Pressure on Iran to reach a deal with the US on its nuclear programme has been mounting in the last few days. A written proposal from Washington was sent to Tehran by Omani Foreign Minister Badr Al-Busaidi, who paid a short visit to the Iranian capital at the end of the week.
That was preceded by two reports from the nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which issued reports accusing Iran of violating its monitoring regime. The agency, in a separate report to members only, said Iran was stockpiling more highly-enriched uranium than it declares.
Both Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and the White House confirmed the written proposal without giving any details. But American media hinted that the proposal, which is a sort of a bullet-point list for a suggested deal, confirms the American demand made by American envoy Steve Witkoff in the last two rounds of negotiations.
Iran has been steadfast in insisting any deal should honour its rights for uranium enrichment which it claims is for peaceful purposes. The Americans are now stipulating that Tehran stop uranium enrichment processes that can easily be developed to produce weapons-grade uranium.
Though Tehran might want the negotiations with the US, brokered by Sultanate of Oman, the Americans are keen to reach a deal as soon as possible. President Donald Trump repeatedly said that a deal is within reach, yet he warns Iran of dire consequences if it fails to agree.
According to The New York Times, the proposal “calls for Iran to cease all enrichment of uranium and proposes the creation of a regional consortium to produce nuclear power that would involve Iran, Saudi Arabia and other Arab states, and the United States”. Axios reported that the American proposal implies “that the US recognises Iran’s right to enrich uranium, while Iran fully suspends its uranium enrichment.”
Such suggestions were previously offered by Omani mediators to break a deadlock in the nuclear talks. According to local sources, one of the options Oman provided was that Iran should “freeze” its uranium enrichment for three years in exchange for an “interim” deal that includes suspension of sanctions on Tehran. The other option is the “consortium”, which seems to be the basis of latest American proposal, as sources told Al-Ahram Weekly.
If the proposed blueprint was agreed, a deal will be announced and the technical details left for specialist teams to finetune. The nuclear production consortium’s location remains ambiguous. Tehran insists production should be in Iran, while the Americans oppose this and want it to be in Saudi Arabia, the UAE or Qatar.
The coming days are intensely charged, especially with Israel stepping up its rhetoric about striking Iran’s nuclear installations following the IAEA report and statements. Iran criticised the reports, accusing the agency of relying on “fabricated data from Israel”. It repeated its commitment to the agreed provisions of monitoring and that all Iranian activities fall within the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the remainder of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreed on in 2015, from which US withdrew in 2018.
After the IAEA reports during the weekend, Iran warned European parties to JCOPA of invoking what is called a “snapback mechanism” that means re-imposing additional sanctions on Tehran. The mechanism expires in October anyway, so Tehran is hopeful it will reach a deal with the US before that to avoid re-imposing more sanctions.
But the US is not going to wait for what some in the administration see as “Iranian manipulation” to buy time. Israel is capitalising on those so-called Iran hawks in the White House pushing for some sort of military action against Iran.
Some media reports mentioned that Saudi Arabia already warned Tehran to accept a deal with the US or face an Israeli attack. Multiple outlets said the Saudi message was relayed by Defence Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman, during his visit last month. He was the Saudi ambassador to Washington during Trump’s first term. He is said to have “warned Iranian officials that the US leader has little patience for drawn-out negotiations”.
Gulf commentators note that Saudi Arabia is reluctant to support any military action against Iran. In fact, as some pundits have told the Weekly, the Saudis are keen on improving relations with Iran. That is why if Tehran is to agree the location of the nuclear production consortium should be in another Gulf country it would prefer Saudi Arabia to the UAE.
A veteran Western diplomat knowledgeable about the Middle East puts it like this: “Trump can no longer accept Iranian ‘time-wasting’ while Israeli pressure is mounting.” With the anticipated deal to stop the war on Gaza brokered by the Americans being delayed, Washington needs an “achievement”. A quick deal with Iran, even in principle, would provide Trump with a means to fend off Israel and its Washington lobbyists pushing for a wider conflict in the region.
Yet the prospect of escalation if nuclear talks flounder is real. The Financial Times carried a report this week concluding that Tehran is rebuilding air defences hit by Israel last year “as the threat of new attacks looms”. The paper noted that Iran has been seeking to bolster its air defences in preparation for the possibility of an Israeli or US strike against its nuclear infrastructure. Many of Iran’s most-advanced surface-to-air missiles and radars were destroyed or damaged by Israeli air strikes in October 2023 and April 2024.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 5 June, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: