On the campaign trail in 2020, President Joe Biden promised a renewal of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). In exchange for reduced sanctions to the tune of several billion dollars, Iran dismantled most of its nuclear program and allowed international inspections. The JCPOA was reached in July 2015 between Iran, the European Union, China, Russia, and the United States. It intended to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and preclude nuclear confrontations between Iran and its regional rivals, Israel and Saudi Arabia. Both Israel and Saudi Arabia have indicated they would counter Iranian armament, and a nuclear Iran could exert more influence across the Middle East, using its nuclear arsenal as a backstop.
Rex Tillerson, the Secretary of State under former President Donald Trump in 2018, certified in a statement to Congress, “that Iran is compliant through April 18 with its commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.” Iranian compliance with the JCPOA ameliorated diplomatic tensions on one core pillar of political rivalry in the Middle East. Despite its efficacy, Trump called the agreement “the worst deal ever negotiated,” and withdrew from the agreement in 2018.
As President, Biden put Iran on the backburner, choosing to instead focus on the Covid-19 pandemic and American withdrawal from Afghanistan. In 2022, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced that Iran’s response to a new nuclear deal proposal by the European Union was “not constructive” and accused Iran of stepping away from the negotiating table.
In 2023, Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee “I don’t think anyone sees that there’s any chance in the current environment to go back to the JCPOA.” Three years into Biden’s term, conditions in the Middle East have deteriorated. Iran is sponsoring groups opposing U.S. interests in Palestine, Yemen, Lebanon, and beyond. In response to the steady flow of American weapons to Israel, Iran sponsored 170 attacks on U.S. military bases across Syria, Iraq, and Jordan. Although the U.S. and Iran were able to arrange a $6 billion cash-for-hostages deal in 2023, Campbell still told the Senate “We must isolate them diplomatically, internationally.” The deal is dead. Even if it can be revived, it may be too late.
In the years since Trump withdrew from JCPOA, Iran has broken almost all conditions of the agreement. By 2023, Iran enriched uranium to 84%, far above the 4% allowed and nearly suitable for a nuclear warhead. In addition to constructing faster, more complex centrifuges to enrich uranium, Tehran shut off cameras used by U.N. regulators to monitor their nuclear centrifuges. Just this year, Iranian officials deviated from longstanding protocol by publicly declaring that Iran had the capability to build nuclear weapons, or in some extreme cases, that it already had. Biden failed to deliver on his promise to renew the JCPOA, but it may not have mattered, as regional conditions are pushing Iran towards nuclear armament regardless of U.S. policy.
Kurt Campbell’s comments indicate that Biden plans to use a containment strategy to ride out his term, but it is unclear how America’s strategy to fend off a belligerent Iran will change post-election. Both candidates have Iran policies that are opaque, hard to pin down, and wildly difficult. By now, Trump and Harris must understand that no president in the last 50 years has been able to fully escape addressing the Iran problem.
Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris has toed the party line on Iran. She described JCPOA as “the best existing tool we have to avoid a disastrous military conflict in the Middle East,” and her voting history on Israel would make a New York moderate proud. In her opening remarks at the presidential debate this September, Harris proclaimed, “I will never hesitate to take whatever action is necessary to defend our forces and our interests against Iran and Iran-backed terrorists.” We haven’t heard too many specifics, but this may work to her advantage, allowing Harris to adapt her policy to match the rapid pace of the Middle East without committing to any policy too soon.
In the debate, Trump touted his record as a no-nonsense negotiator and reiterated his plan to implement harsh sanctions on America’s rivals. However, he stopped short of committing to the “maximum pressure” Iran policy that began with the end of JCPOA and continued through his time in office. Like Harris, Trump seems to be hedging his bets on the Middle East.
For both candidates, defining an Iran policy too early could spell political disaster. But wait too long, and they risk suffering from the same indecision that doomed Biden. A clear policy to address nuclear armament in Iran seems like a campaign taboo, but it will be one of the first things across the desk of the Oval Office for whoever wins in November.
Toby Zimmerman ‘26 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at t.zimmerman@wustl.edu.