David Morrison
Letter to The Times by Sir Simon Cass, former British ambassador to Iran and former head of the UK team negotiating the JCPoA
Sir, Binyamin Netanyahu is anxious to persuade us that Iran was on the cusp of possessing a nuclear weapon. Leaving on one side the accuracy of that assertion, it is worth remembering that in 2015 a group of six countries, including the UK, negotiated with Iran the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA) — an agreement that, if it were in force today, would restrict Iran to a mere 300kg of uranium enriched to no more than 3.67 per cent, far from the quantity or purity needed for a nuclear weapon.
The agreement included an inspection regime of unprecedented intrusiveness to ensure Iran was not cheating. In return, Iran was promised relief from international economic sanctions.
Israel lobbied ferociously against this deal: Netanyahu described it as “capitulation”. That lobbying helped to persuade Republican legislators to oppose the deal and contributed to President Trump’s decision to collapse it in 2017.
The US never met the obligations that I heard being solemnly given to Iranian negotiators. Iran has plenty to answer for. But Israel would not be in its present position if the JCPoA was still in force.
Iran: one of the original signatories to the NPT
Iran was one of the original signatories to the NPT, the internationally accepted rules-based system governing nuclear activity by states. It signed the NPT as a ‘non-nuclear-weapon’ state on 1 July 1968 and, by so doing, undertook not to develop nuclear weapons. It hasn’t done so. As required by the NPT, Iran’s nuclear facilities are and always have been under IAEA supervision and the IAEA has never detected any diversion of nuclear material from these nuclear facilities for possible military use.
In March this year, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard told the US Senate Intelligence Committee:
“The IC [Intelligence Community] continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.”
The US intelligence community has been saying this every year since November 2007, when President George Bush received an assessment to this effect.
In his memoir, Decision Points, President Bush said that he was “angry” when he received this assessment (Kindle edition, p419), “angry” because it “tied my hands on the military side”, he said. After this assessment, he asked: “how could I possibly explain using the military to destroy the nuclear facilities of a country the intelligence community said had no active nuclear weapons program?” President Trump didn’t draw the same conclusion as his predecessor.
Possession of nuclear weapons a “grave sin”
Iran’s leaders have repeatedly denied that they have any ambitions to develop nuclear weapons. What is more, in a speech to nuclear scientists on 22 February 2012, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, declared the possession of such weapons a “grave sin”. There was nothing new in this statement: in 2005, he issued a fatwa – a religious edict – saying that “the production, stockpiling, and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that the Islamic Republic of Iran shall never acquire these weapons”.
Of course, this is not an absolute constraint on Iran developing nuclear weapons, but it’s unlikely that the religious authorities in Iran would modify this principle unless Iran was perceived to be under an existential threat, most plausibly, after having been attacked by Israel and/or the US.
An ‘inalienable right’ to uranium enrichment
In return for surrendering their right to develop nuclear weapons, the NPT grants ‘non-nuclear-weapon’ states like Iran the right to develop nuclear facilities for peaceful purposes. Article IV(1) of the Treaty makes this clear:
“Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.”
So, on the face of it, the NPT gives all ‘non-nuclear-weapon’ states what it calls an ‘inalienable right’ to uranium enrichment on their own soil so long as they conform to Article II, that is, so long as enrichment is not for weapons manufacture. That was the official position of the US when it joined the NPT in 1968. Today, Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Japan and the Netherlands are all in the same position as Iran. They are all ‘non-nuclear-weapon’ state parties to the NPT. And all of them have uranium enrichment facilities without being accused of breaching the NPT.
John Kerry was Chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee from 2009 to 2013, when he became President Obama’s Secretary of State and led for the US in the JCPoA negotiations. He told the Financial Times on 10 June 2009 that Iran had “a right to peaceful nuclear power and to enrichment in that purpose” and he went on to describe the Bush administration’s “no enrichment” approach to negotiations as “bombastic diplomacy” that “wasted energy” and “hardened the lines”.
US tried to force Iran to cease enrichment
Nevertheless, for a decade prior to the signing of the JCPoA in 2015, the Bush and Obama administrations tried, with the backing of the EU, to force Iran to cease uranium enrichment. If the US/EU had gotten their way, Iran would have been the only state in the world which was banned from having uranium enrichment facilities on its own soil.
As part of this enforcement campaign, from January 2012 onwards the Obama administration unilaterally imposed severe economic sanctions on Iran which sought to prevent it from engaging in international trade, especially the export of oil. These sanctions owed their existence to legislation passed by the US Congress in December 2011 at the behest of the Israeli lobby in the US, legislation which was accepted by President Obama. The EU joined in, unilaterally banning imports of Iranian oil from June 2012 onwards.
However, despite applying this extraordinary economic pressure, the US/EU failed to force Iran to cease enrichment. On the contrary, whereas in 2005 there were no centrifuges enriching uranium in Iran, by 2015 around 19,000 centrifuges were installed and about 10,000 of them were in operation.
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA)
In 2013 or thereabouts, the Obama administration did a U-turn and abandoned its attempt to force Iran to cease uranium enrichment on its own soil. That’s why the US negotiations with Iran about its nuclear activities, which began secretly in Oman in March 2013, ended successfully in Vienna on 14 July 2015 with an agreement which came to be known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA). Without that reversal of policy, there would have been no deal, because retaining enrichment facilities on its own soil has always been Iran’s bottom line and it was prepared to endure years of wholly unjustified sanctions in order to defend that bottom line.
However, the US insisted that the JCPoA imposed very severe, albeit time-limited, restrictions on Iran’s uranium enrichment capabilities, its enriched uranium stockpile and other aspects of its nuclear programme. For example:
(a) For the next 10 years, the number of uranium enrichment centrifuges installed is limited to about 6,000 (that is, 13,000 had to be de-installed);
(b) For the next 15 years, the level of enrichment is capped at 3.67%, the level appropriate for power generation reactors;
(c) For the next 15 years, the stockpile of enriched uranium is capped at 300kgs of 3.67% uranium-235, a 98% reduction in its stockpile prior to the JCPoA (to achieve this, Iran has had to sell the excess, or ship it abroad for storage, or dilute it to natural uranium levels).
As Sir Simon Cass wrote in his letter to The Times (see above), if the JCPoA were in force today, it “would restrict Iran to a mere 300kg of uranium enriched to no more than 3.67 per cent, far from the quantity or purity needed for a nuclear weapon”.
There was no justification for imposing these extraordinary restrictions on Iran’s civil nuclear programme: as a ‘non-nuclear-weapon’ party to the NPT, Iran is forbidden to acquire nuclear weapons, but the NPT places no limits on civil nuclear activity, providing it is under IAEA supervision. No other party to the NPT has had limitations placed on its civil nuclear programme.
Iran agreed reluctantly to the JCPoA to get rid of crippling sanctions by the US/EU and in the hope that after the US-imposed restrictions had expired they would have a civil nuclear programme of their own choosing, like any other party to the NPT.
JCPoA endorsed by the Security Council
On 20 July 2015, the JCPoA was endorsed unanimously by the Security Council in Resolution 2231 and thereby became an international agreement, to which all UN member states had a duty to adhere.
Resolution 2231 also charged the IAEA with the task of monitoring Iran’s compliance with the JCPoA. To enable it to fulfil that task, the agreement itself prescribed that Iran be subjected to the most comprehensive inspection and verification regime that has ever been operated by the IAEA.
On 16 January 2016, the IAEA certified that Iran had taken the steps necessary to restrict its nuclear programme and put in place appropriate arrangements for increased monitoring of the programme. This triggered the lifting of US, EU and UN sanctions.
From then on, the IAEA issued quarterly reports on Iran’s compliance with the JCPoA. Its tenth such report on 9 May 2018, like all its predecessors, confirmed Iran’s compliance, the IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano stating:
“Iran is subject to the world’s most robust nuclear verification regime under the JCPoA, which is a significant verification gain. As of today, the IAEA can confirm that the nuclear-related commitments are being implemented by Iran.”
an agreement that, if it were in force today, would restrict Iran to a mere 300kg of uranium enriched to no more than 3.67 per cent, far from the quantity or purity needed for a nuclear weapon.
Trump tears up the JCPoA
Despite this exemplary record of compliance by Iran, President Trump announced on 8 May 2018 that the US was going to reinstate the previous US economic sanctions. Shortly afterwards, his Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued an ultimatum to Iran making 12 demands that it must satisfy before sanctions are lifted:
“First, Iran must declare to the IAEA a full account of the prior military dimensions of its nuclear program, and permanently and verifiably abandon such work in perpetuity.
“Second, Iran must stop enrichment and never pursue plutonium reprocessing. This includes closing its heavy water reactor.
“Third, Iran must also provide the IAEA with unqualified access to all sites throughout the entire country.
“Iran must end its proliferation of ballistic missiles and halt further launching or development of nuclear-capable missile systems.
“Iran must release all U.S. citizens, as well as citizens of our partners and allies, each of them detained on spurious charges.
“Iran must end support to Middle East terrorist groups, including Lebanese Hizballah, Hamas, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
“Iran must respect the sovereignty of the Iraqi Government and permit the disarming, demobilization, and reintegration of Shia militias.
“Iran must also end its military support for the Houthi militia and work towards a peaceful political settlement in Yemen.
“Iran must withdraw all forces under Iranian command throughout the entirety of Syria.
“Iran, too, must end support for the Taliban and other terrorists in Afghanistan and the region, and cease harboring senior al-Qaida leaders.
“Iran, too, must end the IRG Quds Force’s support for terrorists and militant partners around the world.
“And too, Iran must end its threatening behavior against its neighbors – many of whom are U.S. allies. This certainly includes its threats to destroy Israel, and its firing of missiles into Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. It also includes threats to international shipping … and destructive cyberattacks.”
US reinstatement of sanctions
The US reinstatement of sanctions had very serious consequences for Iran, where it has created widespread human misery. According to the BBC, Six charts that show how hard US sanctions have hit Iran, 9 December 2019
(1) As a result of the sanctions, Iran’s gross domestic product (GDP) contracted an estimated 4.8% in 2018 and is forecast to shrink another 9.5% in 2019, according to the International Monetary Fund.
(2) The Statistical Centre of Iran reported that the Consumer Price Index (CPI) 12-month rate of inflation for households stood at 42% in late October 2019. Food and beverage prices were up by 61% year-on-year and the price of tobacco was up by 80%.
(3) As regards oil production, OPEC data suggest that at the start of 2018, Iran’s crude oil production reached 3.8 million barrels per day (bpd) of which about 2.3 million bpd were being exported. However, by October 2019, Iran’s crude oil production had fallen to 2.1 million bpd on average, of which only 260,000 bpd on average was being exported.
Human Rights Watch published a report, ‘Maximum Pressure’: US Economic Sanctions Harm Iranians’ Right to Health, on 29 October 2019. It documents how broad restrictions on financial transactions, coupled with aggressive rhetoric from United States officials, have drastically constrained the ability of Iranian entities to finance humanitarian imports, including vital medicines and medical equipment.
In full compliance, at first
Over the following year, while the US increased the economic pressure on Iran relentlessly in violation of the JCPoA, Iran remained in full compliance. It looked to Germany, France and the UK for political support and for help in countering US sanctions – but it has looked in vain.
Theoretically, France and Germany and the UK were then (and still are) in favour of maintaining the JCPoA. But the three of them have provided the US with an excuse for violating it by continuously echoing the US complaints that it doesn’t cover the full range of Iran’s alleged sins and therefore needs to be modified. And they have done nothing to help Iran trade with the outside world, meekly accepting the damage to their own trade with Iran as a result of US sanctions.
A year or so after the US reinstatement of sanctions, with the three European states proving to be of no help, the prospects for Iran looked bleak: US sanctions were hurting and there was no obvious way out. So, Iran decided to adopt a more aggressive stance.
On 8 June 2019, it announced that it would no longer be bound by the JCPoA’s limits on heavy water and low-enriched uranium, while emphasising that the steps it proposed to take were easily reversible if the other parties to the JCPoA came into compliance. Later still, it enriched uranium above the prescribed 3.67% limit, eventually to 60%, again emphasising the reversibility of the steps if other parties complied with the agreement.
Little changed during the Biden administration. While he seemed to be willing to lift US sanctions if Iran returned to compliance and negotiations did take place with Iran, a functioning JCPoA wasn’t re-established.
Trump’s second coming
After returning to office in 2025, President Trump said on many occasions that he wanted a deal with Iran. Needless to say, he didn’t suggest that the deal he tore up in 2018 be revived.
Obviously, a key element in any deal would be the future of Iran’s nuclear programme. The president stated repeatedly that Iran mustn’t develop nuclear weapons, but at the outset it wasn’t clear if limited enrichment would be acceptable to the US. It was never going to be acceptable to Israel – Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu was bitterly opposed to the JCPoA on the grounds that it permitted enrichment.
Iran made it clear that it was prepared to agree to a deal in which the enrichment level was limited to 3.67% as it was for 15 years in the JCPoA, in exchange for the lifting of the sanctions – see report entitled Top Iranian official says Tehran would forgo highly enriched uranium in nuclear deal with Trump by Richard Engel in NBC News on 14 May 2025. I quote:
“Iran is ready to sign a nuclear deal with certain conditions with President Donald Trump in exchange for lifting economic sanctions, a top adviser to Iran’s supreme leader told NBC News on Wednesday.
“Ali Shamkhani, a top political, military and nuclear adviser to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is one of the most senior Iranian officials to speak publicly about the ongoing discussions.
“He said Iran would commit to never making nuclear weapons, getting rid of its stockpiles of highly enriched uranium which can be weaponized, agree to enrich uranium only to the lower levels needed for civilian use, and allow international inspectors to supervise the process, in exchange for the immediate lifting of all economic sanctions on Iran.
“Asked if Iran would agree to sign an agreement today if those conditions were met, Shamkhani said, Yes.”
The US could have taken up that proposal and reinstated something like the JCPoA, but it didn’t. Instead, it aborted ongoing negotiations with Iran for a deal and joined Israel in attempting to wreck Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Israel’s plan to destroy Iran’s nuclear programme
At the outset of Israel’s attack on Iran on 13 June 2025, Tzachi Hanegbi, Netanyahu’s national security adviser, stated publicly that Israeli strikes alone won’t be capable of entirely destroying Iran’s nuclear program (see Hanegbi: Military force alone can’t destroy Iran’s nuke program; only Trump can compel Iran to abandon it, Times of Israel, 13 June 2025).
This is not possible, he said. What is possible is a solution such as played out in Libya, South Africa and elsewhere, where the balance of pros and cons leads the leadership of a state to abandon its nuclear weapons efforts. “Only the Americans can bring that about,” he said. “Only President Trump. He is capable of bringing about what is described as ‘a good deal’ — the model under which Iran, by its choice, gives up on nuclear weapons, pays considerable costs, gets lots of benefits… That’s the diplomatic expectation …”.
So, in the coming days, we can expect Iran to be pressurised relentlessly by Trump to give up its nuclear programme and destroy all its enriched uranium – and crucially to allow the IAEA to confirm that this has been done. Other items on Mike Pompeo’s list, for example, ending ballistic missile development, may also be required. Until then, US sanctions won’t be lifted and further military action by Israel and/or the US is a possibility if Iran refuses to comply.
Here’s some links to earlier articles by David Morrison on Iran
Nov 2021 Iran nuclear deal: The JCPOA explained
Mar 2020 Trump draws back from war with Iran – twice
Jul 2015 US U-turn on enrichment made nuclear deal with Iran possible
Jul 2015 Made in Washington: How the US manufactured Iran’s nuclear threat
Oct 2013 The BBC spreads untruths about Iran’s nuclear activities
Sep 2013 US scuppered deal with Iran in 2005, says then British Foreign Minister
Labour Affairs 