President Donald Trump has pushed the narrative that the compact he has reached with Iran is an improvement over the 2015 agreement brokered under President Barack Obama. Critics counter that the new understanding may deliver less in verified restraints while handing Tehran earlier and broader economic relief. Below is a structured comparison of what each accord is - and is not - and how they diverge on key issues.
Form and scope
The two documents are fundamentally different in form. The Trump administration’s instrument is a short memorandum of understanding - roughly one-and-a-half pages long and organized into 14 points - rather than a finalized treaty. It is a framework that initiates a 60-day period of talks aimed at producing a comprehensive settlement to end a conflict that began on February 28. Many substantive issues remain for negotiators to resolve during that time.
By contrast, the Obama-era outcome, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA, was a completed, detailed agreement running to more than 160 pages. The JCPOA was narrowly aimed at constraining Iran’s nuclear program and included precise benchmarks and mechanisms to verify compliance. President Trump, who called the JCPOA "horrible," formally abandoned it in 2018.
Participants in negotiations
Another distinguishing feature is who took part in crafting each deal. The Trump approach has been bilateral between the United States and Iran. The JCPOA, by contrast, was negotiated with the involvement of multiple international actors - China, France, Germany, Russia, Britain and the European Union - over approximately two years.
Nuclear commitments and inspection regime
Both agreements include a written commitment from Iran not to pursue a nuclear weapon. President Trump, who said the nuclear threat was his primary justification for initiating the conflict, has asserted - a point the memorandum itself presents incorrectly - that Tehran had never previously sought a weapon.
The JCPOA imposed tight constraints on Iran’s path to producing weapons-grade uranium, with provisions intended to lengthen the "breakout" time required to assemble a bomb. U.S. authorities said Iran complied with those limitations until the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA. The 160-plus-page text also established an extensive international inspection architecture.
By contrast, the Trump memorandum only sets out a general roadmap toward limiting Iran’s nuclear activities. It contains no binding commitments from Tehran beyond agreeing to negotiate nuclear matters within the 60-day window. The memorandum mentions the possibility of resolving a dispute over Iran’s near-bomb-grade uranium stockpile, including the option of "down blending" on-site under supervision by the International Atomic Energy Agency, but leaves such specifics to any final agreement. The memorandum does not require reinstatement of the JCPOA-style inspection regime.
Sanctions relief and frozen assets
Both instruments contemplate sanctions relief and the unfreezing of Iranian assets, but they differ markedly in sequencing and certainty. The Obama-era deal tied the easing of sanctions to the signing of a comprehensive agreement and then phased further relief according to verified Iranian steps.
The Trump memorandum, in contrast, front-loads some relief. It provides for immediate U.S. waivers enabling Iran to export oil and indicates the possibility of releasing billions in frozen funds, though it is not specific about timing or conditions for such releases. The memorandum also contemplates the creation, with U.S. and Middle East partners, of a $300 billion fund intended for Iranian economic development; the document is vague on the fund’s conditions and timeline. These elements have provoked criticism from hardliners within Trump’s own Republican Party, who argue the administration may be conceding too much too quickly.
President Trump has previously criticized the Obama administration’s return of $1.7 billion in proceeds from frozen arms-sale accounts. Yet the memorandum’s provisions on sanctions relief and potential asset releases could result in Iran receiving sums many times larger than that earlier payment.
Regional and security questions - the Strait of Hormuz
The JCPOA was deliberately limited to nuclear matters, a decision by the Obama team driven by the view that mixing in broader regional-security disputes would jeopardize reaching a final accord. The Trump memorandum, by contrast, is explicitly designed as the diplomatic launch point for an end to the war that began on February 28. Because the conflict has generated global economic disruption, the memorandum addresses regional security alongside nuclear issues.
A central element of the memorandum is a commitment to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic oil-shipping chokepoint that Iran effectively closed. Iran has demanded a continuing role in managing the strait - a control it did not have before the conflict - and that stance may complicate final negotiations.
What remains uncertain
The memorandum initiates a 60-day negotiation period but leaves many substantive questions unresolved. It sets general directions on nuclear constraints, sanctions relief and the status of the Strait of Hormuz, yet it defers concrete, enforceable arrangements for inspections, precise limits on nuclear activity and the timing and conditions for large-scale economic transfers. Those unresolved elements are the primary hurdles negotiators must address if a comprehensive settlement is to be achieved.
Summary: The Trump memorandum is a brief framework launching negotiations to end a war that began on February 28 and includes early sanctions waivers, potential large asset unfreezes and a focus on reopening the Strait of Hormuz. The Obama-era JCPOA was a detailed, narrowly nuclear-focused treaty with phased, verification-linked sanctions relief and an extensive inspection regime.