US Vice President JD Vance has called on Iran to “significantly” reduce its uranium enrichment capacity as part of a deal to end the war, a demand that experts say could signal a softening of Washington’s earlier insistence that Tehran abandon enrichment altogether.
His comments come amid harsh rhetoric from other senior US officials. Secretary of State Marco Rubio reiterated that Iran cannot possess nuclear weapons, while President Donald Trump warned that the war would end “either the right way or the wrong way.”
Recommended Stories
list of 4 elementsend of list
Officials in Tehran, meanwhile, are questioning whether Washington really wants negotiations as the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran enters its eighth month.
As both sides lay out their positions, Simon Mabon, professor of international relations at Lancaster University, told Al Jazeera that the prospect of Iran seeking nuclear weapons remained remote. Tehran’s negotiators are more concerned about sanctions, the freeze on Iranian assets, the US naval blockade and fighting in the region – issues which it says remain the main obstacles to a deal.
Here’s what we know.
What did the United States say?
Vance told the Reuters news agency that Iran must demonstrate its commitment not to develop nuclear weapons by changing its enrichment program. “If you don’t want nuclear weapons, why do you need 60% enriched fuel? he said.
“If you want to show your commitment to not making nuclear weapons, don’t make highly enriched fuel. That’s a fundamental issue.”
Enriching uranium makes it usable as fuel for nuclear reactors or, at much higher levels, for nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran had enriched uranium to 60 percent, below the roughly 90 percent considered weapons-grade. In its May 2025 assessment, it found no credible indication of a structured nuclear program.
Vance added that the United States was speaking with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, although “it’s not entirely clear how their country makes decisions.”
Meanwhile, Rubio, speaking to reporters in Athens, accused Iran of missing several opportunities to reach a deal.
“Iran cannot have nuclear weapons, that’s simple, period, period,” he said.
He also claimed that Iran had “lost total control” of the Strait of Hormuz and its economy was in “total freefall.” Under “crippling” sanctions, it was “on the verge of reaching a level that few countries in the world have reached,” he argued.
Analysts say the comments suggest that pressure on Tehran remains central to Washington’s approach, even if Vance’s wording leaves open questions about what nuclear restrictions it would accept.
What did Iran say?
Pezeshkian said Monday that negotiations with Washington were “futile,” accusing the United States of using the talks to sue the Iranian government.
“Our problem with the United States is that every time we come to the negotiating table, war is immediately imposed on us,” he said during a meeting with the Armenian foreign minister.
“They have attacked us three times after the negotiations so far; this demonstrates that they are not seeking dialogue. On the contrary, their goal is to bring down the Islamic Republic of Iran,” he said, according to the official Iranian news agency IRNA.
“With an enemy who uses assassinations, sanctions, pressure and threats on a daily basis – and who fails to deliver on his promises – negotiations become futile, and our nation will not accept such an approach. »
However, Araghchi, speaking to foreign ambassadors in Tehran on October 4, said: “Only negotiations based on justice and fairness” could end the conflict, suggesting that there is still room for negotiations to continue and an agreement to follow.
These statements follow an Iranian proposal presented at the United Nations General Assembly in New York at the end of September to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and resume negotiations. Trump then rejected it.
How does this compare to previous proposals?
The latest Iranian proposal sought to build on the June 17 memorandum of understanding signed by the two countries, which briefly eased the conflict before collapsing. The new proposal, presented a few weeks ago, essentially compressed the timeline and changed the sequence of steps toward a settlement.
The proposal called for fighting to cease on all fronts, including the Israeli offensive in Lebanon. Washington would lift its naval blockade and oil sanctions and release frozen Iranian assets. The Strait of Hormuz would reopen after seven days, followed by negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program.
Experts say the proposal could have offered Trump a path to restore shipping before the US midterm elections in November. But differences over the sequence of events remain unresolved.
However, Mabon told Al Jazeera that Washington’s focus on enrichment risks neglecting Tehran’s priorities. “The United States is trying to soften its position on the nuclear issue with the Iranians, but for the Iranians, that is not the real sticking point. It is the blockade, the lifting of sanctions, the unfreezing of assets and the end of conflicts in the region.”
A deal allowing limited enrichment would also invite comparisons with the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, negotiated under U.S. President Barack Obama. The deal limited Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. Trump withdrew the United States from it in 2018.
Mabon said a nuclear deal was possible before the current war. “A nuclear deal was arguably within reach on several issues. We had the JCPOA, of course, but the Iranians were close to agreeing to something similar in February and January. The mediated negotiations then all suggested that a nuclear deal could be reached, and yet the decision to go to war was made.”
What are the other obstacles to an agreement?
Mabon said Tehran would need commitments beyond the nuclear issue. “I think the Iranians would demand the lifting of sanctions, the lifting of the blockade and the thawing of assets, or at least a road map for that, alongside an end to the conflict in Lebanon and a permanent ceasefire in the Gulf. »
Shipping through the Strait of Hormuz remains another source of uncertainty, despite Rubio’s assertion that Iran has lost control of the waterway.
Even though Gulf oil exports have recovered significantly, attacks on shipping continue. On Tuesday, 12 crew members aboard a Panama-flagged oil tanker were injured by an unknown projectile while crossing the strait, India’s foreign ministry said.
Gulf oil flows, excluding Iran, reached more than 81% of pre-war levels in September, according to maritime intelligence firm Kpler. Middle East crude exports exceeded pre-war levels for 14 days that month.
The resumption could ease pressure on the United States to reach a deal, even if continued attacks raise questions about the security of the passage.
Mabon said Washington’s apparent easing on enrichment suggested it remained uncertain whether shipping through Hormuz would fully resume.
“If the Americans were sure the strait was properly open, they would push for a tougher deal.”
Gn usa
