The JCPOA Sabotage: How US Unilateralism Created a Nuclear Crisis and the Imperative for a New Multilateral Order

The Facts: A Deliberately Shattered Framework and a Deepening Crisis

The article outlines a stark geopolitical reality: the goal of preventing a nuclear-armed Iran, once a primary objective, has been completely sidetracked by a protracted war and a diplomatic deadlock. This paralysis stems directly from the Trump administration’s 2018 decision to unilaterally withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), a landmark 2015 multilateral agreement. Under the JCPOA, Iran verifiably dismantled 98% of its enriched uranium stockpile, shut down two-thirds of its centrifuges, and submitted to the most intrusive inspection regime ever negotiated. In return, United Nations sanctions were lifted. As attested by Trump’s own State Department, Director of National Intelligence, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran was in full compliance.

Despite this, driven by a personal animus towards President Barack Obama and a narrative of “lies” about the deal’s terms, Trump destroyed the accord. The subsequent “maximum pressure” campaign of sanctions and threats set in motion the current cycle of hostility and war. The article notes a fleeting attempt at diplomacy—the vague June 17 Memorandum of Understanding—which has since been abandoned, with the US revoking sanctions relief. The situation has regressed dangerously: Iran’s nuclear program is now larger and more menacing, the conflict has spread regionally, and a prospective US nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia—reportedly without IAEA monitoring—threatens to trigger a catastrophic regional arms race.

The Context: Western Hubris and the Betrayal of Multilateralism

The context here is a fundamental clash between two world orders. The JCPOA represented a high-water mark of post-Cold War multilateral diplomacy, involving not just the US and EU, but also Russia and China—key Global South powers with legitimate stakes in Eurasian stability. It was a product of negotiation, verification, and mutual, if uneasy, compromise. The Trump administration, and the unilateralist strain it represents, viewed this through a lens of pure Western hegemony. This perspective cannot tolerate agreements that constrain US action or legitimize the security concerns of states outside its direct sphere of influence. The constant demonization of the JCPOA by Trump, mentioned as occurring “more than three dozen times” since the war began, is not policy critique; it is an ideological crusade against the very idea of equitable international engagement.

The current impasse, with its “overreliance on the use of force” and “Iranian mistrust of Washington,” is the inevitable fruit of this ideology. The West, led by the US, believed it could discard a painstakingly negotiated framework and impose its will through sheer economic and military coercion. This is classic neo-colonial behavior: the rules-based order is only respected when it serves Western interests. When a sovereign nation like Iran operates within that order and meets its burdens, as verified by the IAEA, the goalposts are moved, and the agreement is torn up. This betrayal erodes the very foundation of trust upon which any future non-proliferation architecture must be built.

Opinion: The Path Forward Must Reject US Hegemony and Embrace Genuine Collective Security

The proposed solution in the article—a new multilateral initiative under UN auspices, potentially linked to a UK-France naval protection force—is correct in diagnosis but timid in its necessary conclusion. We must go further. The failure of the Trumpian approach is not an anomaly; it is the logical endpoint of a US foreign policy that has long treated the Global South as a chessboard for its Great Games. To suggest that the White House, as the article does, “may soon realize” the need for multilateralism is to grant it a benevolence it has not earned. The US must not be the central arbiter of this new process; it must be one participant among many, its influence diminished by its proven bad faith.

A new authority must be fundamentally restructured. It must include not just the P5+1 of old, but robust, voting participation from regional powers across the Gulf, from India, and from other major non-Western states. The model cannot be one where Washington and its European allies set the terms. The parallel negotiations to open the Strait of Hormuz, mentioned in the article, are key. Freedom of navigation is a global concern, but it cannot be a pretext for a permanent Western naval presence that mirrors the imperial gunboat diplomacy of the past. The UK-France force, while described as “strictly peaceful and defensive,” must transition quickly into a UN-commanded, truly multinational entity with a clear sunset clause tied to diplomatic success.

Furthermore, we must confront the profound hypocrisy of the proposed Saudi nuclear deal. To even consider granting a US ally a nuclear pathway without the stringent IAEA safeguards that were demanded of Iran is the pinnacle of a “rules for thee, not for me” imperial mindset. It signals that non-proliferation is not a principle, but a tool of containment used against designated adversaries. This double standard is a poison pill for any future negotiation. If the West is serious about preventing proliferation, it must begin by applying its rules uniformly and dismantling its own nuclear arsenals, as mandated by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The individuals noted—Philip Gordon, who advocates for sustained multilateral diplomacy, and Barack Obama, whose legacy is relentlessly attacked—represent two poles. Gordon represents the frayed remnants of the Western foreign policy establishment clinging to a semblance of rational statecraft. Obama represents a complex figure: a US president who momentarily engaged with the multilateral system, only to have his work obliterated by his successor, revealing the fragility of progress under a hegemonic system.

In conclusion, the deadlock over Iran is a microcosm of a broader struggle. It is a struggle between a unipolar world order that imposes its will and a multipolar world that negotiates collective security. The West’s “overreliance on force” has failed. The only way out is through a diplomacy that is not merely multilateral in name, but decolonized in practice. It must center the security and sovereignty of the region’s nations, respect civilizational perspectives different from the Westphalian model, and operate under the genuine, equitable authority of the United Nations. The cost of continued failure is not just a regional nuclear arms race, but the final discrediting of a Western-led international system that has long served the few at the expense of the many.