As nuclear negotiations between Washington and Tehran continue this week, foreign policy hawks who opposed the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action are worried about the prospective nuclear deal, which former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley dubbed “Obama 2.0” on Saturday. 

They aren’t wrong to spot the similarities between what President Donald Trump’s team is reportedly negotiating now and what former President Barack Obama achieved a decade ago. Several left-leaning national security experts who served in the Obama administration and were staunch advocates for the JCPOA are now cautiously cheering on the emerging potential outline of Trump’s deal as his team flits between Rome and Oman for negotiations. 

“It’s hard not to take a jab at Donald Trump for walking away from the nuclear deal in the first place, because I think if we get to a deal it’ll probably be something pretty similar,” said Ilan Goldenberg, who served as an Iran advisor at the Pentagon during Obama’s first term and then worked on Israeli-Palestinian issues under former Secretary of State John Kerry. “I have a lot of other things that I can disagree with him on, but if he wants to do the right thing here, I’ll support that.” Goldenberg is now chief policy officer at the liberal Israel advocacy group J Street.

Critics of the 2015 Iran deal took issue with the fact that it did not require Iran to stop enriching uranium, instead placing a cap — which would last for 15 years — on the level at which uranium could be enriched. Now, the Trump administration’s demands around enrichment are unclear: Steve Witkoff, Trump’s Middle East envoy who is leading the negotiations, said on Fox News last week that Iran should be able to enrich uranium up to 3.67%, the same level as the 2015 deal. But he walked back that claim a day later and said it should not be able to enrich uranium at all. 

“It’s always easy when you don’t have to negotiate it yourself to say, ‘Well, I would have gotten a better deal,’” said Phil Gordon, who served as the coordinator for the Middle East and the Persian Gulf on Obama’s National Security Council as the deal was being negotiated. 

Gordon, who served as national security advisor to former Vice President Kamala Harris and was expected to keep the role in a Harris presidential administration, vowed to support a deal even if it’s negotiated by Trump. “Now these guys are in a position where they’re trying to negotiate a deal and there’s a chance that they’re gonna have to accept some of the same imperfections that the Obama team did,” he said.  

Trump pulled out of the original Iran deal in 2018 and instituted a policy of “maximum pressure” on Iran, increasing sanctions and vowing to take on Iran’s proxies in the region. He pledged to continue the maximum pressure campaign in his second term, but his strong interest in negotiations marks a shift from his first term strategy.

“We can point out as much as we like that it was hypocritical of him,” said Gordon. “But the ultimate goal is our national security, and it doesn’t matter who it comes from: If they manage to get a deal that achieves the goal of making sure Iran can’t have a nuclear weapon and also keeps us out of a war, that would be a good thing, and I would support it.” 

Steven Simon, who served as NSC senior director for the Middle East and North Africa under Obama in the years before the Iran deal, said Trump is welcome on the side of those who favor a diplomatic approach over a military option.

“As somebody who was involved way back when,” Simon told Jewish Insider, “it’s better late than never.”