Nuclear chief aligns with Khamenei: No retreat on Iran’s program

"The rude and arrogant leaders of America repeatedly demand that we should not have a nuclear program. Who are you to decide whether Iran should have an enrichment?," Khamenei said during a televised speech.

“The US nuclear proposal contradicts our nation's belief in self-reliance and the principle of 'We Can',” he added, referring to a core slogan of the Islamic Republic's founder Rouhollah Khomeini.

Speaking at Khomeini’s mausoleum in southern Tehran, Khamenei added, “The first word of the US is that Iran should not have a nuclear industry and should rely on the United States.

“Our response to the US nonsense is clear: they cannot do a damn thing in this matter.”

The phrase echoed another famous slogan by Khomeini, "America can't do a damn thing against us," during the Iran hostage crisis shortly after the Islamic Revolution, which marked a nadir in US-Iran relations.

The US proposal for a new nuclear deal was presented to Iran on Saturday by Oman, which is mediating talks between Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and President Donald Trump's Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff.

After five rounds of talks, several issues remain, including Iran's insistence on maintaining uranium enrichment on its soil and Tehran's refusal to ship abroad its entire existing stockpile of highly enriched uranium -- possible raw material for nuclear bombs.

Trump has revived his so-called maximum pressure campaign against Tehran since his return to the White House in January, which included tightening sanctions. He also threatened to bomb Iran if the negotiations yield no deal.

During his first term in 2018, Trump pulled out of Tehran's 2015 nuclear deal with six world powers and reimposed sanctions that have damaged Iran's economy significantly. Iran responded by escalating enrichment far beyond the pact's limits.

Khamenei emphasized that Iran would not abandon its enrichment work, despite Western pressure.

“Uranium enrichment is the backbone of our nuclear program,” he said. “They want to dismantle our nuclear program and weaken our national power. But the US will not be able to weaken our nuclear program."

Collapse of 2010 nuclear fuel deal

Khamenei added that the United States cannot be trusted to supply Iran with the nuclear fuel it needs for its fuel cycle, citing past instances of US and European unreliability in previous nuclear agreements.

“In the 2010s, we experienced the unreliability of the Americans — they broke their promise and did not provide 20% enriched fuel,” Khamenei said.

Khamenei was referring to a 2010 fuel swap agreement brokered by Turkey and Brazil, under which Iran was to exchange 1,200 kilograms of low-enriched uranium for 120 kilograms of fuel for its Tehran Research Reactor. Although based on a proposal from the US and its partners, the deal collapsed amid international mistrust and subsequent sanctions.

“Why are you interfering?” Khamenei said, addressing Washington. “Whether Iran enriches uranium or not — what does it have to do with you? Who are you?”

He defended Iran’s pursuit of a complete nuclear fuel cycle, saying that the country is among perhaps only ten in the world capable of achieving it. He emphasized that the nuclear industry serves broader scientific purposes beyond energy, describing it as a “parent industry.”

Tehran says it wants nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Iran is the only non-nuclear weapon state enriching uranium to 60% U-235.

The IAEA has consistently maintained that there is no credible civilian use for uranium enriched to this level, which is a short technical step from weapons-grade 90% fissile material.

Senior officials double down on Khamenei's remarks

Hours after Khamenei’s speech, Iran’s foreign minister and nuclear chief reinforced the message, saying Iran will not bow to foreign pressure and will protect its nuclear gains.

“There is no scenario in which we will give up on the patriots who made our dream come true,” said Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi on X. “No enrichment, no deal. No nuclear weapons, we have a deal.”

Echoing the stance, Iran’s nuclear chief Mohammad Eslami vowed to continue expanding Iran’s atomic program with “faith, revolutionary spirit, and heartfelt conviction.”

In a statement addressed to Khamenei, Eslami said, “Iran would stand against the excessive demands of the United States and other hegemonic powers.”

Iran open to regional consortium as hopes for deal narrow

On Tuesday, Axios cited a senior Iranian official as saying that Tehran is open to a nuclear agreement based on the idea of a regional uranium enrichment consortium, provided it is based in Iran.

CNN on Monday also reported that the next round of nuclear talks is “very uncertain and may not happen at all,” citing sources familiar with the negotiations. Reuters reported that Tehran was drafting a negative response to the US proposal.

According to the New York Times on Tuesday, the US has proposed allowing Iran to continue uranium enrichment at reduced levels, with the expectation that enrichment would fully stop once the regional consortium becomes operational.

The consortium would include countries such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and the US would help facilitate the construction of its nuclear facilities.

Citing Iranian and European officials, it added that while the idea signals a possible path toward resolving the long-running dispute, the details remain vague.

Two Iranian officials quoted by the newspaper said that while Iran is open to the consortium concept, they insist it must be located on Iranian territory -- possibly on Kish or Qeshm islands in the Persian Gulf.

“Zero enrichment is the code name for the consortium,” the IRGC-linked daily Javan wrote on Monday, referring to a plan that would effectively eliminate Iran’s domestic refinement of uranium.

The details of Washington’s proposal have not been officially revealed, but Javan asserted in its editorial that the draft calls for Iran to halt enrichment entirely.

Another conservative outlet, Khorasan, front-paged the story with the headline Suspicious Proposal.

“Based on available evidence, it is highly unlikely that the proposal delivered by Oman’s foreign minister will address Iran’s key demands,” wrote the daily, which is aligned with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s office.

Khorasan questioned why US negotiator Steve Witkoff sent the proposal through a mediator rather than delivering it directly to his Iranian counterpart during the upcoming round of Tehran-Washington negotiations.

A consortium would pose a threat to the security of Iran’s nuclear program, the paper argued, asserting that another round of talks would only take place if Iran accepts the proposal.

As of Monday evening in Tehran, the only official response to the proposal came from Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who said during a visit to Cairo that the proposal is unfair.

The hardline publication Kayhan, whose editor-in-chief is appointed by Khamenei, also lambasted the idea.

“There is no sign of goodwill in the United States’ proposal. Its sole aim is to weaken and dismantle Iran’s peaceful nuclear program,” the daily wrote in a Monday editorial, stopping short of ruling out a compromise.

“Any retreat without guarantees will only invite further pressure,” it warned.

Major reformist outlet Etemad echoed the sentiment, differing only slightly in tone.

“Even if Iran accepts the proposal, there is no guarantee that the United States will uphold its commitments,” the daily quoted foreign policy scholar Mohsen Jalilvand.

Jalilvand pointed to a push by European powers to trigger the so-called snapback mechanism of UN sanctions suspended under the 2015 nuclear deal, asserting that the United States would welcome the added pressure on Tehran.

Meanwhile, Morteza Maki, an expert on European affairs, stated that developments in Europe, the United States, and the United Kingdom point to a coordinated effort to activate the trigger mechanism, which would reinstate all previous sanctions on Iran.

Despite mounting pressure—including threats from Israel—Maki said Tehran and Washington may still be able to strike an agreement.

Fatemeh Mohajerani, spokeswoman for the Iranian government, told reporters in Tehran that Washington’s “contradictory statements” were complicating the process and undermining trust.

“We are prepared for every scenario, but we will not leave the negotiating table,” Mohajerani said.

Reported offer diverges from US public line

A key source of friction is a draft proposal delivered to Iran on Saturday by Omani Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi, who has been mediating between Tehran and Washington.

The document outlines a possible framework under which Iran could maintain limited low-level uranium enrichment on its soil, according to Axios and other US media outlets.

This reported flexibility contrasts with public remarks from senior US officials, including White House envoy Steve Witkoff and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who have repeatedly said Washington would not permit any uranium enrichment and would demand full dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

The proposal also includes limits on future enrichment, the dismantling of certain facilities, and phased sanctions relief tied to compliance verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Tehran says proposal lacks guarantees

Iranian officials have responded skeptically. Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said on Monday that the proposal lacked credible assurances on sanctions relief — a central Iranian demand.

A senior Iranian diplomat told Reuters the offer was a “non-starter,” citing inconsistencies between the US public position and what was conveyed in the draft.

Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s foreign minister, speaking during a visit to Cairo, confirmed that Tehran is still drafting its formal response.

Iran seen preparing negative response - Reuters

According to Reuters, a senior Iranian diplomat said Tehran is drafting a negative response to the US proposal, which could amount to a rejection. The unnamed diplomat cited by Reuters described the offer as failing to address Iran’s key demands, including recognition of its right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.

Sources close to Iran’s negotiating team also criticized what they view as Washington’s shifting stance, which they say has created uncertainty about US intentions and credibility, Iranian state media reported on Monday.

CNN on Monday also reported that the next round of nuclear talks is “very uncertain and may not happen at all,” citing sources familiar with the negotiations.

A senior Iranian official told the network the US proposal was “incoherent and disjointed” and conflicted with the understandings reached during the fifth round in Rome. The official added that “the fact that the Americans constantly change their positions” has become a major obstacle to progress.

US officials reject claim of bad faith

Israel Hayom reported on Monday that American officials expected Tehran to accept some elements and object to others.

The outlet, citing unnamed US sources, said that the administration believes Iran’s response will be more measured and that further talks remain possible. A US official quoted in the outlet said negotiators could begin by addressing areas where the gaps are narrower.

The official also said that negotiations would not continue indefinitely and that all options remain under consideration.

Trump publicly contradicts reported offer

President Donald Trump added to the confusion on Monday when he wrote on Truth Social: “Under our potential Agreement — WE WILL NOT ALLOW ANY ENRICHMENT OF URANIUM!”

The statement directly contradicts media accounts of the proposal delivered to Tehran, which permits limited enrichment under strict international oversight — a provision aimed at accommodating Iran’s long-standing demand for civilian nuclear rights.

The gap between Trump’s public stance and the reported content of the offer has become a central point of contention for Iranian officials, who accuse Washington of negotiating in bad faith.

US senator demands transparency over reported ‘side deal’

US Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer on Monday warned that the Trump administration may be pursuing a side arrangement with Iran outside the scope of congressional oversight.

Speaking on the Senate floor, Schumer cited the Axios report and urged the administration to clarify whether informal commitments have been made. He said the alleged deal, if true, contradicts earlier statements by Rubio and Witkoff and risks undermining accountability.

Schumer also said any future agreement must address not only nuclear safeguards but also Iran’s support for regional militant groups.

The slogan “nuclear energy is our absolute right” emerged in the early 2000s, as tensions over Iran’s program escalated and international pressure mounted. It was printed on official banners and chanted in state-sponsored rallies.

But it was never a grassroots demand.

“I want to throw up when I hear the phrase nuclear energy,” says Babak, a software engineer in his mid-forties. “Everyone I know feels the same—it reminds them of high prices and empty pockets.”

It’s easy to see that the grudge runs far deeper and wider than the nuclear program.

“This nuclear standoff has made the wall between us and the rest of the world much taller. Every time (Foreign Minister Abbas) Araghchi says ‘non-negotiable’, he triggers a collective trauma: the lives we’ve lost to his ilk’s stupid posturing.”

They showed some reason with the 2015 deal, Babak says, but it was all undone when President Donald Trump pulled the U.S. out.

The chants about nuclear rights died out with that agreement. The term ‘enrichment’ crawled back to technical reports where it belongs.

Now, amid talks with the United States, the government is reviving it, calling enrichment “a non-negotiable right of the Iranian nation.”

Pride, what pride?

But the message holds little weight for many Iranians who increasingly feel their interests and those of Iran’s rulers are mutually exclusive.

“How am I benefiting from this technology, this so-called right?” my neighbour Sonia asks as she breastfeeds her baby in stifling afternoon heat during the daily power cut.

“Isn't one supposed purpose of nuclear energy generating electricity? Why are we having more power cuts with every passing year, then? Why is the share of nuclear power in our grid a literal zero?”

Sonia’s questions are rarely, if ever, discussed in Iran’s media. The nuclear program is a source of national pride, we’re told, and not being proud of it is a crime.

The disconnect between rulers and ruled is nearly complete—so is the gap between official claims and lived experience.

“Their contempt for us people is unreal. And it’s matched by ours for them,” Sonia concludes, her baby now fast asleep. “It’s gotten to a point where many oppose a deal that might improve their lives, because it would benefit the Islamic Republic far more.”

It’s about them, not us

Not everyone is so antagonistic toward the government. Some—more among the older generations, in my experience—are equally critical of regional and world powers.

Retired chemistry teacher Kazem is one of them. He’s the only one of four friends playing chess in the park who is willing to talk to me.

“The Americans first said low-level enrichment would be ok,” he says, “but then changed their position to ‘zero enrichment’, perhaps under pressure from hawks or (Israeli prime minister) Netanyahu.”

“I dislike most of what the government does, but on this one I think it’s the others in Europe and America who are being unreasonable and blocking a potential path forward.”

Kazem’s friends shake their heads in disagreement. One murmurs something to the effect that no sane man believes a word that “this bunch”, Iranian officials, say.

The distrust, in my view, is at the heart of every position that most ordinary Iranians take in relation to those who rule the country.

“The idea of peaceful nuclear energy is a total lie. Yes, it does have many applications—in medicine, for example. But show me just one hospital that’s benefiting from what’s being done in Natanz and Fordow.”

Reza is a technician at a private hospital in Tehran. He says he agrees with the official line about nations’ right to peaceful nuclear energy.

“But this has nothing to do with the nation,” he says, voice rising. “It’s about them, (supreme leader) Khamenei, the (Revolutionary) Guards and the leeches sucking Iran dry and sending the riches to their brood in Canada.

“If it was about the nation, the nation would have been consulted about it. Has anybody ever asked you if you’d rather have centrifuges or a decent car?”

Speaking in Cairo after meeting Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty and International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Rafael Grossi, Araghchi said: “If the United States seeks to deprive us of nuclear technology, there will definitely be no agreement.”

He emphasized that uranium enrichment is Iran’s right under international treaties.

“The International Atomic Energy Agency must remain a technical body and not be swayed by political pressure,” he added.

Last week, the IAEA said that Iran operated a covert nuclear program using undeclared material at three sites under investigation.

Araghchi’s comments come amid nuclear talks mediated by Oman.

Also on Monday, Reuters cited an unnamed Iranian diplomat as saying that Tehran is preparing to formally reject a recent US proposal, calling it “one-sided” and “a non-starter.”

The proposal, delivered on Saturday by Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi fails to address Tehran’s core demands—including recognition of its right to enrich uranium and the immediate lifting of US sanctions, according to Reuters.

“In this proposal, there is no change to the US position on enrichment, and no clarity on sanction relief,” the diplomat said.

He added that Iran’s nuclear negotiation committee, which reports to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, has assessed the proposal as incompatible with Iranian interests.

An Iranian official familiar with the matter was also cited by Iranian state-linked media as saying that Tehran does not view the latest US proposal in nuclear talks as a fair basis for agreement.

“The recent US proposal for a new nuclear deal with Iran is unacceptable,” the unnamed source was quoted as saying. “It cannot serve as a fair foundation for any potential compromise.”

Iran has consistently said that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. However, Western powers have accused Tehran of seeking nuclear weapons capabilities—allegations Iran denies.

Iran is the only non-nuclear weapon state enriching uranium to 60% U-235. The IAEA has consistently maintained that there is no credible civilian use for uranium enriched to this level, which is a short technical step from weapons-grade 90% fissile material.

Iran's stockpile of 60% enriched uranium had increased to 275 kg, enough to theoretically make about half a dozen weapons if Iran further enriches the uranium.

Two Iranian officials told Reuters last week that Iran might consider pausing enrichment if the US unfreezes Iranian assets and acknowledges Iran’s civilian enrichment rights as part of a broader political understanding.

Last month, Khamenei said there will be no concessions on enrichment. "Saying things like 'we won’t allow Iran to enrich uranium' is way out of line. No one is waiting for anyone’s permission," he said. "The Islamic Republic has its own policy, its own approach, and it will continue to pursue it."