Trump open to Iran keeping nuclear enrichment rights as new deal takes shape

US president Donald Trump has signalled that he is open to Iran retaining the right to enrich uranium for civilian purposes, in remarks that represent a major shift in Washington’s position as a ceasefire deal with Tehran takes shape.

Speaking at the G7 summit in Cannes, France, yesterday, Trump suggested that denying Iran the right to enrich uranium was difficult to justify when neighbouring states possessed the same capability.

“It’s a little hard when other people have it, other adjoining states have it and you’re not letting them have it for purposes of electricity and things like that,” Trump told reporters. “You have to use a little common sense.”

The comments come as the Trump administration and Tehran work to finalise a memorandum of understanding following weeks of negotiations. The text of the agreement has not been made public, though both sides reportedly signed the document electronically on Saturday. Confusion persists over its precise terms, with senior administration officials and diplomatic sources giving conflicting accounts of what was agreed and whether the signing even took place.

On enrichment, the emerging deal appears to echo — rather than exceed — the language of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the multilateral nuclear agreement brokered under former president Barack Obama.

The JCPOA, signed in July 2015 between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany, capped Iran’s uranium enrichment at 3.67 per cent purity and dramatically reduced its stockpile of enriched uranium. In exchange, the international community lifted crippling economic sanctions. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was granted unprecedented access to Iranian nuclear facilities to verify compliance — and confirmed, repeatedly, that Iran was honouring its commitments.

Trump withdrew the United States from the JCPOA in May 2018, describing it as “the worst deal ever negotiated.” He reimposed sweeping sanctions under a policy of “maximum pressure,” aiming to force Tehran into a broader agreement that would also address its ballistic missile programme and regional influence. 

Iran responded by gradually stepping up its nuclear activities, eventually enriching uranium to 60 per cent purity — significantly higher than the JCPOA’s limit, though still below the 90 per cent threshold for weapons-grade material.

READ: Why Trump’s war on Iran will fail

The collapse of the JCPOA and the years of escalating tensions that followed formed the backdrop to the US and Israeli military campaign against Iran, which Trump branded “Operation Epic Fury.” Nearly four months into the conflict, many analysts and diplomats are asking what the war has achieved — and whether the deal now being assembled is any better than the one that could have been preserved without the bloodshed.

Trump’s concessions at the G7 extend beyond nuclear enrichment. On Wednesday he also walked back one of his stated war aims, the destruction of Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal. Acknowledging that the US had destroyed roughly 84 to 85 per cent of Iran’s missiles, he conceded that Tehran would be permitted to retain the remainder.

“They have to have some,” Trump said, drawing a comparison with Saudi Arabia’s missile holdings. “I’m going to let Saudi Arabia have missiles but they can’t have them? It doesn’t work that way.”

The elimination of Iran’s missile capabilities was presented as a central objective of the war when the campaign began in February. It comes alongside an acknowledgement that the deal itself contains no enforceable compliance mechanism. Asked directly whether anything in the agreement was enforceable, Trump responded: “Doesn’t have to be. I let them know — if you don’t adhere to the agreement, we’re going to bomb the hell out of you.”

Analysts and critics of the war have pointed out that JCPOA — which Trump abandoned — gave Iran a legal pathway to enrichment, set strict limits, and provided the most intrusive verification regime ever applied to a nuclear programme. The emerging deal, by contrast, appears to grant similar rights with fewer apparent constraints and no credible enforcement mechanism other than the threat of renewed military strikes.

Nearly four months after the war began, Iran retains its right to enrich uranium, keeps a portion of its ballistic missile stock, and faces no binding international verification of its nuclear activities. The question being asked in diplomatic circles from London to Riyadh is a simple one: what exactly did this war achieve that patient diplomacy could not?

READ: Is Washington already regretting its war with Iran?