Formal negotiations on the JCPOA began with the adoption of the Joint Action Plan, an interim agreement signed in November 2013 between Iran and the P5+1 countries. Iran and the P5+1 conducted negotiations for the next 20 months and agreed on a framework for the final agreement in April 2015. In July 2015, Iran and the P5+1 confirmed the agreement on the plan, as well as the “Roadmap Agreement” between Iran and the IAEA. [8] On August 13, retired Senators Carl Levin of Michigan, a Democrat, and John Warner of Virginia, a Republican, published a commentary on support for the deal, “Why Hawks Should Also Support the Iran Deal,” in Politico. [239] Levin and Warner, both former chairmen of the Senate Armed Services Committee, argued that “if we reject the deal, we risk isolating ourselves and undermining our ability to build the most powerful coalition possible to stop Iran” if military measures were needed in the future. [239] Levin and Warner wrote, “The agreement on the table is a strong agreement in many ways and it maintains the strong deterrence and credibility of a military option. We ask our former colleagues not to take measures that would undermine the deterrent value of a coalition that participates in the use of a military option and can support it. The failure of the United States to accede to the agreement would have this effect. [239] On August 14, retired senators wrote Richard Lugar of Indiana, a Republican, and J. Bennett Johnston of Louisiana, a Democrat, also to support the deal. [240] In a column for Reuters, Lugar and Johnston said, “Rejecting the deal would severely undermine the role of the United States as a trusted leader and partner around the world. If Washington were to move away from this highly competitive multilateral agreement, its reliability would likely be challenged for decades. [240] They also wrote: “Tehran would be the winner of this American rejection, because it would achieve its main objective: the lifting of most sanctions without having to accept restrictions on its nuclear program.
Iran could also call itself a victim of The Treacherous American and try to convince other nations to break with the United States. And with the entire international sanctions regime. [240] This is the first time that the UN Security Council has recognized a developing country`s nuclear enrichment program[134][135] and supported an agreement signed by several countries as part of a resolution (UN Security Council Resolution 2231). [134] [136] For the first time in the history of the UN, a country – Iran – was able to abolish 6 UN resolutions against it – 1696, 1737, 1747, 1803, 1835, 1929 – without implementing them for a day. [134] For the first time, sanctions against Iran were also lifted. [134] The first phase halts the further development of Iran`s nuclear program, resonates with important elements such as the stockpile of uranium enriched to 20%, and requires more comprehensive IAEA oversight and access to nuclear facilities. In return, Iran will benefit from limited sanctions relief, repatriation of limited assets frozen abroad, and a commitment not to impose new nuclear sanctions on Iran for the duration of the deal. Click here for more details on the agreement. 13-16 May 2014: The P5+1 and Iran begin drafting the comprehensive agreement. Sources: [1] “IAEA Director General of the Declaration on Iran”, IAEA, updated January 16, 2016, www.iaea.org.
[2] Joseph Cirincione, Jon Wolfsthal and Miriam Rajkumar, “Iran,” at Deadly Arsenals: Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Threats (Washington, DC, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2005), p. . .
