July 14, the anniversary of the JCPOA’s adoption, has been designated in Iran’s official calendar as “The day of dialogue and constructive interaction with the world.” Yet today, exactly ten years after that historic event, Iran finds itself in a unique situation: emerging from a full-scale 12-day war with the United States and Israel and entering a fragile ceasefire. In such circumstances, does revisiting the JCPOA experience still hold meaning? The answer is undoubtedly yes.
Regardless of its turbulent fate, the JCPOA was one of the most complex, costly, and symbolic diplomatic experiences in Iran’s history. Today, in a post-war context, a precise and strategic review of it can serve as a mirror for policymakers to avoid repeating past mistakes, to recognize opportunities that were missed despite being within reach, and to redefine the path of constructive and sustainable engagement with realism.
JCPOA: The Birth of Hope, the Death of an Illusion
The JCPOA was signed in July 2015 after more than two years of intensive negotiations between Iran and the P5+1. These negotiations, led by an experienced team of Iranian diplomats, were intended to resolve the nuclear challenge between Iran and the West through dialogue and to lift the economic restrictions imposed by international sanctions. Many, both inside and outside the country, viewed the JCPOA as a turning point in Iran’s history of engagement with the world.
However, this agreement, which was expected to bring economic opening, sanctions relief, and normalized relations, quickly encountered bitter realities that were underestimated at the outset. With Donald Trump’s rise to power in the United States and Washington’s unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA on May 8, 2018, the fragile structure of the agreement collapsed, and crippling sanctions returned.
The fundamental point here is that the JCPOA collapsed even though Iran had remained committed to its obligations. This dealt a severe blow to public confidence in “engagement with the West” and raised a strategic question: Is engagement with the world possible when the other side disregards the most basic principles of trust and contractual commitment?
The recent 12-day war between Iran and US-Israeli forces, involving direct military attacks on Iran and Tehran’s retaliatory responses, marked the pinnacle of this realism. This was not a proxy war but a full-scale, direct, and overt conflict, demonstrating that the United States and the West view negotiations as a low-cost tool to impose their will on independent countries. And when this seemingly legal and diplomatic approach fails to yield submission, the other side of the coin—revealing their true face as masters of coercion and extortion—emerges, seeking to achieve their goals through war, bloodshed, intimidation, and threats. Yet the 12-day war, despite all its costs, conveyed a clear message: the Islamic Republic, whether at the negotiating table or on the battlefield, will not abandon its legal rights and will not retreat from any front without securing real benefits.
The current ceasefire, as a diplomatic opportunity, must be understood in light of the JCPOA experience. It is clearer than ever that while the Islamic Republic of Iran is open to engagement with the world, it will not accept just any engagement. Today, what is a priority for Iran and its people is an engagement based on a balance of power, preservation of national dignity, and guarantees that are verifiable.
What Should Be Learned from the JCPOA?
The West only grants concessions in the face of power. The JCPOA showed that without leverage—whether in diplomacy or military deterrence—the West will not agree to a fair deal. The JCPOA was signed at a time when Iran possessed 20% uranium enrichment capabilities.
Trusting the United States in long-term agreements is a strategic mistake. Policymakers must accept that US foreign policy does not depend on Democrats or Republicans. Just as Obama agreed to the deal and Trump tore it up, any future president can revoke a new agreement unless it is backed by firm legal and practical guarantees.
Diplomacy without an economic backbone is fragile. During the JCPOA era, Iran faced structural economic problems—from inefficient banks to widespread corruption and weak governance. These weaknesses meant that even during the JCPOA’s implementation, there were no significant economic gains.
The people must be beneficiaries of engagement, not merely spectators. One key mistake during the JCPOA’s implementation was excessive focus on government-to-government relations. Sustainable engagement with the world requires public diplomacy, public trust-building, and transparency in domestic benefits.
If “The day of dialogue and constructive interaction with the world” is to be more than just a slogan on the calendar, the country’s foreign policy must be reexamined. Today, the post-war situation is a historic opportunity for the nation’s elites, officials, and people to view engagement through the lens of realism and lessons learned.
Three Strategic Principles for Future Engagement
Regional and Eurasian-oriented engagement. Instead of focusing solely on the West, Iran should base its strategy on sustainable cooperation with the East, neighboring countries, and emerging powers such as China, India, and Russia. The JCPOA experience showed that the West is not a reliable economic partner.
Conditional engagement with the West. The recent ceasefire demonstrated that diplomatic respect is not gained without military might. Therefore, in engaging with the West, Iran must maintain the principle of “balance of power” and enter any negotiations with clear preconditions.
Economic diplomacy serving national resilience. Without rebuilding the domestic economy, no foreign agreement will remain sustainable. Thus, engagement with the world must serve to resolve bottlenecks in domestic production, trade, and employment.
Ten years after the JCPOA’s signing, and only days after a heavy war, Iran stands at a historic crossroads. It is time to approach engagement not with naïve enthusiasm but with strategic intelligence—not with simple-minded optimism, but with analysis of experiences, costs, and opportunities. If engagement with the world is to remain a strategy of the Islamic Republic, it must be built upon power, wisdom, and public support. The JCPOA, regardless of its positives and negatives, has permanently engraved this crucial lesson in our national memory.
NOURNEWS