Anatomy of the JCPOA obligations between Iran and the United States regarding nuclear negotiations from the perspective of international humanitarian law

The bad faith caused by the lack of good faith of the western parties and especially the United States in the months after the implementation of the JCPOA and more concretely after the beginning of Trump's presidency, are in conflict with the good faith in the implementation of the international obligations of the JCPOA and considering According to Security Council Resolution 2231 on the necessity of full implementation of the JCPOA and refraining from any action that weakens this cooperation document, the statements of the US President and some actions taken by his team and the Congress of this country regarding the JCPOA, as the European Union and the countries Europeans and Russia also acknowledge it, it is considered to weaken this document and contrary to the spirit of JCPOA and the binding resolution 2231. The question of the present article is, what was the theoretical starting point of the difference in the sanctions diplomacy of the Trump and Obama administrations towards Iran from the perspective of international humanitarian law despite the country's commitment to the JCPOA obligations? The hypothesis of the article is that while the sanctions policy of the Obama administration was mostly based on the motive of making Iran commit to international norms, the main motive of the Trump administration is to advance the maximum interests of the United States regardless of international legal restrictions. From this point of view, the JCPOA has been considered an efficient agreement for the Obama administration and ineffective for the Trump administration. The hypothesis theoretically relies on two theories of realism and liberalism about the function of sanctions in international relations. This hypothesis will be analyzed in an analytical-explanatory manner and based on reliable data.