In 2018, Donald Trump made the decision to withdraw the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal, despite international verification that Iran was adhering to its terms. He declared it 'the worst deal ever'. Eight years later, after a devastating war, immense human cost, and a staggering $45 billion in US war expenditures, his administration finds itself at the negotiating table, pursuing a ceasefire whose central demand — that Iran relinquish uranium enrichment — echoes the fundamental restraint the original JCPOA had already secured. The deal now being sought in 2026 is emerging not as a superior alternative, but as a more costly and inherently more fragile iteration of the 2015 agreement that was abandoned.
The 2015 JCPOA: A Framework for Restraint
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, represented a landmark diplomatic achievement signed in 2015 under the Obama administration. This accord brought together Iran and the P5+1 nations, which included the United States, United Kingdom, France, China, Russia, and Germany. Its core purpose was to limit Iran's uranium enrichment capabilities, thereby preventing its pursuit of nuclear weapons. In exchange for these critical nuclear restraints, Iran received significant sanctions relief.
A crucial aspect of the JCPOA was its robust verification mechanism. The International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN's nuclear watchdog, was tasked with monitoring Iran's compliance. At the time of the US withdrawal, the IAEA had repeatedly confirmed that Iran was adhering to the terms outlined in the agreement.
2018 Withdrawal: 'The Worst Deal Ever'
Despite Iran's verified compliance, on May 8, 2018, then-President Donald Trump announced the United States' withdrawal from the JCPOA. His rationale was unequivocal, publicly denouncing the agreement as 'the worst deal ever' and a 'disaster'. This unilateral decision marked a significant shift in US foreign policy towards Iran.
Immediately following the withdrawal, the Trump administration moved to re-impose a comprehensive set of sanctions on Iran. This action initiated what was termed a 'maximum pressure' strategy, designed to severely cripple Iran's economy and force it to renegotiate a more restrictive deal. The move was met with international concern from other signatories of the JCPOA, who largely remained committed to the original agreement.
Maximum Pressure and Escalation (2018-2025)
The 'maximum pressure' approach continued and intensified through Trump's first term and into his second term, which began in 2025. The strategy aimed to isolate Iran economically and diplomatically, maintaining a high level of tension in the region. Throughout this period, Iran continued to advance its military capabilities, often with external support.
In July 2025, ahead of the major conflict, Iran received Chinese HQ-9B long-range surface-to-air missile batteries. This acquisition demonstrated ongoing efforts to bolster its defensive posture. The deepening military ties with other global powers were further underscored in late February 2026, when the Iranian and Russian armed forces, alongside Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), conducted joint military exercises. These exercises were primarily held in strategically vital areas including the Strait of Hormuz, the Gulf of Oman, and the northern Indian Ocean, signaling a growing axis of cooperation and preparedness in the face of sustained international pressure.
Operation Epic Fury and the 2026 War
The protracted period of 'maximum pressure' culminated in a direct military confrontation. On February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel launched a coordinated series of airstrikes on Iran, an operation named Operation Epic Fury. These strikes targeted key military installations, government sites, and unfortunately, resulted in civilian casualties. A critical outcome of the operation was the assassination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and other high-ranking Iranian officials, a move that sent shockwaves through the region.
Iran's response was swift and forceful. It launched missile and drone strikes against both Israel and US military bases situated across the Middle East. Furthermore, Iran moved to close the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for global oil trade. This action severely disrupted the international energy markets, leading to immediate economic repercussions. The conflict also spilled over into neighboring Lebanon, resulting in more than 2,000 fatalities among both civilians and militants during what became known as the 2026 Lebanon war.
The human cost for Iran was substantial, with approximately 2,076 fatalities and around 26,500 injuries reported after weeks of intense fighting. The financial toll of the war was immense for all parties involved. By day 36 of Operation Epic Fury, US war costs had already surpassed $45 billion, with an estimated daily burn rate of approximately $1 billion. The Pentagon’s eventual Congressional funding request is projected to reach between $80 billion and $100 billion. Iran, facing widespread destruction, estimated its own war losses at up to $145 billion.
The global economic fallout was immediate and severe. Oil prices experienced a dramatic surge, with Brent crude spiking from $72 to over $112 per barrel, representing an increase of more than 55%. Following the disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, prices briefly touched $120 per barrel, underscoring the interconnectedness of regional stability and global markets.
The Counter-Argument: Military Degradation
A key argument often put forth by proponents of the 'maximum pressure' strategy is the significant degradation of Iran's military capabilities resulting from the 2026 strikes. Indeed, the US and Israeli operations inflicted considerable damage. Iran suffered the destruction of 73 aircraft and over 150 naval vessels were either damaged or completely destroyed. US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth publicly declared that Iran's naval forces, air force, air defenses, and its missile program had been 'effectively destroyed'.
The destroyed equipment comprised a mix of older, legacy systems and more recent acquisitions. Most missiles, radars, and older aircraft were pre-2020 systems. However, some newer assets were also hit, including the Soleimani-class catamaran Shahid Sayad Shirazi, commissioned in February 2024, which sustained damage. The Jamaran-class frigate Dena was sunk by a US Navy submarine, highlighting the effectiveness of the coalition's advanced naval capabilities against some of Iran's more modern naval craft.
Replenishment and a Harder Line: The Unintended Consequences
Despite the substantial military damage, the long-term impact on Iran's strategic posture and regional influence appears complex and, in some respects, counterproductive to the goals of 'maximum pressure'. One of the most significant unintended consequences was the change in Iran's leadership. On March 9, 2026, Mojtaba Khamenei, the 56-year-old son of the assassinated Ali Khamenei, was named Iran's new Supreme Leader by the Assembly of Experts. Analysts describe Mojtaba Khamenei as more hardline and more conservative than his father, possessing deep and extensive ties to Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). This succession represents a consolidation of power within a more entrenched and ideologically rigid faction, a development that prompted US President Donald Trump to publicly express 'disappointment' at Mojtaba Khamenei's selection.
Furthermore, the perceived weakening of Iran's military is already being offset by robust support from strategic allies. Russia is supplying Iran with 48 advanced Su-35 Generation 4++ fighter jets, with deliveries expected to commence in 2026. This influx of modern aerial power will significantly enhance Iran's air force capabilities. China is also playing a crucial role in Iran's military replenishment, bypassing US secondary sanctions by sending weapons shipments via the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).
Beyond conventional arms, China has transferred a large quantity of Beidou satellite navigation receivers to Iran, intended for use in Iran's Shahed-series drones, which have proven to be a cost-effective and impactful weapon in various regional conflicts. These developments suggest that while Iran's existing military assets suffered, the regime is rapidly rebuilding and modernizing with the assistance of powerful patrons. As summarized by the analyst headline from 19FortyFive, 'The U.S. Has Destroyed Iran's Military — Without Regime Change It May Have Created Something More Dangerous.'
The 2026 Ceasefire: A Costly Return to Square One
Amidst the escalating conflict and its profound regional and global repercussions, a two-week ceasefire was agreed upon between the United States and Iran on April 7-8, 2026, mediated by Pakistan. This temporary halt in hostilities paved the way for negotiations, which immediately centered on the core issue of Iran's nuclear program.
The primary demand in the current 2026 negotiations is for Iran to abandon uranium enrichment entirely and hand over its existing nuclear stockpiles to the United States. This demand directly mirrors the fundamental objective of the 2015 JCPOA, which imposed strict limits on Iran's uranium enrichment activities and provided for comprehensive international inspection access. The JCPOA's 2015 limits on uranium enrichment were, in essence, the same category of restraint that is now being re-negotiated in 2026, but after immense cost and instability.
However, the new demands and Iran's position are far broader in scope than the original JCPOA. Iran’s 10-point proposal for a permanent deal includes requests for regulated passage through the Strait of Hormuz, the termination of attacks on Iran and its regional proxies, the withdrawal of US forces from the region, direct compensation to Iran for war damages, the lifting of all international sanctions, the unfreezing of Iranian assets, and a binding UN resolution to enshrine the new agreement. These demands extend beyond nuclear issues to encompass regional security architecture, comprehensive sanctions relief, and direct financial redress, making the current negotiating landscape far more complex and challenging than in 2015.
Despite the fragile ceasefire, tensions remain exceptionally high. The US has maintained its blockade against vessels departing from or docking at Iranian ports. In a direct response to this continued blockade, Iran reasserted control of the Strait of Hormuz on April 18, 2026, a move that could quickly reignite hostilities and further destabilize global oil markets.
What Happens Next
The current landscape is characterized by deeply entrenched positions and volatile regional dynamics. The ongoing US blockade against Iranian ports and Iran's subsequent reassertion of control over the Strait of Hormuz on April 18, 2026, underscore the fragility of the ceasefire. With negotiations now encompassing broader regional security concerns and demands for substantial compensation and US withdrawal, a resolution appears more elusive and complicated than the original 2015 agreement. The core demand for Iran to abandon uranium enrichment remains, but it is now pursued against a backdrop of immense financial and human cost, a more aggressive Iranian leadership, and strengthened alliances with Russia and China.