Hendra Wijaya
The United States proposed supplying Iran with uranium for a civilian nuclear programme during earlier negotiations aimed at ending the war between the two countries, according to a senior American official, but Tehran turned the offer down.
US Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz disclosed the proposal during an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday, describing it as one of several ideas Washington put on the table during indirect talks. He said the arrangement would have resembled the nuclear cooperation agreement the United States maintains with the United Arab Emirates, which he described as operating a peaceful programme in the region while adhering to international law and inspection requirements.
Waltz framed the offer as evidence that the Trump administration was willing to accommodate a limited Iranian nuclear capability, provided Tehran accepted binding international obligations. He said President Donald Trump's team was open to allowing Iran to retain a civilian nuclear programme as long as it complied with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and submitted to international oversight.
According to Waltz, there were "a number of ways" the US president was prepared to handle the Iranian nuclear file to prevent Tehran from obtaining highly enriched uranium or from rebuilding the capacity to produce it. One option he mentioned involved Iran handing over any such material already in its possession, a proposal that has repeatedly surfaced in US statements over the past year.
The Emirati model cited by Waltz rests on a 2009 agreement under which the UAE committed not to enrich uranium domestically and not to reprocess spent nuclear fuel on its own. The Gulf state, a signatory to the NPT, generates electricity from a nuclear power plant. Washington has separately said it reached a civilian nuclear understanding with Saudi Arabia this year, though the details remain undisclosed and Trump has linked the arrangement to Riyadh joining the Abraham Accords.
Civilian nuclear programmes are not unusual in the wider region. Egypt and Turkiye both operate them. Pakistan possesses a declared nuclear arsenal, while Israel is widely believed by experts to hold nuclear weapons, and neither country is a party to the NPT. This patchwork of capabilities has long shaped the debate over what Iran should be permitted to retain.
The central sticking point between Washington and Tehran has been the fate of Iran's existing uranium stockpile and how, or whether, to guarantee that any future supply cannot be diverted to weapons production. Iran maintains that it has no intention of building a nuclear weapon and insists its enrichment activities serve purely civilian ends, including electricity generation, medical treatments and scientific research.
Iran is estimated to hold more than 440 kilogrammes of uranium enriched to 60 percent purity. Weapons-grade material is generally considered to require enrichment to roughly 90 percent. Enrichment is a technically demanding process that involves isolating the most radioactive isotope from a quantity of uranium, which is why the purity level of a stockpile draws such intense scrutiny.
Under the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran agreed to cap its enrichment at 3.67 percent under strict international supervision in exchange for sanctions relief. Trump withdrew the United States from that accord in 2018, arguing it was too generous to Tehran. The collapse of the deal set in motion the current standoff over Iran's nuclear programme.
On 10 September, the International Atomic Energy Agency expressed concern over Iran's "continued noncompliance" with the NPT, to which Tehran is a signatory. Under the treaty, Iran undertakes not to produce nuclear weapons and to cooperate with IAEA safeguards governing its civilian uranium supply. The agency has not been granted access to key Iranian nuclear facilities since June 2025, when Israel and the United States struck sites in Iran during a 12-day war.
Iranian officials have rejected the IAEA's finding, saying it was issued under political pressure from Washington and its allies. They maintain that Tehran has not abandoned its treaty obligations but cannot permit inspections until its facilities are safe from American and Israeli attacks, a position that has stalled any return to full monitoring.
Trump has at times said he would destroy Iran's enriched uranium or seize it by force. In April, he claimed to have persuaded Iran to hand over its stockpile, which he referred to as "nuclear dust." Iranian officials dismissed that assertion almost immediately, stating that enriched uranium would not be transferred out of the country under any circumstances.
The diplomatic picture remains complicated by events beyond the nuclear file. On Saturday, Trump rejected an Iranian plan to reopen the Strait of Hormuz within seven days. Speaking to reporters at the White House, he said Tehran wanted an immediate deal on the vital maritime corridor only "because they are losing so badly." Iran has continued to insist that diplomacy is the sole path to resolving the conflict.
In a separate interview on "Meet the Press" on Sunday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi offered Tehran's response to the latest American positions. His remarks underscored the gap that persists between the two sides, even as Washington publicises past offers it says Iran declined.
The disclosure by Waltz adds a new detail to the record of negotiations that have unfolded alongside the war, but it also highlights the distance between the two governments. Washington presents its proposals as generous accommodations of a civilian programme; Tehran has shown no willingness to surrender control of the enriched material at the heart of the dispute.
Comments (0)