Iran open to regional consortium, enriched uranium transfer in US nuclear talks

US President Donald Trump has said talks with Iran could resume next week, although no date has been set, according to the White House.

While Iran Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi added today that there are “no plans” as of yet for talks, expectations are that a date could be announced any day.

There were direct and indirect talks between the United States and Iran — some through Qatar and other intermediaries — before and during the 12 days of war, including talks that resulted in a ceasefire brokered by Trump on June 24 that ended the conflict.

President Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, has said that the United States is now hopeful for a “comprehensive peace agreement with Iran” that would include a discussion of rebuilding Iran’s civil nuclear program without enrichment and whether there is a way in which Iran can be part of a regional “renaissance” with its Gulf Arab neighbors — linking a possible agreement with Iran to Trump’s vision of a region governed by “commerce, not conflict.”

Ambassador Amir Saeid Iravani, the Islamic Republic of Iran’s permanent representative to the United Nations, said in an exclusive written interview with Al-Monitor that Iran is willing to “collaborate with all countries in our region that operate nuclear reactors — whether on issues of reactor safety or the supply of reactor fuel,” as long as it serves as a “complementary initiative” and is not a substitute for Iran’s own domestic nuclear program.

“A consortium could very well be one of the forms such cooperation might take,” said Iravani, referring to a previous Trump administration proposal for joint nuclear enrichment and production.

Responding to a follow up question on whether Iran would accept limiting enrichment to a regional nuclear consortium operating within Iran, Iravani said “in principle, we have no objection to that; however, we should consider it based on the details of any potential proposals we receive.”

Asked whether Iran would consider transferring stockpiles of highly enriched uranium (HEU) or have them placed under international supervision, Iravani explained that “should a new agreement be concluded, we would be prepared to transfer our stockpiles of 60% and 20% enriched uranium to another country and have them transferred out of Iranian territory in return for receiving yellowcake,” referencing a previous arrangement with Russia under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

“Alternatively, the enriched uranium could be stockpiled in Iran under IAEA seal,” Iravani explained. “This, of course, depends on the substance of the negotiations and the terms of any eventual agreement. Therefore, it is not a red line for us.”

While House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said today that “there was no indication to the United States that any of that enriched uranium was moved prior to the strike from any of the sites.”

While some observers have warned that Iran may exit the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) following the war, Iravani said that although legislation passed this week by the Iranian parliament, or majlis, suspends cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), “it does not signify Iran’s withdrawal from the NPT.”

Any agreement with the United States must recognize “Iran’s rights as a responsible member” of the NPT, said Iravani.

“We seek neither more nor less than the rights accorded to every other NPT member,” Iravani said. “Under the NPT, every state is entitled to conduct research, to produce and to make peaceful use of nuclear energy. Accordingly, we intend to exercise all three pillars of that right — particularly the right to domestic production. Iran continues to insist on maintaining production capabilities on its own soil and within its own territory.”

CNN, citing Trump administration sources, reported earlier today that the United States has offered $20-30 billion investment, preferably from Arab Gulf countries rather than the United States, for a domestic Iranian non-enrichment nuclear program that would be used for civilian energy purposes.

When asked about the possibility of US or Western investment in Iran’s energy sector, Iravani said Iran would place “no restrictions” on such investment, but would not accept it as a Western “bargaining chip” to get Iran to give up its right to enrichment on its own soil.

Iravani was adamant that there would be no compromise on Iran’s missile program.

“Iran will never agree to relinquish such an effective strategic lever, nor will it allow itself to be disarmed in the face of potential future attacks,” he said.

Below is the transcript of the written interview between Ambassador Amir Saeid Iravani, permanent representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations, and Andrew Parasiliti, president of Al-Monitor.

Al-Monitor: US special envoy Witkoff said that the United States is hopeful for “a comprehensive peace agreement” with Iran … leading to long-term prosperity, further integration and a “renaissance” with the GCC. Is this something you would be willing to discuss? Does Iran want peace and to join the regional trend toward integration? What would be Iran’s vision, and terms, for a long-term peace agreement?

Iravani: Well, Iran has consistently pursued a peaceful resolution to address any potential concerns surrounding its nuclear program. The conclusion of the JCPOA itself was grounded in that very approach. We remain committed to the same principles. What is essential, however, is that Iran’s rights as a responsible member of the NPT be duly recognized. We seek neither more nor less than the rights accorded to every other NPT member. Under the NPT, every state is entitled to conduct research, to produce and to make peaceful use of nuclear energy. Accordingly, we intend to exercise all three pillars of that right — particularly the right to domestic production. Iran continues to insist on maintaining production capabilities on its own soil and within its own territory. This, of course, does not imply any unwillingness to engage in cooperative ventures with other countries. We stand ready to collaborate with all countries in our region that operate nuclear reactors — whether on issues of reactor safety or the supply of reactor fuel. A consortium could very well be one of the forms such cooperation might take. However, let it be clear: A consortium is not a substitute for Iran’s national nuclear program. Rather, it can serve as a complementary initiative in that regard.

Al-Monitor: The United States is still insisting that Iran cannot have a domestic enrichment program. Is Iran willing to compromise on enrichment and perhaps take up the offer in the previous US proposal for a regional consortium for domestic nuclear enrichment? And, as special envoy Witkoff mentioned, to work with others to develop a civil nuclear program that does not require enrichment?

Iravani: Yes, Iran continues to insist that enrichment must take place on its own soil. As I mentioned in response to the first question, a consortium may serve as a complement to our nuclear program — but it is by no means a substitute for it.

Al-Monitor: Would Iran be willing to place any outstanding HEU in an escrow account, managed or jointly managed by regional countries, as part of this consortium, as part of an agreement?

Iravani: If we hammer out an agreement — as was the case with the JCPOA, when we did reach a deal at a time when Iran possessed 20% enriched uranium — we then, within the framework of that agreement, transferred our 20% enriched uranium to Russia and, in exchange, received yellowcake. In the same spirit, should a new agreement be concluded, we would be prepared to transfer our stockpiles of 60% and 20% enriched uranium to another country and have them transferred out of Iranian territory in return for receiving yellowcake. Alternatively, the enriched uranium could be stockpiled in Iran under IAEA seal. This, of course, depends on the substance of the negotiations and the terms of any eventual agreement. Therefore, it is not a red line for us. If an agreement is reached, this issue could also be resolvable.

Al-Monitor: Your parliament, or majlis, has proposed suspending cooperation with the IAEA. Is this true? Shouldn’t Iran propose full transparency around inspections of its nuclear facilities?

Iravani: Ultimately, our parliament has passed this law, and it is legally binding upon the government. This does not signify Iran’s withdrawal from the NPT; rather, it entails a suspension of cooperation with the IAEA. The reason is that the agency has failed to fulfill its obligations toward Iran. In response, Iran seeks to convey a clear message: If the agency refrains from discharging its responsibilities, it cannot reasonably expect Iran to uphold its own commitments unilaterally. Should the IAEA act in a non-discriminatory manner — by condemning the attacks carried out by the United States and Israel against Iran’s nuclear sites and facilities, referring the matter to the Security Council, and by securing the right of Iran under the NPT — then, under such circumstances, we would be prepared to reconsider the implementation of the law in question, in accordance with its provisions.

Al-Monitor: If there were a peace deal, is Iran open to US and Western investment in its energy sector?

Iravani: Yes, if an agreement is reached, we would place no restrictions on the presence of the United States or other Western countries in investing in Iran’s energy sector. However, if the intention is to present such investment as a bargaining chip — offered in exchange for Iran relinquishing its enrichment activities — then such a proposition would be unacceptable.

Al-Monitor: In the context of a peace deal, would Iran consider limits or constraints on its ballistic missile program?

Iravani: Iran will not accept any restrictions on its missile activities. The recent aggression demonstrated clearly that without Iran’s military capabilities, the other side would never have been compelled to request a ceasefire. One of the key reasons a ceasefire has not been observed in Gaza — or has not been enforced by the occupying regime in Lebanon — is that the retaliatory power of the resistance groups has not yet reached a level sufficient to bring the real heat on the regime or make it vulnerable. By contrast, Iran’s forceful military response inflicted serious pain on the regime’s social, political and economic sections. As the president of the United States himself has acknowledged in recent days, the damage inflicted on Israel was severe — so severe, in fact, that it became one of the decisive factors prompting the regime to request that the United States expedite a ceasefire. Therefore, Iran will never agree to relinquish such an effective strategic lever, nor will it allow itself to be disarmed in the face of potential future attacks.

Rosaleen Carroll contributed to this article.