Tensions over Iran’s nuclear ambitions have flared once again, as the United States reaffirmed an uncompromising stance on uranium enrichment in any future nuclear agreement. In a recent interview with ABC News, Steve Witkoff, the Trump administration’s special envoy to the Middle East, declared that the United States would not accept a deal allowing Iran even minimal uranium enrichment – a position Tehran has swiftly condemned as detached from diplomatic reality.

“We cannot allow even 1% of an enrichment capability,” Witkoff said on May 18. “Enrichment enables weaponization. And we will not allow a bomb to get here.” His comments represent a clear escalation in rhetoric at a time when indirect negotiations between Washington and Tehran have seen sporadic attempts at revival, primarily mediated through regional players like Oman and Qatar.

Witkoff’s statement marks a definitive red line: the total dismantlement of Iran’s enrichment infrastructure. This would go far beyond the terms of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which permitted Iran limited enrichment of uranium – capped at 3.67% purity – under strict international oversight. The Trump administration, which unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018, argues that the original agreement was fundamentally flawed, enabling Iran to bide its time before ultimately developing nuclear weapons capabilities.

Iran was quick to respond. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi dismissed the US demand as “unrealistic” and warned that Tehran would continue its enrichment activities with or without Washington’s consent.

“Iran will not accept dictates from a country that unilaterally walked away from a multilateral agreement,” Araghchi said. “We are not seeking to build a nuclear bomb. We are willing to take steps that provide permanent assurance to the international community. But abolishing our right to enrichment is a non-starter.”

Araghchi pointed out that Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which grants it the right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes – including enrichment. “What the US is proposing essentially demands Iran to abandon its sovereign rights under the NPT, while offering nothing in return,” he said.

Currently, Iran is enriching uranium to levels of up to 60% purity, well above the JCPOA limit but still below the 90% threshold typically considered weapons-grade. Tehran insists the enrichment is for medical and industrial purposes. However, Western intelligence agencies maintain that at current levels and pace, Iran could theoretically produce a nuclear bomb in a matter of weeks if it chooses to make that decision.

The standoff over Iran’s nuclear program is once again a flashpoint in Middle Eastern geopolitics, involving not only the United States and Iran, but also Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other regional players. While the Biden administration had sought to re-enter the JCPOA after taking office in 2021, those efforts were derailed by Iran’s hardline turn in domestic politics and Washington’s inability to lift sanctions without bipartisan support in Congress.

The Trump administration, reinstated in 2024 after the former president’s electoral return, has adopted a far more hawkish stance. Witkoff’s comments are emblematic of the new foreign policy orientation – one that seeks maximum pressure and zero compromise.

Meanwhile, reports from The New York Times last week indicated that Iran had floated the idea of a joint enrichment venture during recent indirect talks in Oman. This initiative, reportedly involving regional Arab states and potentially US investment, was portrayed as a confidence-building measure. However, Witkoff’s office has categorically denied the claim, calling it “disinformation designed to confuse the international community.”

The central issue remains whether a negotiated settlement can bridge the seemingly irreconcilable positions of the two countries. For Washington, even low-level enrichment is a slippery slope toward nuclear weaponization. For Tehran, enrichment is a sovereign right and a matter of national pride.

This impasse has persisted despite both countries occasionally signaling openness to diplomacy. Iran has expressed willingness to allow more intrusive inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and to formally renounce any intention of developing nuclear weapons. But the absence of trust and the legacy of broken agreements haunt every attempt at rapprochement.

Witkoff insists that diplomacy is still an option but only under stringent terms: “We want a diplomatic resolution. But let me be very clear – Iran must abandon enrichment, period. Otherwise, there is no deal.”

Iran, on the other hand, maintains that the only way forward is mutual respect and a return to the basic principles of the JCPOA, including reciprocal sanctions relief and internationally monitored enrichment.

The hardening of US policy raises the risk of further destabilization. Analysts warn that if diplomacy fails and Iran’s nuclear program advances unchecked, the likelihood of military confrontation will increase. Israel has repeatedly threatened to act unilaterally if Iran crosses the nuclear threshold. With the United States now adopting an absolutist position, the diplomatic window may be closing fast.

“There is no such thing as zero enrichment if diplomacy is to succeed,” said Trita Parsi, Executive Vice President of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. “The US is demanding something it knows Iran will not accept – and that leaves only coercion or war as the next steps.”

At the same time, Iran’s growing cooperation with Russia and China, particularly in the areas of energy and military technology, could complicate any efforts to isolate Tehran economically. Sanctions have already lost some of their bite as Iran deepens its trade ties with the East.

The latest developments in US-Iran nuclear diplomacy reflect a widening chasm between the two governments. While Washington’s red line on enrichment underscores its desire to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran at all costs, Tehran’s insistence on its sovereign rights makes a breakthrough increasingly unlikely.

Unless both sides show flexibility – and unless regional actors contribute constructively – the specter of conflict may once again overshadow the promise of diplomacy. The world has seen this movie before, and unless the script changes, it may be headed for a tragic sequel.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel