| Joint Comprehensive Planof Action | |
|---|---|
Officials announcing the agreement | |
| Created | 14 July 2015 |
| Ratified | N/A (ratification not required) |
| Date effective | |
| Location | Vienna, Austria |
| Signatories | |
| Purpose | Nuclear non-proliferation |
| Part ofa series on the |
| Nuclear program of Iran |
|---|
| Timeline |
| Facilities |
| Organizations |
| International agreements |
| Domestic laws |
| Individuals |
| Related |
TheJoint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA;Persian:برنامه جامع اقدام مشترک,romanized: barnāmeye jāme'e eqdāme moshtarak,acronym:برجامBARJAM[4][5]), known commonly as theIran nuclear deal orIran deal, is an agreement on theIranian nuclear program reached inVienna on 14 July 2015 betweenIran, theP5+1 (the fivepermanent members of the United Nations Security Council—China,France,Russia,United Kingdom,United States—plusGermany),[a] and theEuropean Union. The nuclear deal received a mixed international reaction, with many countries expressing praise or hope it could achieve the denuclearization ofIran. Some of Iran's neighbouring countries and U.S. lawmakers expressedskepticism about the agreement, seeing it as critically flawed.

There was a significant worldwide response following the announcement of the agreement; more than 90 countries endorsed the agreement,[8] as did many international organizations.
Following the unveiling of the agreement, "a general consensus quickly emerged" among nuclear experts and watchdogs that the agreement "is as close to a best-case situation as reality would allow".[98] In August 2015, 75 arms control and nuclear nonproliferation experts signed a statement endorsing the deal as "a net-plus for international nuclear nonproliferation efforts" that exceeds the historical standards for arms control agreements.[99] TheBulletin of the Atomic Scientists invited top international security experts to comment on the final agreement.[100]
The American TV seriesMadam Secretary built a wholeseason around the negotiations.[108] Five years before the deal, in24'sseason 8, the negotiations between the United States leaders and "President Hassan" ofIslamic republic of Kamistan to abandon his nuclear technology programme was shown, which drew comparison to the US-Iran dispute.[109] However the deal was contrarily toHomeland'sseason 3 plot that "fueled nuclear paranoia" against Iran.[110]
After the deal, a joke began circulating in Iran that the name of city ofArak would change to "Barack" in honor of Obama, and that in return, the United States would change the name ofManhattan borough to "Mash Hassan" (Persian:مش حسن) which is a very casual way of referring to Rouhani.[111]
Javad Zarif's efforts in the negotiations drew comparisons to mythologicalArash the Archer, and two former Prime Ministers:Mohammad Mosaddegh, who led the withdrawal of foreigners andnationalization of the Iranian oil industry and was overthrown byAmerican–British coup d'état, because both fought foreigners for Iran's rights; andAmir Kabir, because both faced domestic hostility through their way to gain more interest for the nation.[112]
Public polling on the issue has yielded varied and sometimes contradictory results, depending on the question wording,[113] whether the poll explains the provisions of the agreement, and whether an "undecided" option is offered.[114] Polls have consistently shown polarization by party affiliation, with majorities of self-identified Democrats supporting the agreement and majorities of self-identified Republicans opposing it.[115][116][117][118]
| Poll | Sample | Conducted | Sample size margin of error | Question(s) Asked | Findings | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YouGov | U.S. adults | 14–16 July | 1,000; ±3.9% | Support/oppose (major provisions described) | 43% support, 30% oppose, 26% unsure | [115][119] |
| Abt-SRBI forWashington Post/ABC News | U.S. adults | 16–19 July | 1,002; ±3.5% | Support/oppose (major provisions described) Confidence that agreement will prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons | 56% support, 37% oppose, 7% no opinion 35% very/somewhat confident, 64% not confident | [120] |
| Pew Research Center | U.S. adults | 14–20 July | 2,002; ±2.5; 1,672; ±2.7% | Have you heard about agreement? Support/oppose based on what you know (provisions not described) | 34% heard a lot, 44% heard a little, 22% have not heard (Among those who have heard at least a little) 48% disapprove, 38% approve, 14% do not know | [117] |
| Steven M. Cohen/Social Science Research Solutions forLos Angeles Jewish Journal | U.S. adults | 16–20 July | 505 | Support/oppose (major provisions described) Should Congress vote to approve or oppose the deal? | 28% support, 24% oppose, 48% don't know enough to say 41% approve, 38% disapprove, 21% undecided. | [121][122][123] |
| Steven M. Cohen/Social Science Research Solutions forLos Angeles Jewish Journal | Jewish American adults | 16–20 July | 501 | Support/oppose (major provisions described) Should Congress vote to approve or oppose the deal? | 47.5% approve, 27.6% oppose, 24.6% don't know enough to say 53.6% approve, 34.7% oppose, 11.7% don't know | [121][122][124] |
| YouGov forThe Economist | U.S. adults | 18–20 July | 1,000; ±4.3% | Support/oppose (major provisions described) Do you want your Senators to support or oppose the international agreement? | 15% strongly support, 26% tend to support; 16% tend to oppose; 17% strongly oppose; 16% not sure 45% support; 27% oppose; 27% not sure | [125] |
| Public Policy Polling | U.S. registered voters | 23–24 July | 730; ±3.6% | Support/oppose (major provisions described) Should Congress allow agreement to go forward or block it? | 35% strongly support; 19% somewhat support; 6% somewhat oppose; 32% strongly oppose; 8% not sure 54% go forward; 39% block; 7% not sure | [126] |
| ORC for CNN | U.S. adults | 22–25 July | 1,017; ±3% | Should Congress approve or reject the deal? | 44% approve; 52% reject; 5% no opinion | [127] |
| Quinnipiac | U.S. registered voters | 23–28 July | 1,644; ±2.4% | Support/oppose (provisions not described) | 28% support; 57% oppose; 15% don't know/NA | [128] |
| Public Opinion Strategies & Hart Research Associates forWall Street Journal/NBC News | U.S. adults | 26–30 July | 500 | Support/oppose (major provisions described) | 35% support, 33% oppose, 32% do not know enough | [118][129][130] |
| Anderson Robbins Research & Shaw & Company Research forFox News | U.S. registered voters | 11–13 August | 1,008 ±3% | In you were in Congress, would approve or reject the deal? | 31% approve, 58% reject, 10% don't know | [131][132] |
| ORC forCNN | U.S. adults | 13–16 August | 500 ±4.5% | Favor/oppose a hypothetical agreement (major provisions explained) | 50% favor, 46% oppose, 4% no opinion | [133] |
| ORC forCNN | U.S. adults | 13–16 August | 500 ±4.5% | Should Congress approve or reject the deal? (provisions not described) | 41% approve, 56% reject, 2% no opinion | [133] |
| Quinnipiac | U.S. registered voters | 20–25 August | 1,563; ±2.5% | Support/oppose (provisions not described) | 25% support; 55% oppose; 20% don't know/NA | [134] |
| Pew Research Center | U.S. adults | 3–7 September | 1,004; ±3.6% | Approve/disapprove the agreement | 21% approve; 49% disapprove; 30% don't know/refused | [135] |
| University of MarylandProgram for Public Consultation /Center for International and Security Studies | U.S. registered voters who took part in National Citizens Cabinet (policymaking simulation involving a briefing and hearing of expert-vetted arguments from both sides of the debate) | 17–20 September | 702; ±3.7% | Final recommendation after hearing alternatives | 55% approve agreement; 14% pursue better terms; 23% ramp up sanctions; 7% threaten military force | [136][137] |