Iranian Parliament's Deliberation on JCPOA Exit

In April 2024, the Iranian Parliament (Majlis) initiated discussions on a potential withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the 2015 nuclear agreement between Iran and the P5+1 countries (US, UK, France, Russia, China, and Germany). This move follows increased nuclear enrichment activities by Iran, notably uranium purity reaching 60% as reported by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in April 2024. The Majlis’ consideration marks a significant escalation in Tehran’s nuclear posture and reflects growing domestic pressure amid stalled diplomatic efforts and persistent sanctions.

Legal Framework Governing Iran’s Nuclear Commitments

The JCPOA is an international political agreement, not a binding treaty under Iranian domestic law. Iran’s nuclear program is regulated domestically by the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) and internationally under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) 1968, to which Iran is a signatory. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) outlines procedures for treaty withdrawal, but Iran’s Constitution does not explicitly mandate parliamentary approval for treaty exit. However, the Majlis holds legislative oversight and ratification authority, making its role pivotal in any formal withdrawal decision.

• JCPOA provisions limit Iran’s uranium enrichment to 3.67% and stockpile to 300 kg of low-enriched uranium.
• Under the NPT, Iran commits to peaceful nuclear use and IAEA safeguards inspections.
• The US unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018 under Section 1245 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 2019, reinstating sanctions.

Economic Impact of JCPOA Exit and Sanctions

Since the US withdrawal in 2018, Iran has faced intensified sanctions, causing estimated revenue losses of $100 billion (World Bank, 2023). The JCPOA’s partial sanctions relief in 2016 had boosted Iran’s oil exports from 1 million barrels per day (bpd) to 2.5 million bpd by 2017 (IEA). A potential exit risks full reinstatement of US and EU sanctions, likely reducing exports by over 50%, contracting GDP growth from 3.7% in 2017 to negative figures (IMF, 2023), and triggering global oil price volatility due to supply disruptions.

• Iran’s GDP contracted by 6% in 2020 amid sanctions and the COVID-19 pandemic (IMF World Economic Outlook, 2021).
• Oil exports fell below 1 million bpd by 2020, severely impacting government revenues.
• Sanctions target Iran’s energy, banking, and shipping sectors, limiting foreign investment and trade.

Key Institutions Influencing Iran’s Nuclear Policy

The Majlis debates and legislates on nuclear policy and treaty adherence, reflecting internal political factions. The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) manages nuclear development and compliance with international inspections. The IAEA monitors Iran’s nuclear activities and reports to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), which enforces sanctions resolutions. The US Department of State leads American diplomatic and sanctions policy, while the European External Action Service (EEAS) coordinates EU efforts to preserve the JCPOA.

• The Supreme National Security Council also shapes Iran’s strategic nuclear decisions.
• IAEA’s April 2024 report confirmed Iran’s enrichment beyond JCPOA limits, raising compliance concerns.
• UNSC sanctions remain contingent on Iran’s adherence to nuclear commitments.

Comparative Analysis: Iran vs. North Korea Nuclear Treaty Withdrawal

Internal Political Dynamics Affecting JCPOA Compliance

Analysis of Iran’s nuclear policy often overlooks the influence of internal institutions like the Majlis and the Supreme National Security Council, where hardline factions oppose JCPOA concessions. These bodies exert pressure beyond external diplomatic efforts, complicating Iran’s treaty adherence. The Majlis’ current debates reflect nationalist sentiments and skepticism towards Western intentions, limiting executive flexibility and increasing the likelihood of treaty exit or non-compliance.

• Hardline Majlis members argue JCPOA undermines Iran’s sovereignty.
• Supreme Leader’s stance balances between deterrence and diplomatic engagement.
• Factionalism within Iran shapes nuclear policy unpredictably.

Significance and Way Forward

Iran’s potential JCPOA exit threatens to unravel a key multilateral non-proliferation framework, emboldening nuclear proliferation risks in West Asia. It undermines the credibility of negotiated agreements in the absence of enforceable guarantees and sustained diplomacy. For global security, reinvigorating dialogue involving all JCPOA parties, including Iran’s domestic stakeholders, is essential to prevent escalation. The international community must also prepare for economic and security contingencies arising from renewed sanctions and regional instability.

• Strengthen IAEA’s verification mechanisms with enhanced access and transparency.
• Engage Iran’s Majlis and Supreme National Security Council in diplomatic outreach.
• Coordinate multilateral sanctions relief conditioned on verifiable compliance.
• Monitor regional actors’ responses to prevent arms race escalation.