Iran Nuclear Deal: What Trump Abandoned in 2018
1h ago|7 min read1Standard
Fazen Markets Research
Expert Analysis
IranJCPOA
The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) represented a significant, tightly specified diplomatic compromise: signed on July 14, 2015, it constrained Iran's nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, 2015). Under the terms Iran agreed to cap enrichment at 3.67%, reduce its stockpile of low-enriched uranium to approximately 300 kg of UF6 (a reduction of roughly 98% from pre-deal inventories), and limit its installed centrifuges to about 5,060 IR-1 machines at Natanz for a defined period of years (IAEA reporting, 2016). The accord also extended Iran's so-called 'breakout' time — the estimated period required to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a single nuclear device — from an assessed 2–3 months before the deal to roughly 12 months during the first decade of implementation, according to public U.S. and IAEA estimates at the time.
On May 8, 2018 President Donald Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from the JCPOA, calling it the "worst deal ever," and directed the reimposition of broad economic sanctions including sectoral measures targeting oil, finance, and shipping (U.S. State Department, May 8, 2018). The U.S. return to a "maximum pressure" campaign aimed to choke off Iranian oil revenues and restrict access to global banking systems. The unilateral U.S. decision was followed by secondary sanctions and attempts to secure waivers; by late 2018 the U.S. Treasury and State Departments were publicly identifying and sanctioning vessels, banks, and intermediaries believed to facilitate Iranian oil exports and access to the international dollar system.
Markets and policymakers reacted quickly. Brent crude — the global benchmark — experienced episodic volatility as traders priced in disruption risk and sanctions enforcement; oil exports from Iran were estimated to fall materially after 2018, with IEA and industry estimates indicating a decline of roughly 60–80% from 2017 levels into 2019 depending on the data source and period measured. European signatories (UK, France, Germany) sought to preserve the deal but lacked means to override U.S. secondary sanctions, while Russia and China continued to engage Tehran on energy and finance in ways that mitigated the sanctions' full impact.
The JCPOA's binding numerical constraints were precise: 3.67% enrichment limit for up to 15 years, a maximum of 300 kg of low-enriched uranium in the form of UF6 for 15 years (effectively a ~98% reduction), and sizable restrictions on heavy-water production and international inspections (JCPOA text; IAEA). The IAEA confirmed compliance multiple times between January 2016 and 2017; public IAEA quarterly reports through 2017 registered Iran's adherence to those limits. These metrics were central to Western assurances that the deal materially lengthened any credible weapons timeline.
After the U.S. withdrawal on May 8, 2018, Iran initially remained compliant but progressively breached elements of the JCPOA beginning in 2019, increasing enrichment levels, enriching to higher purity, and expanding its stockpiles. By mid-2019 and then again in 2021–2022, Iran was producing enrichment at levels above 3.67% and accumulating stocks materially larger than the 300 kg benchmark — actions documented in successive IAEA quarterly safeguards reports (IAEA, 2019–2022). Those increases reduced the 'breakout' margin that had been one of the JCPOA's principal market-stabilising features.
Sanctions reimposition had measurable economic effects. U.S. Treasury-led enforcement and diplomatic pressure correlated with a steep drop in Iranian crude exports: estimates from the IEA and industry trackers show exports falling from roughly 1.5–2.5 million barrels per day in 2017 (depending on measurement methodology) to below 600,000 barrels per day in segments of 2019 — a decline of approximately 60–80% versus pre-withdrawal annual averages (IEA, 2019; Bloomberg reporting). Secondary sanctions also constrained Iran's access to the SWIFT payments network and curtailed foreign direct investment flows, contributing to a currency shock and domestic inflation spikes within Iran.
Energy markets were the immediate commercial victims and beneficiaries of the U.S. decision. For global crude benchmarks such as Brent, the 2018 withdrawal heightened political risk premia and produced episodic price spikes, but global spare capacity and OPEC+ production adjustments moderated sustained price escalation. Energy majors and downstream refiners with exposure to Middle East feedstock — including integrated companies trading under tickers like XOM and CVX — faced heightened logistical and compliance burdens. Firms involved in tanker shipping, insurance, and trade finance had to strengthen sanctions screening protocols, incurring compliance costs and re-routing cargoes.
Beyond energy, the withdrawal reshaped geopolitical financing risks. European banks and corporate treasuries confronted a choice between doing business with Iran under European support mechanisms and risking access to the U.S. dollar system; many chose to curtail activity. The sanctions regime thus redistributed trade flows toward non-Western counterparties: China (a major buyer), Turkey, and regional intermediaries substituted for some lost market share, reducing but not eliminating the efficacy of sanctions. This shift has longer-term consequences for the structure of global trade and the role of dollar-dominated finance in enforcing foreign policy.
Financial markets also priced in sovereign and regional risk differently. Sovereign spreads on Iranian debt were already punitive; after withdrawal the real economy's retrenchment and higher inflation produced a deep domestic credit contraction. For regional markets, investors reassessed exposure to spillover risk. Equities and bond markets in the Middle East showed differentiated performance versus global peers: some Gulf economies tightened fiscal and monetary policy to offset higher risk premia, while others saw capital flows into perceived safe havens such as Saudi assets.
The principal risk introduced by the U.S. withdrawal was policy volatility. Unilateral disengagement created asymmetric enforcement pressures that increased the probability of tactical confrontations in the Gulf, targeted asset seizures, and cyber and proxy escalations. From a market standpoint, the clearest transmission mechanism was oil price volatility: a resumption of higher-grade uranium enrichment or kinetic escalation would likely push risk premia higher, producing short-term spikes in Brent and regional currencies, with knock-on effects for inflation and central bank policy in importing countries.
Countervailing risks include the erosion of unilateral sanctions efficacy over time as buyers and intermediaries develop workarounds. By 2020–2021, Tehran had adapted by expanding barter arrangements, oil-for-goods mechanisms, and clandestine shipping practices; these practices reduced the sanctions' intended economic compression. Moreover, extended periods of sanctioning invite durable market adaptations — new trading corridors, alternative payment rails, and non-dollar settlement practices — which in aggregate lower the marginal impact of renewed U.S. measures.
A final risk relates to diplomatic unpredictability. If a future U.S. administration seeks to re-enter or renegotiate terms, the political and technical starting point will be materially different from 2015: Iran's enrichment capacity and stockpiles have grown, and regional actors have reconfigured supply chains. Recalibrating a restoration would thus be more complex and could require concessions that once would have been considered unacceptable by one or more JCPOA parties.
Restoration of a JCPOA-like arrangement would require bridging three gaps: nuclear constraints (what limits Iran accepts), verification (how intrusive and rapid inspections are), and sanctions relief (what legal and practical measures are reversed and how). In the near term to 12–24 months, markets should assume a baseline of elevated political risk pricing for Gulf supply — that is, a persistent premium over pre-2018 volatility — with episodic spikes linked to diplomatic milestones or incidents.
Crude markets will be sensitive to diplomatic signals: negotiations that credibly extend breakout times back toward 12 months would likely compress the premium on Brent and regional currencies, while an acute incident could push Brent up by $5–$15/bbl on short notice depending on spare capacity availability and OPEC+ responses. Investors and corporate treasuries should track IAEA verification reports (the most objective near-real-time data), U.S. Treasury enforcement actions, and crude export estimates published by the IEA and industry monitors for forward-looking signals.
Institutional players monitoring these dynamics should also consider structural changes that persist beyond headline diplomatic outcomes: alternative payment corridors have gained traction and the composition of Iran's trading partners has shifted markedly since 2018. This makes sanctions less binary as a policy instrument over time and increases the importance of granular counterparty screening and scenario analysis for energy and financial portfolios. For further situational updates and fixed-income risk mapping see our institutional research hub topic and our scenario playbook at topic.
From a contrarian vantage point, markets may be overestimating the permanence of U.S. extraterritorial sanctions as a barrier to Iranian trade. Historical adaptation — via buyers in Asia, reflagging and ship-to-ship transfers, and non-dollar settlements — suggests that sanctions primarily raise transaction costs rather than produce absolute stoppages. That implies the long-term supply-side shock to oil markets from a U.S. withdrawal is asymmetric and front-loaded: the first 12–18 months after reimposition exert the greatest pressure on flows and prices, but thereafter a new equilibrium with lower export volumes and diversified buyers tends to emerge.
For risk managers, a non-obvious implication is that the market's volatility response to renewed diplomatic engagement could be larger than the price reaction to renewed sanctions. Markets price certainty; a credible deal that materially extends breakout time and restores verifiable limits could compress risk premia quickly, leading to mean reversion in both asset and FX markets. Conversely, protracted negotiation uncertainty or incremental Iranian nuclear advances may create a chronic premium in energy prices and regional spreads that persists even if headline deal returns remain unlikely.
Fazen Markets therefore recommends that institutional analysis incorporate both acute event scenarios (incidents, sanction spikes) and chronic adaptation scenarios (partial sanctions circumvention). Our emphasis is on calibrated stress testing across those vectors rather than binary outcome betting. Readers can access our models and scenario tables through the institutional portal topic.
Q: How did the JCPOA change Iran's 'breakout' time quantitatively?
A: Public estimates tied to the JCPOA indicated an extension of Iran's breakout time to roughly 12 months from a 2–3 month assessment prior to the deal; this was achieved through constraints on enrichment levels, stockpile size (capped around 300 kg UF6), and centrifuge deployment (IAEA and U.S. public statements, 2015–2016).
Q: What were the measurable trade effects after the U.S. withdrew in May 2018?
A: Measurable effects included an estimated reduction in Iranian crude exports of roughly 60–80% from 2017 averages into parts of 2019 (IEA and industry trackers), a contraction in foreign direct investment, currency depreciation and inflation spikes domestically, and a reorientation of Iran's trade towards China, Turkey, and other non-Western partners.
Q: Could secondary sanctions be less effective over time?
A: Yes. Historical evidence shows that extensive, sustained sanctions incentivise counterparties to develop workarounds — ship-to-ship transfers, reflagging, barter, and alternative payment systems — which reduce the marginal efficacy of new sanctions. That does not negate economic costs but changes the transmission dynamics.
The 2018 U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA removed precise, time-bound constraints that had measurably extended Iran's nuclear breakout time and reduced its uranium stockpile; the reimposition of sanctions produced large near-term economic effects but also induced durable market adaptations. Institutional investors should prepare for prolonged political risk premia in energy and regional finance, while scenario-testing both acute incidents and longer-term sanctions circumvention pathways.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.
Navigate market volatility with professional tools
Start TradingSponsored
Open a demo account in 30 seconds. No deposit required.
CFDs are complex instruments and come with a high risk of losing money rapidly due to leverage. You should consider whether you understand how CFDs work and whether you can afford to take the high risk of losing your money.