It’s tough to reach an agreement with a President whose word is not his bond.
That observation, while seemingly pointed, echoes a broader concern about reliability in international diplomacy—particularly when it comes to agreements that require sustained commitment across administrations. The phrase gained renewed attention in discussions surrounding U.S.-Iran relations, especially regarding the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal. Originally reached in 2015 under the Obama administration, the JCPOA aimed to limit Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. However, its future has been uncertain since the U.S. Withdrawal in 2018, raising questions about the durability of executive agreements when political leadership changes.
The JCPOA was not a treaty ratified by the U.S. Senate but rather an executive agreement between the United States, Iran, and five other world powers—the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, and China—along with the European Union. As such, it did not require Senate approval but was also more vulnerable to reversal by a succeeding president. In May 2018, President Donald Trump announced the U.S. Would withdraw from the JCPOA and reimpose sanctions on Iran, calling the deal “defective at its core.” This decision was affirmed by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, which began reinstating sanctions targeting Iran’s oil, banking, and transportation sectors later that year.
Internationally, the other parties to the JCPOA expressed regret over the U.S. Withdrawal and affirmed their commitment to the agreement. The European Union’s External Action Service stated that the EU remained “determined to preserve the JCPOA” and urged Iran to continue fulfilling its nuclear commitments. Iran, for its part, initially remained compliant with the deal’s terms for over a year after the U.S. Exit, as verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). However, beginning in mid-2019, Iran gradually reduced its own commitments in response to what it perceived as insufficient economic benefits from the remaining parties, citing the reimposition of U.S. Sanctions as a breach of the deal’s spirit.
The IAEA has continued to monitor Iran’s nuclear activities under a series of successive agreements, even as JCPOA compliance waned. In its reports, the agency has noted Iran’s increasing uranium enrichment levels, including the production of uranium enriched up to 60% purity—a level far beyond the 3.67% cap set by the JCPOA and approaching weapons-grade thresholds. These developments have been documented in quarterly IAEA reports, which are publicly available and regularly cited by U.N. Member states and nonproliferation experts.
Efforts to revive the JCPOA have taken place intermittently since 2021. Indirect negotiations between the United States and Iran, facilitated by the European Union, began in Vienna in April 2021. These talks involved the original JCPOA participants exchanging positions through intermediaries, as direct U.S.-Iranian dialogue remains politically sensitive. While progress was reported at various stages, including draft understandings on sanctions relief and nuclear rollbacks, no final agreement was reached by late 2022, and negotiations have since stalled. The U.S. State Department has periodically reiterated its willingness to return to compliance if Iran does the same, but has also emphasized that any revived deal would necessitate to address concerns about Iran’s regional behavior and missile program—issues not covered in the original JCPOA.
The broader implications of the JCPOA’s instability extend beyond nonproliferation. Analysts at institutions such as the Brookings Institution and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace have noted that the perceived unreliability of U.S. Commitments complicates diplomacy not only with Iran but also with other nations considering long-term agreements with the United States. Allies in Europe and Asia have expressed concern that frequent shifts in executive branch policy undermine trust in American word, particularly on arms control, climate accords, and trade agreements. Conversely, supporters of the U.S. Withdrawal argue that the JCPOA was flawed because it allowed Iran to eventually resume nuclear activities after sunset clauses expired and did not adequately constrain its ballistic missile development or support for regional proxies.
Legally, the status of executive agreements like the JCPOA remains a subject of debate. Unlike treaties, which require two-thirds Senate approval and are harder to unilaterally terminate, executive agreements derive their authority from the president’s constitutional powers in foreign affairs. This allows for swift negotiation but also means they can be reversed by a successor administration without congressional input. Legal scholars have pointed to this asymmetry as a structural challenge in maintaining continuity in U.S. Foreign policy, especially when international partners seek assurances that commitments will outlast electoral cycles.
As of early 2026, no formal revival of the JCPOA has been realized. The IAEA continues to report on Iran’s nuclear activities, and diplomatic channels remain open, though inactive at the negotiatory level. The next potential checkpoint for any renewed engagement would depend on official announcements from the U.S. State Department, the European Union’s External Action Service, or the IAEA—none of which have scheduled public talks as of the latest verified updates. Any future development would likely be signaled through official statements or press briefings from these entities.
For readers seeking to follow developments, the IAEA’s official website provides access to its latest verification reports, while the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation issues periodic updates on sanctions and diplomatic initiatives. The European Union’s External Action Service also maintains a dedicated section on its site for JCPOA-related communications. These sources represent the most authoritative and nonpartisan channels for tracking the status of nuclear diplomacy with Iran.
the challenge encapsulated in the phrase “It’s tough to reach an agreement with a President whose word is not his bond” speaks to a deeper issue in global governance: the tension between agility and accountability in foreign policy. While executive agreements enable rapid response to emerging crises, their fragility can erode the very trust necessary for lasting solutions. Whether future administrations will pursue more durable frameworks—such as congressional-executive agreements or formal treaties—remains an open question, one that will shape not only U.S.-Iran relations but the broader architecture of international cooperation.
Stay informed, and consider sharing this article to help others understand the complexities of diplomatic continuity in an era of shifting commitments.