Omani proposal likely not call for total elimination of uranium enrichment by Iran

TABNAK, May. 26 - Professor Paul Pillar believes that the issue of uranium enrichment may remain largely unresolved in the Iran-US negotiations and be pursued in subsequent negotiations, adding that Omanis proposal likely did not call for a total elimination of uranium enrichment by Iran.

News ID: 6455

Date: 26 May 2025 - 10:49

The fifth round of Iran-US talks concluded on Friday, June 21, in Rome, Italy. at the end of the meeting, Omani Foreign Minister Badr Busaidi said the fifth round of Iran-US talks ended with some progress, but without a final conclusion.

The most important issue that overshadowed the talks was the issue of ' uranium enrichment' which Iran insists it has the right to enrichment while the American side says Iran must stop enrichment.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi also said, "Our positions are completely clear and insist on them. Now the American side has a better understanding of our positions."

He added that the Omani Foreign Minister had some proposals that can pave the way for a possible agreement.

To shed more light on the issue TABNAK reached out to Professor Paul Pillar former CIA intelligence analyst.

Following is the full text of the interview:

The fifth round of negotiations between Iran and the United States in Rome, the capital of Italy, has concluded. Regarding the outcome of this round of talks, Axios, quoting responsible officials, reported that the negotiations between Araghchi and Witkoff were very useful and fruitful. What is your assessment?

Not enough information has leaked out of the negotiations to make good judgments about the degree of progress, if any. The Omani comments about this round were slightly less positive in tone than those of the Iranian foreign minister. We should also bear in mind when talking about "progress" that in this sort of negotiation, nothing is agreed to until everything, in whatever agreement may finally emerge, is agreed to. The fact that the two sides are still talking is itself a positive sign and reaffirms that the governments of both Iran and the U.S. both genuinely want an agreement.

This round of negotiations took place while, prior to the talks, the United States had demanded “zero enrichment” from Iran and had declared Iran’s uranium enrichment as its red line. On the other hand, Iran had also described halting enrichment as its red line. Based on this, it seemed that the negotiations were heading toward a deadlock, but Oman presented a proposal. The details of this plan have not been made public, but Abbas Araghchi has expressed hope regarding its effectiveness. In your opinion, how can this proposal create a balance between the positions of Iran and the United States?

Uranium enrichment is still the biggest sticking point in this negotiation. One of Witkoff's most recent statements on the subject sounded very hardline on this topic and it is hard to see how the U.S. side will back away from it. I would guess that whatever the Omanis proposed did not call for a total elimination of uranium enrichment by Iran. It is still difficult to see how this gap can be bridged.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has stated that he supports an agreement that ensures Iran will not obtain nuclear weapons. Does this statement signify a retreat by Israel?

There has been no retreat by Israel. The Israeli objective is not just to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon but to keep Iran isolated and weak. Israel will oppose almost any agreement with Iran by anybody on anything. Israel can still be expected to look for ways to sabotage a U.S. agreement with Iran. A key variable will be whether Trump will put any pressure on Netanyahu not to indulge in such sabotage.

It seems that the fifth round of negotiations between Iran and the United States was highly significant and that the talks could have reached an impasse at this stage. Considering that the Foreign Minister of Oman has announced progress in this round of talks and that the negotiations are set to continue, what is your assessment of the likelihood of both parties reaching an agreement? Could this agreement go beyond the nuclear issue (a limited deal) and lead to a comprehensive agreement?

There might be some language, probably vague, about non-nuclear issues involving Iran's regional activities, which would be a way for Trump to claim that an agreement was better than the JCPOA. One possible outcome of the current negotiations would be some kind of preliminary agreement, similar to how the JPOA of 2013 preceded the JCPOA of 2015. This might leave the uranium enrichment issue mostly unresolved, to be addressed in promised follow-on negotiations.