The nuclear deal with Iran, formally the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), was perhaps the most consequential piece of Middle Eastern diplomacy in decades. Signed in 2015 under President Barack Obama, it sought to dismantle Iran’s uranium enrichment infrastructure in exchange for sanctions relief. But in 2018, President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew from the deal, calling it “the worst ever negotiated” and reimposing crippling sanctions. Now, with Iran’s nuclear program advancing beyond pre-deal levels, the two administrations’ approaches reveal not just a policy difference but a tectonic shift in how the United States projects power.
Obama’s philosophy was rooted in multilateralism and the belief that patient, incremental engagement could rebuild trust and stabilise a volatile region. The JCPOA was the product of years of negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 (the US, UK, France, Russia, China, and Germany). It was a triumph of soft power: a complex, verifiable agreement that capped Iran’s uranium enrichment at 3.67% and drastically reduced its centrifuges. For Obama, the deal was a legacy piece: proof that diplomacy, not bombs, could neutralise a nuclear threat.
Trump’s worldview, by contrast, is transactional and zero-sum. He saw the JCPOA as a giveaway to a theocratic regime that chanted “Death to America” and funded proxy militias across the Middle East. His maximum pressure campaign was designed to force Iran into a more comprehensive deal that would also curb its ballistic missile program and regional aggression. But the withdrawal left the US isolated and gave Iran the pretext to resume enrichment, which it did with a vengeance. Today, Iran enriches uranium at 60%, nearly weapons-grade, and has limited IAEA inspections.
What does this reveal about the shifting nature of US power? The answer is a sobering one. Obama’s approach assumed that US credibility and economic might could enforce a deal even without perfect compliance. But Trump’s unilateralism shattered that assumption, showing that any international agreement is only as strong as the next president’s whim. The JCPOA died not because of a flaw in its design but because of the fragility of US commitment.
Moreover, the episode underscores America’s declining ability to dictate outcomes in the Middle East. In 2015, the US could still assemble a coalition to pressure Iran. By 2020, it was so isolated that it could not even persuade its European allies to follow its lead. The power shift is not just between presidents but from the West to a more multipolar world where Russia, China, and regional actors like Iran and Saudi Arabia play by their own rules.
For the common man, this matters because it affects oil prices, the risk of war, and the global non-proliferation regime. The next president will inherit a far more dangerous Iran: one that is a threshold nuclear state, closer than ever to the bomb. The user experience of society has become one of chronic uncertainty. Trust in the US as a reliable partner is at a low, and the tools of statecraft are blunted.
Technology and innovation, my usual beat, also play a role. Quantum computing could eventually crack encryption that protects nuclear secrets. AI-driven surveillance could detect covert enrichment. But these tools are useless without a political framework to deploy them. The Iran deal is a cautionary lesson: algorithms and diplomacy must coexist.
In the end, the Trump vs Obama saga reveals a deeper truth: American power is not what it was. The question is whether the next leader will rebuild it through multilateral engagement or let it erode further through unilateral bets. The stakes are nuclear, and the clock is ticking.
