The fate of Iran’s enriched uranium stock has become the most sensitive issue in the ongoing negotiations between Washington and Tehran through regional mediation, with the approaching end of the two-week truce announced on April 8, in light of a clear difference in the positions of both parties.
While US President Donald Trump spoke of the nearness of reaching an agreement that includes removing enriched uranium from Iran, Tehran was quick to deny this, stressing that transferring these materials abroad “is not an option.”
In the midst of this discrepancy, three scenarios emerge for dealing with the Iranian stock: transferring it to the United States, or to a third party, or keeping it inside Iran within arrangements that limit the level of enrichment and subject it to control.
Trump announced that his country will cooperate with Iran to extract the remaining enriched uranium from sites damaged by American strikes during the June War, in preparation for transporting it to American territory. Washington had targeted the Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan facilities during a 12-day war last year, which raised questions about the fate of the stockpile after the bombing.
But this proposal was met with categorical Iranian rejection, as Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ismail Baghaei confirmed that uranium “will not be transferred anywhere,” considering it part of national sovereignty.
Washington considers the removal of uranium a basic condition in any agreement, as it requested a 20-year suspension of enrichment and the transfer of highly enriched uranium abroad, which Tehran rejected, with Trump stressing that preventing Iran from possessing a nuclear weapon was one of the reasons for the war.
The second option proposed is to transfer the stock to a third country. Russia has expressed its willingness to receive Iranian uranium as part of any possible agreement, but Washington rejected this proposal.
Moscow previously proposed this proposal last June, and it also has a precedent in this field, as it received about 11,000 kilograms of Iranian low-enriched uranium in 2015 under the nuclear agreement.
China also emerged as a potential option, as it expressed its willingness to receive about 440 kilograms of enriched uranium or reduce its enrichment level for civilian uses, if both parties requested that. This option is considered less sensitive, because it avoids Iran handing over the stock directly to the United States.
The third option is to keep the uranium inside Iran while taking measures to reduce its risks. In this context, Tehran proposed suspending enrichment for a specific period and reducing its rate, in exchange for a broader understanding that includes lifting sanctions, providing guarantees, and allowing oversight.
On the other hand, Washington demands a freeze on enrichment for 20 years, while Iran offers to suspend it for only five years, while preserving what it considers “its right to enrichment.”
The Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Grossi, indicated that determining the duration of the suspension is a political decision, which reflects the amount of concessions required from both parties.
Enriched uranium remains the core of disagreement in any nuclear agreement, as Washington believes that it determines Iran’s ability to reach the military level, while Tehran considers it part of its right to peaceful enrichment.
The 2015 agreement imposed strict restrictions on this file, including setting the enrichment rate at 3.67%, reducing the stockpile, and transferring a large portion of it abroad, before the Trump administration withdrew from it in 2018.
These negotiations come in the context of ending the war between the United States and Iran, which broke out after joint American-Israeli strikes on Tehran on February 28. At the same time, the talks are not limited to the nuclear file, but also include issues of lifting sanctions, compensation, the naval blockade, and navigation security in the Strait of Hormuz.
