WSJ Reports US Ultimatum to Iran Over Nuclear Facilities

Talks in Geneva end without agreement as Washington demands dismantling of key sites and zero enrichment.

Header Image

The latest round of nuclear talks between the United States and Iran concluded in Geneva without agreement, according to the Wall Street Journal, as Washington demanded the destruction of Iran’s main nuclear facilities and the surrender of its enriched uranium stockpile. Both sides signalled further contacts, but substantial differences remain on core issues.

US officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said American envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner called for the dismantling of Iran’s principal nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, as well as the transfer of all remaining enriched uranium to the United States.

US demand for permanent agreement

According to the report, Washington insisted that any new agreement must be permanent and contain no sunset clauses, unlike the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action concluded during the Obama administration. Former President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from that agreement during his first term and reimposed sanctions on Tehran.

American officials have also sought zero uranium enrichment. However, they have reportedly left open the possibility of allowing a research reactor in Tehran to operate with limited enrichment for medical purposes, a proposal regarded as controversial given that it uses fuel enriched to 20 per cent.

Iran rejects dismantling and uranium transfer

Iran rejected the proposal to transfer its uranium stockpiles abroad and objected to ending enrichment or dismantling its nuclear infrastructure, according to Iranian state media and sources familiar with the discussions.

Tehran has maintained its right to enrich uranium and has floated alternative proposals, including reducing enrichment levels from 60 per cent to 1.5 per cent, temporarily suspending enrichment for a number of years, or managing the programme through a joint Arab-Iranian consortium within Iran.

These discussions remain preliminary. Iran’s nuclear programme was significantly damaged during a 12-day conflict with Israel and the United States last June.

Diplomatic contacts to continue

Oman’s foreign minister and a US official, as well as Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, said progress had been made and that a further round of contacts is expected. Technical negotiations are scheduled to continue in Vienna next week.

The American demands were set out days after Donald Trump addressed Congress, alleging that Iran continues to pursue nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles capable of reaching the United States, accusations Tehran denies. The US President has warned of possible military action should diplomacy fail, while Washington continues to reinforce its military presence in the region.

Domestic debate in the United States

Within the United States, some Republican lawmakers have expressed reservations about any agreement that would permit limited enrichment. Senator Lindsey Graham said that if Iran were allowed even minimal enrichment “for face-saving purposes”, there should be no agreement.

Sanctions relief remains another point of contention. The United States is reportedly offering limited easing of restrictions, while Iran is seeking substantial economic relief amid domestic unrest. Washington is said to be calling for a prolonged period of compliance before considering further measures.

Although the United States would prefer to include Iran’s ballistic missile programme and its support for regional armed groups in a broader arrangement, the Geneva discussions focused primarily on preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Source: Wall Street Journal via Protothema.gr

Comments Posting Policy

The owners of the website www.politis.com.cy reserve the right to remove reader comments that are defamatory and/or offensive, or comments that could be interpreted as inciting hate/racism or that violate any other legislation. The authors of these comments are personally responsible for their publication. If a reader/commenter whose comment is removed believes that they have evidence proving the accuracy of its content, they can send it to the website address for review. We encourage our readers to report/flag comments that they believe violate the above rules. Comments that contain URLs/links to any site are not published automatically.