This article will analyze an international event from the perspective of realism. It will focus on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which was signed between Iran and the P5+1 countries (the United Kingdom, China, France, Germany, Russia, and the United States) in 2015. However, rather than analyzing all countries involved, it seems more appropriate to focus on the United States and Iran, as the analysis will be conducted in two stages. The first will examine the period when the agreement was signed, exploring why these two countries felt the need for such an agreement and why President Trump withdrew it on 8 May 2018. Limiting the analysis to these two countries will allow us to delve more deeply into the underlying factors. We will employ the basic concepts of realism to guide our investigation.

Power

The concept of power is one of the fundamental tenets of realism. In essence, it can be defined as the capacity and quality of states or figures to exert influence over others. The United States' objective is to maintain its position as the dominant power in the region by preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Conversely, Iran's pursuit of nuclear armament was driven by the intention to achieve regional influence, particularly in the Middle East.

Rationality

The concept of rationality can be defined as follows. Rationality refers to the observation that countries act following their self-interest. In other words, the decision they will make in a given situation will be beneficial for their respective states. (Antonia, 2020) In his discourse, Edward H. Carr posits that those who espouse universal interests are, in fact, acting in their self-interest. In this context, it is evident that both countries had their distinct interests. The United States was acutely aware of the necessity to safeguard its hegemonic position in the region, particularly in light of the potential implications of Iran's nuclear arsenal. Conversely, Iran was grappling with significant economic challenges, including the impact of embargoes. The agreement, therefore, represented a crucial step towards reducing these constraints.

Security dilemma

The concept posits that as a consequence of the intensification of national capabilities, rival powers will pursue analogous enhancements, particularly in military hardware, thereby engendering a competitive process. The competition between the United States and Iran to gain influence in the Middle East has resulted in the region becoming increasingly nuclearized. In other words, there is a mutual reinforcement of positions.

The agreement set out several responsibilities for Iran, including an unprecedented tightening of inspections at nuclear sites to make sure they stick to the terms of the agreement. There were also many conditions related to uranium stockpiling. In contrast, other countries were to reduce their economic embargoes. However, on 8 May 2018, President Trump pulled out of the agreement because he said it didn't do enough to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

State-centrism

The decision of the United States to withdraw from the agreement is indicative of the continued primacy of the state in international relations, whereby states are the primary agents of change.

Anarchy

Anarchy is a political and social system where there is no centralized authority. There is no single authority figure or entity making decisions for the entire population. In other words, there is no supreme controlling power. Furthermore, the United States can unilaterally determine the terms of an agreement involving a large number of parties. This is in line with the principles of anarchic realism.

Rationality

The concept of rationality is also effective in the decision to exit the agreement, as the United States cannot benefit sufficiently from the agreement in question when its interests are considered.

In conclusion, an analysis of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) must consider its historical context. Two distinct American presidential profiles emerge in this context. The first is that of President Obama (Antonia, 2020), who assumed office in the fall of 2008. In contrast to his predecessors, he adopted a policy of two-way diplomacy, eschewing the use of threats in favor of a more conciliatory approach. In other words, we can posit that Obama exhibits a profile that is antithetical to the leader profile proposed by Machiavelli. However, following his election, Trump believed the agreement to be inadequate and withdrew from it. This agreement, which emphasizes the significance of international relations due to its multilateralism, has encountered numerous challenges in its implementation phase and has ultimately been shaped by the tenets of realism, including state-centrism, anarchy, and rationality.

References

Pop, Antonia (2020): Diplomatic negotiations and the Iran Nuclear Deal: Between the realistic and liberal paradigms, CES Working Papers, ISSN 2067-7693, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iasi, Centre for European Studies, Iasi, Vol. 12, Iss. 2, pp. 100-110.
Robinson, K. (2021). What Is the Iran Nuclear Deal? Council on Foreign Relations, 18.
Samore, Gary et al. 2015. The Iran Nuclear Deal: A Definitive Guide. Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School.