ConflictClarifier

מעקב משבר איראן-המפרץ 2026
CC
Events Archive
strikeApr 10, 2026

Analysis: Will Trump get a worse Iran deal than Obama? Here’s what to know | CNN Politics

Summary

A version of this story appeared in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here. The contrasts are remarkable. One president chose diplomacy. Barack Obama and a large international coalition negotiated a deal with Iran to shelve its nuclear program for a decade over the objections of an outraged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who came to Congress in 2015 to speak out against the deal and the American president. Another president chose war. Donald Trump, years after tearing Obama’s deal into shreds, and after becoming frustrated with talks for a new nuclear deal, brought Netanyahu into the White House Situation Room, according to a New York Times report. The Israeli prime minister sat across the table from the US president and sold him on a sneak attack against Iran without consulting allies in Europe or the Middle East. Now the US needs a deal with Iran to end the war The war has not gone exactly according to Trump’s plan, however. The US and Israel did achieve their goals of compromising Iran’s military, as well as its naval and missile capabilities. But Iran’s nuclear material is still in the country, albeit apparently buried underground, and the Islamic Republic has seized control over the Strait of Hormuz, discovering a new piece of leverage over the world economy. However the war with Iran ultimately ends — talks will get underway in Islamabad, Pakistan, on Saturday to try to build on a fragile ceasefire — Trump will want to declare that the outcome is better than what his predecessor Obama achieved without going to war. Obama’s nuclear deal is inside Trump’s head Trump rarely talks about Iran without trashing Obama and the 2015 nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA. “Barack Hussein Obama — what he did, where he gave them the Iran nuclear deal, gave them free will toward a nuclear weapon. Basically, he chose Iran over Israel and others that didn’t want him to do it,” Trump said at a March 26 Cabinet meeting. He repeated the sentiment that Obama chose Iran over Israel at an April 6 news conference. “If I didn’t come along and terminate the Obama deal, which was terrible, the Iran nuclear deal was a — a road to a nuclear weapon,” Trump said. “A big one, unlimited.” Trump also likes to talk about the fact that as the deal was finalized, the US dispatched a planeload of cash — $400 million in cash, much of it Swiss francs — to Iran. The money was actually repayment of Iranian funds frozen decades earlier, but it dovetailed with adoption of the nuclear deal and release of Americans in Iranian prison, including the Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian. That planeload of cash — and the billions Iran got in unfrozen assets and from selling oil while the JCPOA was active — could ultimately be dwarfed by tolls Iran may now demand to end the war. These new funds could include tolls charged to ships for passing through the Strait of Hormuz, money from unfrozen assets or revenue from lifting of sanctions. What was in the JCPOA (what Trump calls Obama’s deal)? The JCPOA had a hard-to-remember name and it was a complicated piece of diplomacy. The multifaceted agreement was signed by Iran, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council — US, China, Russia, France, the UK — plus Germany and the EU. The general outline of the JCPOA, which had international support but was controversial in the US when it was reached, was that Iran would limit its nuclear ambitions, cap its uranium enrichment and allow international inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to inspect its sites in exchange for the lifting of some sanctions on its oil wealth and unfreezing billions in frozen Iranian assets. Netanyahu was so alarmed about the deal that, in an unprecedented move, he addressed Congress in 2015 in an attempt to spike Obama’s deal on US soil. Trump ultimately did withdraw the US from the deal in 2018 during his first term. While other countries tried to continue with the deal, Iran ultimately violated terms and the deal fell apart, although both the Joe Biden and Trump 2.0 administrations tried to restart negotiations. Trump launched the war on Iran after talks to reach a new nuclear deal fell through, though one foreign diplomat involved with those talks said a breakthrough was “within our reach.” And now, after more than a month of war, Trump is again looking for an Iran deal of his own. A lot has happened in the past decade The JCPOA was from a very different time, according to Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association. For starters, the IAEA and the US intelligence community in 2018 agreed that while the JCPOA was in place, Iran did not appear to be seeking nuclear weapons capability, and it was generally abiding by the restrictions in the deal, although it continued to support terror groups and maintained ballistic missile capabilities. Iran increased nuclear program after Trump abandoned JCPOA At the urging of Israel, Trump in his first term reneged on the JCPOA for the US, which he did not believe was good for the country. A year after Trump abandoned the old deal, Iran again began obviously developing its nuclear program in earnest, further enriching uranium and building out nuclear sites. At the same time, it continued to say it would abide by the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and not pursue nuclear weapons. “Looking forward, any new agreement with Iran to constrain its nuclear capacity is going to have to look different from the JCPOA, but there will likely be some similar elements,” Kimball told me earlier this month. Key among the similarities, in his view, will have to be an insistence on IAEA inspectors to verify that Iran is complying with any potential deal. Trump has a maximalist view of demands. Rather than limit uranium enrichment, he wants Iran to abandon it and to hand over its existing stockpiles to the US. But Iran has new leverage Iran has also now found, as a result of the US and Israeli-launched war, that it has power over the world economy by controlling the Strait of Hormuz, which ordinarily carries about a fifth of global oil and natural gas supplies and a third of the world’s urea fertilizer exports. “What this war has done is handed Iran a weapon that is far more usable than nuclear weapons, which is the Strait of Hormuz choking off global supplies,” CNN’s Fareed Zakaria told Anderson Cooper this week. Even before addressing Iran’s nuclear capabilities, any deal to the end the war will need to include reopening the strait, according to retired Gen. David Petraeus, the former CIA director. “That is, I think, the central issue,” he told CNN’s Dana Bash on Thursday. Some Iranian demands will be nonstarters, like withdrawing US forces from military bases in the region or acknowledging Iran’s right to enrich uranium. Others are more negotiable. But the new issue of Strait of Hormuz traffic offers Iran power and potentially a financial lifeline, a sort of Panama Canal where they are charging tolls. “If it’s $2 million per vessel, which is reportedly what some companies have been paying to transit, and you multiply that times 100 or more ships a day, that is a very substantial amount of hard currency to enable Iran to repair the extraordinary damage that has been done (to their military),” Petraeus said. Was a breakthrough at hand before Trump launched the war? Trump attacked Iran in late February because he felt it was not serious in negotiations to reach a new nuclear deal, although that conclusion was contradicted by one of the mediators. Omani Foreign Minister Sayyid Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi appeared on CBS’ “Face the Nation” just before the attacks commenced and said Iran had agreed to major concessions. The day before Trump kicked off the war, Al Busaidi said Iran had agreed to giving up its stockpiles of enriched uranium by irreversibly downgrading their enrichment below current levels, which are close to what would be needed for a nuclear weapon. “There would be zero accumulation, zero stockpiling, and full verification. That is also equally important achievement, I think,” Al Busaidi said. Trump’s team saw Iranian intransigence Trump’s chief negotiator, special envoy Steve Witkoff, had a very different view of those pre-war talks, which he shared at the March 26 Cabinet meeting. Iran, Witkoff said, believes it has “the inalienable right to enrich.” Witkoff also said the Iranians made clear “they would not give up diplomatically what we could not win militarily.” The US may not have understood what was on the table Kimball said Witkoff and his negotiating partner, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, may not have understood the significance of the concessions Iran was willing to make. “Witkoff was too — I’m going to say a strong word: incompetent — and technically ill-informed to understand the significance of what was on the table,” Kimball said. Now Witkoff and Kushner are joining Vice President JD Vance for new talks in Islamabad. So the US must still ultimately negotiate with whatever leaders it can find in Iran. The regime has maintained that, as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran is within its legal ability to enrich uranium for an energy program. In exchange for putting that aside, the regime is likely, just as in the Obama era, to insist on the lifting of sanctions on Iran’s oil. But now Iran will also want to formalize its control of the Strait of Hormuz, which means the regime could have more power than it did before.

Actors involved

USIsraelIranUNEURussiaChina

Sources

  • Zachary B WolfBy Zachary B Wolf

    A version of this story appeared in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here. The contrasts are remarkable. One president chose diplomacy. Barack Obama and a large international coalition negotiated a deal with Iran to shelve its nuclear progr

See this event through different lenses

Compare how Western, Iranian, Israeli, Global South, and Pro-Peace perspectives frame this event.

Compare Perspectives

Community Notes

Community Notes

Loading notes...

Related events

strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranUN
1 source

The US and its allies Britain, France and Germany are pushing other countries on the UN nuclear watchdog's board to pass a resolution next week reporting Iran to the UN Security Council for the first time in 20 years, diplomats said on Friday. If passed, the resolution would follow up on one adopted on June 12 of last year declaring Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for not fully cooperating with an investigation into uranium traces found at undeclared sites.

The US launched an air war against Tehran on February 28 in which, together with Israel, it destroyed or badly damaged Iran's uranium-enrichment facilities. Iran has not let International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors return to the bombed sites since then or verify what remains of its stocks of enriched uranium, some of which was enriched to up to 60% purity, a short step from weapons grade.

Resolution would be culmination of standoff over IAEA's access to nuclear sites A resolution by the IAEA's 35-nation board reporting Iran to the Security Council would also be the culmination of a standoff over IAEA access to those sites, since the board has passed two resolutions in the past year demanding Iran declare its enriched uranium stocks and grant the IAEA full access to verify them.

A draft text for the resolution has yet to be formally submitted to the board and negotiations between countries over the exact wording are ongoing, diplomats said. A draft is usually formally submitted early in the week of a board meeting. As a party to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran has the right to develop nuclear technology, including enrichment, for peaceful purposes.

Iran says it would never produce nuclear weapons. It is, however, the only country to enrich to 60% without making a bomb. The amount it has enriched to that level is "a matter of serious concern" to the IAEA. The IAEA believes well over 200 kg of that highly enriched uranium has survived the bombardments and is held in a tunnel complex at Isfahan and at the Natanz facility.

Location: Jerusalem
strikeUnverifiedUSIranChina
1 source

The U.S. Treasury imposed sanctions on the Turkish bank Golden Global Yatirim Bankasi Anonim Sirketi, alleging it facilitated the transfer of Iranian oil revenues into cash and gold. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated these measures are part of "Operation Economic Outcast," an initiative launched following more than six months of conflict to pressure Iran.

Location: Iran
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranEURussiaChinaUkraineHamas
1 source

Rabobank reported that geopolitical developments, including Russian statements regarding potential peace talks in Ukraine and US-Iran hostilities, continue to dominate market sentiment, though analysts noted these claims remain unverified. The bank also cited unconfirmed reports that South Korea may deploy forces to the Strait of Hormuz and that Israel has stated regime change in Tehran is a primary objective, while noting that Ukrainian media reports of an impending northern Russian offensive lack independent verification.

Location: Tehran
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranRussiaUkraine
1 source

The White House is now apparently using Russian tactics to convince the American public that the war in Iran is not, in fact, a war. When asked by reporters at the White House on Thursday whether the most intense sustained air campaign by American forces since the invasion of Iraq would be over by the midterms, Vice President JD Vance replied: “I wouldn’t call it a war.

” Vladimir Putin said much the same thing when he invaded Ukraine. Russia was not fighting a war either, the Kremlin insisted; it was merely conducting a “special military operation.” If that comparison strikes you as shocking, consider the contours of the two conflicts.

A vastly more powerful military launched a punishing offensive against a smaller, less well-equipped adversary, inflicted enormous damage without achieving a decisive resolution, and then found itself drawn into a longer, grinding conflict with no clear way out.

The motivations behind the wars may be different, and they’re playing out in different theaters, but the pattern is eerily similar. Now, so too is the attempt by those in power to control how the public understands, and even what it is allowed to call, the obvious war unfolding in front of them.

If This Isn’t a War, What Is? Let us take a moment to assess what exactly has happened since February 28, when the U.S. launched Operation Epic Fury. The opening U.S.-Israeli attack killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, along with the commander of the Revolutionary Guard, the defense minister and various other senior officials.

According to the U.S. military’s own accounting, the first 38 days of major combat operations involved more than 10,200 sorties and 13,500 strikes. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) says those attacks damaged or destroyed more than 85 percent of Iran’s ballistic missile, drone and naval defense industrial base, while knocking out 82 percent of its air-defense missile systems.

The U.S. sent carrier strike groups and warships into the region, later imposing a military blockade on Iranian ports. Meanwhile, American and allied air defenses intercepted more than 6,000 Iranian attack drones and 1,500 ballistic missiles fired at U.

S. forces, Israel and American partners across the Middle East. More than 50,000 U.S. service members remain deployed across the region. The fighting has killed 18 U.S. service members and at least 8,000 people across Iran, Lebanon, Israel and the Gulf states.

More than 750 U.S. service members have been wounded. Last month, during a lull in the fighting, the U.S. Treasury unveiled a sanctions package likened to an “economic D-day” that is designed to make Iran an “economic outcast” and cut the adversary off from all available forms of economic support.

In the announcement, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent openly declared that Iran had been “at war against America” for 47 years. This week, the shooting resumed; the U.S. hit targets in and around the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran blasted missiles at targets in Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan and Iraq.

All this from an administration that almost exactly a year ago launched a rapid rebrand of the Defense Department into the “Department of War”. No boots on the ground, though, so it’s not a war, right? Tell It Kind of Like It Is Even the very best snake-oil salesman would have a hard time convincing people that the war in Iran isn’t a war.

So why is JD Vance even trying? Well, if there’s one thing politicians understand better than anyone, it’s the importance of language and rhetoric. Words have immense power; a well-written speech can unite millions of people, and a catchy slogan like Make America Great Again can come to represent an entire political philosophy.

But war is a pesky word. For one, it implies there will eventually be a winner and a loser. It also brings with it certain expectations—and some very difficult questions. What is the objective? How many people will die? When will it end? And, perhaps most dangerously of all: was it worth it?

Those are not questions the White House wants Americans to be asking. Trump built a substantial part of his political identity around ending, rather than beginning, America’s “endless wars.” When Washington and Tehran signed a memorandum of understanding in June, the White House presented it as proof that Trump’s America First approach could deliver peace without another prolonged Middle Eastern conflict.

Then the hostilities started again. Earlier this week, Trump shared a Truth Social graphic declaring that “Hormuz Oil Volumes are BACK!”, saying 18 million barrels a day were once again leaving the Strait, compared with 20 million before the war. No independent commodity tracking company or energy analyst appeared to verify Trump’s claims.

But most Americans won’t be checking tanker-tracking dashboards. What they’ll care about is the cold, hard fact that diesel hit a new record price this morning, soaring to an average of $5.85 a gallon for the first time ever. Gasoline is $4.15 a gallon on average, compared with $3.

20 at this time last year, according to AAA. The numbers on the sign at the gas station and the price on the grocery receipt aren’t affected by Trump’s tall tales, but they’ll surely affect how Americans vote at the midterms. When viewed in this light, Vance’s attempt to discourage reporters from “call[ing] it a war” begins to make sense.

A war is something that we want to end. It tends to result in a winner and a loser. And its worth is up for debate at all times. A different kind of engagement that doesn’t quite meet the threshold of war—say, a special military operation—is not exposed to the same kind of scrutiny.

Vance effectively made that case himself. “When you ask, ‘When will this end?’ You’re asking me a question like, ‘When will the Iranians stop shooting at ships?’” he said. By that logic, there is no American war—only recurring Iranian provocations that require American military responses.

That’s exactly the logic applied by Putin to Ukraine and supposed expansion of NATO. Putting the Toothpaste Back in the Tube U.S. lawmakers have repeatedly invoked the War Powers Resolution to challenge Trump’s authority to keep fighting Iran without specific congressional authorization.

The law generally gives a president 60 days after U.S. forces enter “hostilities” to secure congressional approval or bring those hostilities to an end. That makes the pauses in fighting hugely important. When the original 60-day deadline arrived in May, Trump told Congress that the temporary ceasefire reached in April meant the hostilities that began on February 28 had ended.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth argued that the War Powers clock could “pause, or stop” when the shooting did. That position is disputed by legal experts, but its political utility is obvious. If every new outbreak of fighting can be treated as a separate skirmish, rather than part of one continuous war, the administration can argue that a fresh 60-day clock starts each time.

Vance’s insistence that there is no continuing “war” fits neatly for an administration that has already tried to divide six months of conflict into separate periods of hostilities, interrupted by ceasefires and pauses. This brings us back to Moscow.

The Kremlin’s own linguistic trick was also about making one sprawling war sound smaller, more limited and more manageable than it really was. From the very beginning of the invasion, Putin described the war as a special military operation. Only after two years of grinding warfare did Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov openly declare Russia to be in a “state of war”—and even then, he said the transformation had occurred because the “collective West” had joined the fight against Russia.

Vance is playing a similar game, but in reverse. Only now—with soaring fuel prices, mounting casualties, concerns over the military’s munitions stockpiles, and midterm elections on the horizon—is the conflict no longer a war. You can’t put the genie back in the bottle, though, and the American people aren’t stupid.

Vance and the White House may discover in November that voters are perfectly capable of recognizing a war, even when the vice president doesn’t want to call it one.

Location: Iran