By Ephraim Agbo
The End of an Era: Understanding Termination Day
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal, reached its predetermined expiration date on October 18, 2025—a milestone officially designated as "Termination Day." This expiration represents a critical inflection point in nuclear non-proliferation efforts and Middle Eastern geopolitics. With the deal's termination, Iran has declared itself no longer bound by restrictions on its nuclear program, stating that "all of the provisions of the 2015 deal, including the restrictions on the Iranian nuclear program and the related mechanisms are considered terminated" . This declaration marks the formal conclusion of a decade-long diplomatic experiment that aimed to balance non-proliferation objectives with sanctions relief.
The expiration arrives amid already elevated tensions between Iran and Western powers. The agreement had been effectively crumbling since 2018 when President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew the United States and reimposed stringent sanctions . The subsequent "maximum pressure" campaign fundamentally undermined the economic benefits Iran expected from the deal, prompting Tehran to gradually resume previously restricted nuclear activities. The final nail in the coffin came earlier in 2025 when Britain, France, and Germany triggered the "snapback" mechanism, reinstating suspended UN sanctions . Against this backdrop, Termination Day represents less a sudden rupture than the official burial of an agreement that had been on life support for years.
Historical Context: The Rise and Fall of the JCPOA
The Road to Vienna (2015)
The JCPOA emerged in July 2015 as the culmination of 20 months of intense negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 countries (China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States), facilitated by the European Union . The agreement addressed international concerns about Iran's nuclear program through a carefully crafted bargain: stringent limitations and unprecedented monitoring of Iran's nuclear activities in exchange for comprehensive sanctions relief. The deal was notable not only for its technical complexity but also for breaking a decades-long diplomatic stalemate between Iran and Western powers.
The agreement's provisions reflected a calculated compromise. Iran agreed to dismantle approximately two-thirds of its centrifuges, eliminate 98% of its uranium stockpile, and fill the Arak heavy-water reactor with concrete—measures that would extend Iran's "breakout time" (the time needed to produce enough weapons-grade material for one bomb) from approximately 2-3 months to over a year . In return, international sanctions on Iran's energy, financial, and transportation sectors were lifted, providing crucial economic relief. The multi-tiered sunset provisions established a phased easing of restrictions over 10,15, and 20-year periods, with the core nuclear limitations scheduled to expire in 2025.
The Unraveling (2018-2025)
The unraveling of this carefully constructed agreement began in 2018 with the US withdrawal under the Trump administration. This unilateral move fundamentally altered the agreement's calculus, as Iranian officials noted that the expected economic benefits "never materialized due to the US withdrawal" . Tehran responded with a calculated escalation, gradually resuming prohibited nuclear activities while emphasizing the reversibility of these steps. By 2025, Iran had advanced to enriching uranium to 60% purity and possessed over 400 kilograms of enriched uranium—dramatically reducing the breakout time and raising proliferation concerns.
The final collapse was triggered by the June 2025 military strikes by Israel and the United States on Iranian nuclear facilities, including Fordow, Esfahan, and Natanz . These attacks, which caused significant damage to critical nuclear infrastructure, prompted Iran to suspend all cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and expel inspectors. The European response—activating the snapback mechanism to reimpose UN sanctions—effectively buried any remaining hope for the deal's survival, setting the stage for Termination Day.
Key Restrictions That Have Now Expired
The termination of the JCPOA removes multiple critical constraints on Iran's nuclear program, fundamentally altering the regional security landscape. Perhaps most significantly, all uranium enrichment limitations have been lifted, removing caps on both the level of enrichment and the size of stockpiles . This is particularly consequential given that Iran had already advanced to 60% enrichment—a level that represents a significant step toward weapons-grade capability (typically considered 90%). Additionally, restrictions on centrifuge development and deployment have expired, potentially allowing Iran to ramp up enrichment capacity using more advanced, efficient centrifuges that were previously prohibited.
The expiration also severely undermines the international monitoring regime that provided transparency into Iran's nuclear activities. Under the JCPOA, the IAEA implemented the most extensive inspection protocol in history, with real-time surveillance at key facilities and guaranteed access within 24 hours if suspicious activity was suspected . With the deal's termination, Iran is no longer obligated to maintain this unprecedented access, creating what non-proliferation expert Kelsey Davenport describes as a "serious concern" for verification capabilities . This reduced transparency increases the risk of miscalculation and escalation, as neighboring states and international actors have less visibility into Iran's nuclear advancements.
Regional Implications and Security Concerns
Middle Eastern Nuclear Non-Proliferation at a Crossroads
The expiration of the JCPOA represents a potential crisis point for nuclear non-proliferation in the Middle East. The region has long been characterized by what analysts describe as "nuclear asymmetry"—Israel's undeclared nuclear arsenal existing alongside its neighbors' nominal commitment to non-proliferation . This dynamic has created what some experts term the Begin Doctrine, under which Israel reserves the right to conduct preemptive strikes against nuclear facilities in regional states perceived as threats . The doctrine has been implemented twice before—against Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981 and Syria's suspected facility in 2007—and the June 2025 strikes on Iran's nuclear sites suggest its continued relevance.
The collapse of the JCPOA significantly increases the risk of a regional arms race. As one Guardian analysis notes, "Unless Israel is open about its nuclear weapons and joins the non-proliferation treaty, Iran will one day have the bomb" . This concern is particularly acute among Gulf Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia, which has indicated it would seek to match Iranian nuclear capabilities. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's 2018 statement that "if Iran developed a nuclear weapon, Saudi Arabia would follow suit as soon as possible" reflects the proliferation domino effect that many analysts fear. The absence of a functioning regional security architecture compounds these dangers, creating an environment where security dilemmas intensify and miscalculations could have catastrophic consequences.
Geopolitical Alignments and Divisions
The JCPOA's expiration has also exposed and exacerbated fundamental divisions within the international community. The transatlantic rift between the United States and its European allies that emerged after the 2018 US withdrawal has evolved into a more complex multipolar divide. While the E3 (France, Germany, and the UK) have largely aligned with Washington in advocating for pressure and maintaining sanctions, Russia and China have taken markedly different positions. Both powers have urged continued diplomacy and criticized what they view as "Western pressure campaigns as counterproductive" . This divergence reflects broader geopolitical realignments, with Moscow and Beijing seeking to position themselves as alternative partners for Tehran.
These divisions extend to the UN Security Council, where the snapback mechanism triggered by European powers has been met with resistance from Russia and China. The resulting diplomatic stalemate has effectively paralyzed the multilateral response to Iran's nuclear advancements. As Ali Vaez, the International Crisis Group's Iran project director, notes, the snapback had "officially buried" the agreement, with "its sorry fate continuing to cast a shadow over the future" . This institutional paralysis at the international level contrasts sharply with the increasingly unified regional opposition to Iran's nuclear program, particularly the emerging alignment between Israel and Gulf Arab states.
The Human Impact: How Sanctions Reshaped Iranian Society
Beyond the geopolitical implications, the collapse of the nuclear deal has had profound societal consequences within Iran, particularly for the country's middle class. Research published in the European Journal of Political Economy demonstrates that sanctions have "decimated the economy" and "punished the segment of the Iranian population which has historically pushed for reforms and change" . According to the study, Iran's middle class would have expanded by 17% without sanctions; instead, by 2019, it was 28% smaller than it should have been based on pre-sanctions trends. This represents approximately 9 million people who lost their middle-class status between 2011 and 2019—a staggering social transformation with long-term implications.
This economic pressure has produced what researchers term "Robin Hood in reverse" dynamics—systematically transferring resources from the middle and lower classes to elite segments with connections to state power . As Mohammad Reza Farzanegan, a professor of Middle East economics at the University of Marburg, explains, "The rest of society is left to compete for declining resources in a diminishing economy. The result is a society with increasing inequality and perception of inequality" . This economic reality is palpable to ordinary Iranians like Elham, a schoolteacher in Tehran, who observes that "you can feel the difference between rich and poor more than ever; everything has become expensive, whether it's bread or chicken" .
The erosion of the middle class has significant political implications beyond the immediate humanitarian concerns. Historically, Iran's middle class has served as the "backbone of the reform movement," driving demands for political accountability and civil liberties . As economic pressures force this segment to focus on daily survival, their "capacity for organized, long-term political engagement is severely diminished" . This dynamic strengthens hardline elements while weakening moderate and reformist voices, creating a feedback loop that further reduces the prospects for diplomatic resolution. The political mantle has consequently shifted "from a middle-class demand for rights and reforms to a working-class cry for survival and bread" —a transition with profound implications for Iran's domestic political trajectory.
The Path Forward: Diplomatic Options and Conflict Risks
Prospects for Diplomatic Resolution
The diplomatic landscape following Termination Day is characterized by both significant obstacles and potential pathways forward. Iran has repeatedly emphasized its continued "commitment to diplomacy" while establishing clear preconditions for any future negotiations. Tehran insists that any new agreement must recognize Iran's right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, remove all sanctions without preconditions, and provide guarantees against unilateral withdrawal by future governments . These demands reflect lessons learned from the JCPOA experience, particularly the vulnerability of agreements to domestic political shifts in the United States.
The European powers face particular challenges in resurrecting diplomacy after triggering the snapback mechanism. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has stated that Tehran does "not see any reason to negotiate" with the Europeans given their decision to reimpose sanctions . This positions Russia and China as potentially more credible mediators, though their influence remains limited by broader geopolitical tensions with Western powers. The Biden administration, meanwhile, faces the dilemma of how to engage with a country it simultaneously strikes militarily—a contradiction that Iranian officials frequently highlight. As Ali Vaez notes, "Iran remains sceptical of the utility of engaging with the US given its history with President Trump, while Washington still seeks a maximalist deal" .
Escalation Scenarios and Conflict Risks
The most alarming near-term risk is the potential for further military escalation. The June 2025 strikes established a dangerous precedent of direct attacks on nuclear facilities—actions the IAEA has consistently warned "should never take place" due to risks of "radioactive releases with grave consequences within and beyond the boundaries of the State which has been attacked" . With reduced IAEA monitoring and Iran potentially advancing its program more rapidly, the incentives for preventive military action—particularly by Israel—could increase significantly. The already narrow breakout time of approximately one month for several weapons creates a sense of urgency that could override diplomatic patience.
The regional escalation dynamics are equally concerning. The conflict has increasingly drawn in multiple actors through proxy networks, arms transfers, and direct military involvement. As the Guardian analysis notes, "The reckless decisions of these leaders did not take place in a vacuum" but rather reflect "the roots of major conflicts [that] often reach back decades" . The expiration of the UN arms embargo under the original JCPOA timeline—and its subsequent reinstatement via snapback—has created additional legal ambiguities that could facilitate further militarization. In this environment, what IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi describes as the "window of opportunity to return to dialogue and diplomacy" appears to be narrowing rapidly, raising the stakes for all involved parties.
Conclusion: A Paradigm Shift in Nuclear Diplomacy
The expiration of the JCPOA represents more than just the failure of a single arms control agreement—it signifies a broader crisis in the international non-proliferation regime. As Grossi warned the UN Security Council in June 2025, "The nuclear non-proliferation regime that has underpinned international security for more than half a century is on the line" . The collapse of the Iran deal occurs alongside challenges to other cornerstone agreements like the New START treaty, creating a dangerous environment of strategic competition without adequate guardrails.
The legacy of the JCPOA offers sobering lessons for future diplomatic efforts. The agreement demonstrated both the possibilities and limitations of technical solutions to fundamentally political problems. While the JCPOA successfully established a verifiable, restrictions-based framework for managing Iran's nuclear program, it proved unable to withstand shifting geopolitical currents and domestic political changes in participant states. This suggests that future arrangements may require more robust institutionalization—potentially through treaty ratification rather than political agreements—and broader regional security components that address the concerns of all stakeholders.
Ultimately, the post-Termination Day landscape presents a stark choice between escalation and dialogue. The military strikes, sanctions, and diplomatic paralysis of recent years have failed to curb Iran's nuclear advancements or moderate its regional behavior. Whether the international community can devise a more effective approach—one that addresses legitimate non-proliferation concerns while acknowledging Iran's security interests and economic needs—will determine whether the Middle East moves toward greater stability or more dangerous confrontation. As the IAEA's warning makes clear, the failure of diplomacy could lead to the crumbling of "the global non-proliferation regime as we know it" —an outcome that would make all parties less secure.
No comments:
Post a Comment