[tristanj]

JCPOA only had temporary enrichment limits, which would end in 2030, after which Iran could enrich freely. It did not permanently stop enrichment.

If JCPOA was followed by both Iran and the US to the letter, we would face a similar crisis to the one seen today, except around 2031-2035.

[defrost]

Unless agreements are renegotiated and extended, of course.

What matters is ongoing engagement and monitoring, it's a far more tractable position than standoffs with zero knowledge or interaction.

[tristanj]

The core reason those sunset dates exist is because Iranian officials stated that a sunset on enrichment limits was a non-negotiable. They would not sign a deal without them.

Claiming "agreements are renegotiated and extended" is hypothetical. What incentive does Iran have to agree to enrichment caps post-2030? Why would Iran give up its strongest negotiating card, its nuclear program?

[cosmicgadget]

For the same reasons it temporarily gave it up before?

[tristanj]

Under JCPOA, Iran capped its nuclear program for 15 years in exchange for:

* Global sanctions relief

* $100-150 billion in frozen assets

* Access to the global oil market

Iran in 2030 under JCPOA already has access to all three. The US already played its best cards to get Iran to agree to JCPOA. The US has little new to offer, other than resumed sanctions.

[no-name-here]

Under a JCPOA extension, why would items like access to the global oil markets (in addition to sanctions) not be part of the negotiations?

And with JCPOA and its possible continuation, that was a joint agreement among a number of countries - in the current situation, it’s just the U.S. trying to impose its will on other countries to go along with any carrots/sticks.

[cosmicgadget]

Well yes, exactly. Would sanctions not be an incentive in 2030?