Vorschau ansehen
With a second round of talks likely to place between the U.S. and Iran’s regime this week over its illicit nuclear weapons programs, leading experts on Tehran’s program say the Trump administration was right to walk away.
After nearly a day of talks, Vice President JD Vance’s team pulled the plug on the negotiations taking place in Pakistan, something welcomed by experts in the field.
"The U.S. team was wise to walk away once it became clear the Iranians would not agree to Washington’s core nuclear demands. Tehran maintaining enriched uranium stocks and uranium enrichment capabilities provides it with a pathway to nuclear weapons, plain and simple," Andrea Stricker, deputy director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ nonproliferation program, told Fox News Digital.
A core dispute between the U.S. and Iran is over Tehran’s desire to enrich uranium — the material used to build nuclear weapons.
WITKOFF WARNS IRAN IS ‘A WEEK AWAY’ FROM 'BOMB-MAKING MATERIAL' AS TRUMP WEIGHS ACTION
In 2018, President Trump withdrew from President Obama’s nuclear weapons deal with Iran because his administration argued that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the formal name of the deal, permitted Iran to build an atomic bomb.
When asked what a good nuclear agreement would look like, Stricker said, "A good deal requires the regime to not only turn over its nuclear fuel, dismantle key facilities, and commit to a permanent ban on enrichment, but to cooperate with an IAEA investigation that fully and completely accounts for and dismantles Iran’s nuclear weapons-relevant facilities, equipment, documentation, centrifuges and related production capabilities."
Stricker acknowledged that the process could take several years, but noted that "the IAEA is well-equipped for this mission and has experience dismantling nuclear weapons programs in Iraq, Libya and South Africa. Anything less and Iran will likely cheat on its commitments and reconstitute a breakout pathway."
TRUMP REVEALS IRAN MADE 'SIGNIFICANT PROPOSAL' AFTER ULTIMATUM, BUT 'NOT GOOD ENOUGH'
Sen. Lindsey Graham said Monday he opposes a reported proposal by the U.S. for a 20-year ban on Iran’s uranium enrichment under a potential deal.
"I appreciate President Donald Trump’s resolve to end the Iranian conflict peacefully and through diplomacy. However, we have to remember who we’re dealing with in Iran: terrorists, liars, and cheaters," Graham posted on X.
"If this reporting is accurate, the idea that we would agree to a moratorium on enrichment rather than a ban on enrichment would be a mistake in my view," he said.
"Would we agree to a moratorium for al-Qaeda to enrich? No."
A regional official from the Mideast confirmed to Fox News Digital that a 20-year moratorium on enriched uranium was made by the U.S. and rejected by the Islamic Republic.
David Albright, a physicist who is the founder and president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, D.C., praised the U.S. decision to end the talks in Pakistan. Writing on X account, which is closely followed by Iran watchers, he stated: "The U.S. was Right to Walk Away in Islamabad."
Albright told Fox News Digital the move by the U.S. negotiators "makes it clear that this is not negotiating for negotiating’s sake. And leaving threw Iran on the defensive, signaling it as the losing state in the war. Moreover, the Iranians would not have shifted their positions in any significant way. They usually have no flexibility. But Iran wanted to have negotiations continue in order to try to tie the hands of the U.S. and Israel, while trying to portray themselves as victors. Now, Iran has to decide whether to accept the U.S. offer or risk war resuming."
He added that a good nuclear deal for the U.S. would mean "no enrichment and no stocks of HEU [Highly Enriched Uranium] and LEU [Low Enriched Uranium]; Iran cooperating with the inspectors and verifiably ending its nuclear weapons program and providing a complete nuclear declaration, something it has never done."
Albright continued that "If Iran signals willingness to accept the U.S. position, meeting again makes sense.
"Iran has absolutely no need to enrich. Its only civil need is for a small amount of 20% percent enriched for its small research reactor, the Tehran Research Reactor, and it has enough 20% enriched uranium in fuel or nearly made into fuel stored in Iran and in Russia under JCPOA [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action] arrangements for 20 years."
He concluded, "To be flip, and paraphrase Abbie Hoffman, I have the right to yell theater in a crowded fire, but I don’t. Iran’s emphasis on its right to enrich is as irrelevant and beside the point."
