One week before the signing of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s then-foreign minister, reportedly dismissed regional concerns over the deal, including those of Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Whether that assessment proved correct or not, the country that ultimately failed to preserve the agreement was not Iran. It was the United States, where a change in administration led to Washington’s withdrawal from the deal in 2018.
On June 18, nearly 11 years after the JCPOA was signed and eight years after the US withdrawal, the presidents of Iran and the United States signed a memorandum of understanding declaring an end to hostilities and committing both sides to pursuing a final accord within 60 days.
Analysts say the agreement remains fragile.
Its durability will depend not only on the bilateral track between Tehran and Washington, but also on whether the United States can manage the regional pressures surrounding Israel, Lebanon and Iran’s nuclear programme.
Since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, Tehran and Washington have repeatedly approached the brink of direct military conflict but pulled back.
Wendy Sherman, the veteran US diplomat and former lead American nuclear negotiator, has previously warned that a war with Iran could carry major regional and economic consequences, including risks to the Strait of Hormuz.
That calculation became central after Washington intervened in June 2025 to assist Israel in targeting Iranian nuclear infrastructure.
By February 2026, the United States was drawn into a broader military confrontation with Iran, with consequences that quickly spread beyond the region.
"The Trump administration's approach to Iran largely overlooked the profound geo-economic leverage inherent in Iran's geography,” Farzin Zandi, a political science researcher at the University of Kansas, tells TRT World.
“Unlike previous administrations that balanced military threats with economic statecraft, this administration operated on an exaggerated perception of absolute American hegemony.
“Guided by this flawed assumption, Washington entered an escalatory cycle, failing to account for Iran's historical and structural capability to weaponise critical maritime chokepoints."
Iran has developed significant asymmetric economic resilience through decades of isolation. The networked global economy, built on just-in-time supply chains and sensitive energy markets, has not.
"Washington's preference for diplomacy over military confrontation is heavily dictated by the imperative of maintaining geoeconomic stability," Zandi says.
"A kinetic escalation in the Middle East poses a severe risk to global markets, specifically through potential spikes in energy prices and the disruption of critical maritime trade corridors."
Trump later acknowledged that had the war continued, the Strait of Hormuz would have remained closed, and the oil supply shortage would have become "extremely acute".
Iran, meanwhile, has consistently demonstrated willingness to provide verifiable guarantees against nuclear weaponisation.
Just one evening before the joint US-Israeli strikes began, Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi stated: "If the ultimate objective is to ensure forever that Iran cannot have a nuclear bomb, I think we have cracked that problem through these negotiations by agreeing a very important breakthrough that has never been achieved any time before".
Israel is the primary obstacle
Just hours before the MOU was signed, Israel launched strikes on Beirut, pushing the agreement to the brink of collapse.
Following the signing, Prime Minister Netanyahu continued military attacks in Lebanon, actions critics argued were inconsistent with the spirit of the agreement and which cast uncertainty over the Geneva negotiations on June 19.
At the same time, pro-Israel groups in Washington voiced opposition to the deal.
AIPAC said the MOU offered sanctions relief to Iran in exchange for reopening the Strait of Hormuz and what it described as vague commitments regarding Tehran's nuclear programme.
Zvika Klein, editor-in-chief of The Jerusalem Post, wrote that "Israel won the war and lost the romance with the US”.
Israel's actions reportedly generated frustration within parts of the Trump administration, particularly among officials involved in negotiations with Tehran, including Vice President JD Vance.
Pro-Israeli group’s neo-conservatives have played a significant role in shaping US policy towards the Middle East since the 1990s, according to Dr Shireen Hunter, an honorary fellow at Georgetown University's Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding and a former Iranian diplomat.
“Israel has used America's power to undermine or eliminate any rivals: Iraq, Libya, Syria, and foremost in Israel's view, Iran. Ironically, none of these changes has enhanced Israel's security,” Hunter tells TRT World.
"Israel has constantly prevented a gradual process of reform in Iran and has sabotaged any agreement between Tehran and Washington, like the JCPOA. Netanyahu boasted that he convinced Trump to exit from the nuclear agreement."
United States possesses substantial leverage over Israel because of its military, financial and technological support, but has been unwilling to use that leverage, Hunter says.
Israel and its supporters maintain considerable influence within American political and media institutions, limiting Washington's willingness to pressure its ally when policy differences emerge, she added.
Beyond military and economic assistance, “the United States shields Israel at the UN Security Council, vetoing every international effort to hold it accountable.
Removing that shield would leave Israel isolated, a consequence of its actions in Gaza and Lebanon that have already set in motion internationally.
"From every perspective, all the wars America has fought in the Middle East and South-West Asia since 2001 have damaged US strategic interests,” Hunter tells TRT World.
“They have allowed Russia to increase its influence in Iran and the South Caucasus and opened new opportunities for China in Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf."
Hunter argues that these policies have not only failed to advance American interests but have also created new opportunities for US competitors.
For Zandi, the question is no longer whether past interventions weakened Washington's position, but whether the United States is prepared to risk further damage by allowing renewed regional escalation.
"The energy market has already structured a geoeconomic risk premium due to ongoing tensions. If Israel destabilises the fragile status quo between Iran and the US, it triggers a severe credibility shock for Washington, perceived as incapable of managing its regional ally,” Zandi tells TRT World.
“Furthermore, a localised conflict could spill over into the Persian Gulf and, more severely, into the Bab-al-Mandab. Iran's capacity for geographic weaponisation poses a systemic risk."
This story was published in collaboration with Egab.
