Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in an interview released on Wednesday that Iran cannot enrich uranium under any deal with the US, an idea Tehran has said is “unacceptable.”
Rubio said that Iran could maintain a civilian nuclear program but that it would have to import enriched uranium to use as fuel. “If Iran wants a civil nuclear program, they can have one just like many other countries in the world have one, and that is they import enriched material,” he said on the podcast Honestly with Bari Weiss.
Last week, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Aragchi said Iran’s right to enrich uranium was non-negotiable. In response to Rubio’s comments, a senior Iranian official told Reuters that “zero enrichment is unacceptable.”
Steve Witkoff, President Trump’s envoy, who has been leading the negotiations with Iran, previously suggested the US would be happy with a deal that would cap Iran’s nuclear enrichment at 3.67%, the same limit set by the 2015 nuclear deal, known as the JCPOA. But after backlash from Iran hawks, Witkoff walked back the comments, saying Iran must end its enrichment program.
Rubio said that when Witkoff mentioned the 3.67% limit, he was “talking about the level of enrichment that they would be allowed, the level of enriched material that they would be allowed to import from outside.”
While Trump administration officials are making maximalist demands publicly, diplomacy between the US and Iran continues to advance, suggesting the US is not actually demanding zero enrichment in the talks.
“Rubio once again indicates that zero-enrichment is the US objective. So far, however, this has not been the US position inside the talks,” Trita Parsi, an Iran expert and Executive Vice President of the Quincy Institute, said in a post on X.
“Rubio is either saying this to play bad cop (with Trump’s blessing) to keep that option open, or he is seeking to sabotage the talks,” Parsi added.
Witkoff and Aragchi are set to hold another round of negotiations in Oman this Saturday. At the same time, a meeting will be held at the expert level to discuss technical details of a potential deal.
President Trump has threatened to bomb Iran if a deal isn’t reached, even though his intelligence agencies recently reaffirmed that there’s no evidence that Tehran is building a nuclear bomb or that Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has reversed his 2003 fatwah that banned the production of weapons of mass destruction.
Witkoff has been talking to the Russians about many things. He recently invited Russia to be a 'guarantor' for Iran. Iran has long said it does not seek nuclear weapons and wants sanctions removed. The US does not want for Iran to develop nuclear weapons nor does Russia or any other sane person. The US wants Russia as an equal partner in final negotiations as they have the trust of Iranian authorities. The US can remove sanctions and even aid Iran's economy if Iran ceases its nuclear enrichment programs. Why does Iran need nuclear enrichment capability unless it is because they want a nuclear weapon? This deal should go through if the fanatics on both sides don't sabotage it.
They want nuclear power to free their oil for sale, and for the medical isotopes. And they have some national pride / dignity. Why should Iran not develop nuclear weapons while the US is clearly refusing to demolish its weapons as promised?! "Comprehensive nuclear disarmament", nuclear non proliferation treaty.
They can import all the nuclear powerplant fuel and medical isotopes they want just like every other non-nuclear weapons country does. One good reason Iran should not develop nuclear weapons is that the US will bomb them to the stone-age if they get too close. Which US weapons did the US promise to demolish and when has Iran ever had any understanding that the US would demolish any of its nuclear weapons? The nuclear non-proliferation treaty means exactly what it says: nuclear arms will not proliferate beyond those countries which already have them. What the NPT doesn’t say is that the US, or any other nuclear power has to give up anything. “Save their oil” is the lamest excuse yet to cover for making a nuclear bomb.
“What the NPT doesn't say is that the US, or any other nuclear power has to give up anything.”
That is comically wrong. The NPT does exactly say that! It says no new states should become nuke capable And it says the existing nuke states should get rid of them.
Name one existing nuke state that intends to get rid of them. The only enforceable part of the treaty is stopping new states.
That doesn't change the intent of the NPT. That just means those with nukes were full of shit and ONLY wanted others not to have nukes.
If the nuclear states won't disarm, no part of the NPT is enforceable.
We are about to find out if it is ‘enforceable’.
"They want nuclear power to free their oil for sale". The statement is nice but incorrect. Iran generates most of its electricity by burning natural gas. In the middle east oil fields, natural gas is a by product of oil production. Iran, like most middle east countries, has so much natural gas that they have to flare off excess gas. A gas turbine power plant cost maybe 1/10 the price of a nuclear plant and in Iran's case the fuel is free. No liquid oil product is used in Iran to generate electricity.
Can is different than Will…! Even with US Wills nothing is guaranteed…! Iran knows that and is moving cautiously…!
Enrichment to grade of 20% for medicine production is universally allowed by IAEA…!
Name another country besides Iran that is not a nuclear weapons holder that enriches its own uranium; for any purpose. Every other country that doesn’t have nuclear weapons imports pre-processed nuclear power plant fuel and isotopes for medical use. Iran wants to make an atomic bomb and wipe Israel out even if the fallout takes out millions of people down wind. Rightly or wrongly, it doesn’t matter because if the try to make a bomb, they will be bombed back to the stone-age.
Name another country besides Iran that not only met all its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but then went far above and beyond those obligations in the deal finally reached after the US kept backing out of own offers for a decade every time Iran agreed to whatever the US demanded. A deal which the US then broke as well.
If the Iranians wanted a bomb, they would already have one — and there would have been some evidence, a little evidence, any evidence at all, that they were after one. But the sum total of evidence for the claim thus far publicly presented with respect to any year since 2004 is:
THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Why do you want Iran to become a nuclear power?
I don’t, particularly, although I could think of worse things (the deterrent power of a nuclear Iran might calm the Middle East down a little).
The simple fact is that there’s no evidence the Iranians are INTERESTED in becoming a nuclear power.
If the USA can go around the world to "defend freedom and democracy" then why can't Iran aid in the security of its very neighbors. Attitudes like yours Dallas are hypocritical! Israel and the USA are the PARTNERS-IN-CRIME, not Iran and its "proxies" that only exist because of the duplicitous threat Israel poses!
Them’s the rules. It is what is is. Nobody, but nobody, trusts Iran not to become a nuclear state if allowed, excepting a few loonies on this forum. Do you trust Iran to never make a nuclear weapon if left alone?
Japan does not have nukes and does have a robust enrichment program.
Thank you. Japan doesn’t concern me as much as Iran, though.
Wow, Japan was a pretty nasty little country in the not too distant past. Whereas Iran hasn't attacked anyone, other than acting in self-defense, in 200 years.
Iran wants to make an atomic bomb and wipe Israel out even if the fallout takes out millions of people down wind.
And why wouldn't Iran just unload their entire arsenal of drones and ballistic missiles on Israel if their intent is to commit suicide? Israel's defense systems would be overwhelmed. And listening to the rhetoric that comes out of Israel AND the US, Iran actually sounds pragmatic in comparison. So, your nonsensical talk about Iran being willing to kill millions with the fallout applies to Israel AND the US much more than it does to Iran. The US has killed over 20 million since WW2 and Israel has been slaughtering and oppressing Palestinians for decades, especially in the last 18 months.
"And why wouldn't Iran just unload their entire arsenal of drones and ballistic missiles on Israel" Their entire arsenal would not even equal one small nuclear device. Each missile and drone can carry 1 ton of explosives. A small nuclear bomb is 20 kiloton. That means Iran would have to have 20,000 missiles and drones and some how fire them all at once. They don't have that many and they can not fire them all at once.
If you read my comment, my hypothetical question was why would Iran commit suicide with a nuke when they can do that with conventional weapons. I didn't say their entire arsenal was equivalent to a nuke because it wasn't relevant to my point. But they would do major damage because Israel's air defense systems would be overwhelmed. And by the way, Israel has dropped the equivalent of 7 of those "small" (15 kiloton) nukes on Gaza.
Because only an atomic weapon can ‘take out’ Israel. Your suggestion is ludicrous because it only damages Israel. As for Palestinians, they need to move to Palestine/Jordan which is already 90% Palestinian. I promise you that if they move, Israel will stop slaughtering them. BTW, I think you would be happier living in Iran since, in your mind it is a moral and pragmatic place.
And whether Israel is destroyed or not, Iran would be committing suicide. Trying reading what I said.
Sounds like a plan. So, let's have Israel have the US be their guarantor and Israel could dismantle their own nukes. No sane person would want them to have nukes given the rhetoric of their government over the last 18 months. And why else would they want nukes if it wasn't for them wanting to grab more land from their neighbors without worry of reprisal? And since the US has proven they will tolerate any brutality that Israel dishes out, there is absolutely no reason Israel should want nukes of their own.
Israel has nuclear weapons for significant reasons: In past 76 years Arab nations tried to destroy Israel in 1948, 1967 and 1973. And the Palestinians have been attacking Israel at various levels since it became a nation. Can they trust the politics in the USA to always be there for Israel? No. In fact the US only started to supply major weapons to Israel after the 1967 war when the A-4 Skyhawks started to arrive.
But Iran SHOULD trust the politics of other counties that would be their guarantor? Always the double standard.
Unlike Israel, there is no country out to destroy Iran, kill its citizens and than take over their land.
Ah, people with guilty consciences always attribute to the other side their own sins.
What does that have to do with Iran trusting THEIR guarantor? And what do you think Netanyahu has been begging the US to do for the last 33 years?
When did ‘guarantor’ require a nuclear umbrella?
What?
Most everybody knows there is no such thing as Atoms for Peace via electrical power generation of nuclear power.
The Atoms for Peace goal is simply another lie told to Americans by military ghouls who lust for war and genocide.
Nuclear power generates Plutonium, which is used to make atom bombs aimed at innocent people who live and love life in target cities.
EDITED
USA civilian power reactors do not generate weapon grade Plutonium. Most of PU-239 generated in a power plant is consumed in the power plant. What is not consumed is contaminated with PU-240 and is useless for making weapons.
… And Iran said Rubio should move back to Havana…!
Whatever Rubio says comes out of Trump's mouth. Stop uranium enrichment for your energy, buy our US energy instead. Ever the wheeler dealer.
What's he selling now? A tour and dinner of Mar-a-Lago for some Bitcoin money?
I'm seeing a lot of comments to the effect of 'why can't Iran be like other countries and import its nuclear fuel?'. Well, for one, if you can be self-sufficient, you should be self-sufficient. Why place your program's existence at the whim of another country? Another consideration is: from whom does the US intend for Iran to buy from? Is Washington going to insist they buy from us, or are they setting up one of our client states to be the seller (from whom we would no doubt collect our vig), or are they suggesting they buy from Russia or China? It's a nonsensical demand, and one Iran is correct to reject.
A good bit of logic!…
If Iran was just enriching uranium to a level needed to refuel their power plant, than your argument makes sense. But they are not, they are enriching uranium to a level 15 times greater than needed for the power plant and in amount greater than the power plant needs.
And, once more, Iran is doing that because the US and the other signatories of the JCPOA weren't in compliance with the JCPOA. They have also made it known that they would be willing to go back to enriching at 3.67 if the other signatories of the JCPOA would be willing to abide by the JCPOA. Why do you keep ignoring those facts?
I ignore those facts because the fact that they are making significant amount of bomb grade Uranium is substantially more important than why they are doing it. I'm sure you don't understand the chemistry, but 60% enriched uranium wrapped in a beryllium tamper will blow up with a yield of 10 to 20 kiloton. Spend two to three weeks enriching the uranium to 90% and the explosion moves to the 100 kiloton range.
They wouldn't be doing it if the US and the other signatories were in compliance with the deal like Iran was. Period. Nothing was MORE important. I don't have to understand the chemistry to figure that out.
And they’ve been quite clear that the reason they’re doing that is because if the other parties to the JCPOA don’t want to hold up their end of the bargain, they won’t either — and will be happy to stop enriching to that level and mix the currently over-enriched material with unenriched material when and if the other parties to the deal stop fucking around and abide by the damn deal.
Hard to believe it’s been ten years since I wrote this. Really, the only part of it that was incorrect was that the US at least partially held up its end of the bargain for a little longer than I predicted..
And you trust them? It is hard to image the leaders in Iran giving up the bomb grade material that cost them so much time and effort to make. What is next? Oh you guys did not honor the JCPOA so we went ahead and started building atomic bombs. It amazing to me that you would trust them to give up all they have gain in atomic bomb technology, material and manufacturing just because the USA decided to honor the JCPOA.
They’ve clearly been far more trustworthy over time than their antagonists have been on this particular matter, but there’s really no angle from which any of it is about trust, let alone MY trust.
Quite the opposite, in fact. Under JCPOA, Iran’s facilities were subject to inspection, so little or no trust needed. Once the US and its toadies shit the bed and blew up the deal, that changed.
Iran will comply with stopping Enrichment when Rubio promises to grow two inch taller.
What would it take, including the length of time for its execution, for Israel's economic collapse and its masses to emigrate to western Ukraine?
Hypocriscy!…
The preverbal CAT is out of the bag!….
Should the parties reach a deal, will Israel demand an agreement for Iran to cease its support for Palestinians? That's one of the remaining elephants besides the Houthis. Ansar Allah doesn't have diplomatic relations with the US and Israel.
Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump have become embroiled in a conundrum or windmills of their minds position that's not easily extractable.
How lucky is Iran to have Russia, China, and the Houthis as friends?
Together with Israel and America's faltering economies and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's intransigence toward Russia's terms, even House and Senate Republicans could become restive vis-à-vis President Trump across his policy spectrum.