Negotiating With a President Whose Word Cannot Be Trusted

It’s tough to reach an agreement with a President whose word is not his bond.

The observation, while seemingly pointed, echoes a broader concern about reliability in international diplomacy—particularly when it comes to agreements that require sustained commitment across administrations.

The phrase gained renewed attention in discussions surrounding U.S.-Iran relations, especially regarding the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal. Originally reached in 2015 under the Obama administration, the JCPOA aimed to limit Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.

However, its future has been uncertain since the U.S. Withdrawal in 2018, raising questions about the durability of executive agreements when political leadership changes. The JCPOA was not a treaty ratified by the U.S. Senate but rather an executive agreement between the United States, Iran, and five other world powers—the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, and China—along with the European Union.

As such, it did not require Senate approval but was also more vulnerable to reversal by a succeeding president. In May 2018, President Donald Trump announced the U.S. Would withdraw from the JCPOA and reimpose sanctions on Iran, calling the deal “defective at its core.”

This decision was affirmed by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, which began reinstating sanctions targeting Iran’s oil, banking, and transportation sectors later that year. Internationally, the other parties to the JCPOA expressed regret over the U.S. Withdrawal and affirmed their commitment to the agreement.

The European Union’s External Action Service stated that the EU remained “determined to preserve the JCPOA” and urged Iran to continue fulfilling its nuclear commitments.

Iran, for its part, initially remained compliant with the deal’s terms for over a year after the U.S. Exit, as verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Executive agreements derive their authority from the president’s constitutional powers in foreign affairs. Unlike treaties, which require two-thirds Senate approval and are harder to unilaterally terminate, executive agreements allow for swift negotiation but also mean they can be reversed by a successor administration without congressional input.