Call (21 July 2015).
  285. ^ "539 U.S. 396" (2003).
  286. ^ Rivkin, David; Lee A. Casey (27 July 2015). "The Lawless Underpinnings of the Iran Nuclear Deal". The Wall Street Journal: A13. 
  287. ^ Michael Ramsey, "Is the Iran Deal Unconstitutional?", Originalism Blog (15 July 2015).
  288. ^ Jack Goldsmith, "More Weak Arguments For The Illegality of the Iran Deal", Lawfare Blog (27 July 2015).
  289. ^ John Yoo, "Why Obama's Executive Action on Iran Does Not Violate the Law", National Review (26 July 2015).
  290. ^ "Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015", Pub.L. 114–17.
  291. ^ "Iran Nuclear Review Act Becomes Law", "Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP (29 May 2015).
  292. ^ a b c Jonathan Weisman & Julie Hirschfeld Davis, "Republican Lawmakers Vow Fight to Derail Nuclear Deal", The New York Times (14 July 2005).
  293. ^ Kevin Liptak, "Now that he has a deal with Iran, Obama must face Congress", CNN (14 July 2015).
  294. ^ a b c d Susan Page, "Cardin: If Iran deal survives, more U.S. aid likely to Israel, Gulf states", USA Today (21 July 2015).
  295. ^ a b c "Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action", United States Department of State (19 June 2015).
  296. ^ Eric Bradner, "State Dept. sends Iran deal to Congress", CNN (19 July 2015).
  297. ^ Patricia Zengerle, "House to vote on Iran deal disapproval resolution", Reuters (4 August 2015).
  298. ^ a b Jordain Carney (31 July 2015). "Cruz wants delay in Iran review period because of 'side deals'". "The Hill. Retrieved 14 August 2015. 
  299. ^ a b "S. RES. 238". U.S. Congress. 30 July 2015. Retrieved 14 August 2015. 
  300. ^ Dennis C. Jett, The Iran Nuclear Deal: Bombs, Bureaucrats, and Billionaires (Springer, 2018), p. 35.
  301. ^ Maya Rhodan, "Western Powers Reach Long-sought Nuclear Deal With Iran", Time (14 July 2015).
  302. ^ "History of Official Proposals on the Iranian Nuclear Issue", Arms Control Association (last updated 14 July 2015).
  303. ^ Laurence Norman & Jay Solomon, Iran, World Powers Reach Nuclear Deal, The Wall Street Journal (14 July 2015).
  304. ^ a b Michael D. Shear & Julie Hitschfeld Davis, "Obama Begins 60-Day Campaign to Win Over Iran Deal Skeptics at Home and Abroad", The New York Times (15 July 2015).
  305. ^ "Full text: Obama's news conference on the Iran nuclear deal", The Washington Post (15 July 2015).
  306. ^ "Iran nuclear deal: '99% of world agrees' says Obama", BBC News (15 July 2015).
  307. ^ a b "Friedman, Thomas (15 July 2015). "Obama Makes His Case on Iran Nuclear Deal". The New York Times. 
  308. ^ Deirdre Walsh & Ted Barrett, "WH dispatches Joe Biden to lock down Iran deal on Capitol Hill", CNN (16 July 2015).
  309. ^ a b "Weekly Address: A Comprehensive, Long-Term Deal with Iran", White House Office of the Press Secretary (18 July 2015).
  310. ^ a b c d e f Jonathan Weisman & Michael R. Gordon, "Kerry Defends Iran Nuclear Deal Before Skeptical Senate", The New York Times (23 July 2015).
  311. ^ a b Peter Baker, "Obama Criticizes Huckabee, Trump, Cruz and Other Republicans", The New York Times (27 July 2015).
  312. ^ a b Nick Gass, "Mike Huckabee not backing down after Holocaust remark", Politico (27 July 2015).
  313. ^ Amita Kelly, 'Offensive,' 'Sad': Reaction To Huckabee's Holocaust 'Oven' Reference, NPR (27 July 2015).
  314. ^ Ishaan Tharoor, "Israelis scold Huckabee for saying Iran deal sends them to 'door of the oven'", The Washington Post (28 July 2015).
  315. ^ "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).
  316. ^ a b c d e Julie Hirschfeld Davis, "It's Either Iran Nuclear Deal or 'Some Form of War,' Obama Warns", The New York Times (5 August 2015).
  317. ^ a b c d 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 The Washington Post.
  318. ^ a b c Chuck Schumer (7 August 2015). "My Position on the Iran Deal". "Medium. Retrieved 7 August 2015. 
  319. ^ a b c Eliza Collins, "President Obama stands by comments linking Republicans to Iranian hard-liners", Politico (10 August 2015).
  320. ^ a b Michael McAuliff (6 August 2015). "Mitch McConnell Scolds Obama To Tone Down Iran Rhetoric". "The Huffington Post. Retrieved 11 August 2015. 
  321. ^ "Transcripts". "CNN. 6 August 2015. Retrieved 12 August 2015. 
  322. ^ Jordain Carney (6 August 2015). "Corker: Obama 'trying to shut down' Iran debate". "The Hill. Retrieved 11 August 2015. 
  323. ^ a b Eliza Collins, "Clapper: Iran deal gives U.S. access, insight", Politico (24 July 2015).
  324. ^ a b Deb Riechmann, High-stakes lobbying on Iran deal; pressure for Congress, San Francisco Chronicle, Associated Press (22 July 2015).
  325. ^ a b Jonathan Weisman & Nicholas Confessore, "Donors Descend on Schumer and Others in Debate on Iran", The New York Times (12 August 2015).
  326. ^ a b c d e f Catherine Ho, "Mega-donors opposing Iran deal have upper hand in fierce lobbyin