More Stories
State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott said Thursday that Special Envoy Steve Witkoff had sent a detailed proposal to Iran and that “it is in their best interest to accept it.”
“We’ve also been clear again and again and again that the Iranian regime can never have a nuclear weapon, that there is a good option and a bad option in regards to that,” he said at the daily press briefing.
Asked whether the next round of talks would depend on Iran’s response to the proposal, Pigott said: “We expect to meet with the Iranians again soon. But beyond that, I have nothing to preview.”
"The United States is trying to deny Iran's natural and international right to enrichment, which is recognized in the Non-Proliferation Treaty," Iran's Parliament Speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf said on Thursday.
"The United States is trying to pressure the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) into releasing selective and unrealistic reports in order to manipulate public opinion and hijack the legal process in its favor," Ghalibaf said while attending the Brics Parliamentary Forum in Brasilia.
The location of a proposed uranium enrichment consortium to help resolve Iran's nuclear impasse is emerging as a central point of contention, as Tehran insists enrichment must occur on its own soil.
Axios and The New York Times reported earlier this week that US negotiator Steve Witkoff has proposed creating a regional consortium to break the deadlock in stalled nuclear talks.
In a June 4 speech, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei rejected the US proposal—delivered by Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi on May 31—saying a halt to enrichment inside Iran was “out of the question.”
Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Esmail Baghaei had earlier said Tehran would welcome a nuclear fuel consortium “if it were proposed,” but added: “It cannot be a substitute for enrichment within Iran.”
Details of the proposal
According to Axios on June 2, Witkoff’s proposal would, restrict enrichment to civilian-grade levels (3%), suspend underground enrichment for a negotiated period, limit above-ground enrichment to reactor fuel standards under IAEA guidelines and require Iran’s immediate adoption of the IAEA’s Additional Protocol
On June 3, Axios quoted a senior Iranian official as saying Iran might accept a consortium based in Iran—but not if enrichment occurred elsewhere.
Qeshm, Kish or some other island?
A New York Times report on the same day noted that Omani and Saudi officials had discussed placing the facility on a Persian Gulf island.
“This would potentially give both sides a talking point,” the Times wrote, with Iran claiming enrichment is still happening and the US saying it isn’t on Iranian soil.
Israel Hayom cited an unnamed Arab source suggesting the facility might be built on one of three disputed islands: Greater Tunb, Lesser Tunb or Abu Musa. All are controlled by Iran but claimed by the UAE.
The outlet described the idea as a “diplomatic sleight of hand,” sparking backlash on Iranian social media, where critics warned it would undermine Iran’s sovereignty claims.
Alternative: the Oman model
Some nuclear experts, including former Iranian negotiator Hossein Mousavian, have promoted a model where Oman would host the facility, operated by Iran under IAEA supervision.
In this setup, ore would be processed in Saudi Arabia, enriched product would be stored there and a commercial office based in the UAE.
Possible participants
Axios reported the consortium could include the US, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, and possibly Turkey. Other outlets have mentioned Oman, Egypt, and Russia.
A June 3 editorial in Arman-e Melli argued Egypt’s inclusion would offer both regional legitimacy and diplomatic utility.
“Egypt’s good relations with the US and Europe could serve as a bridge between Iran and the West,” it noted.
"As far as I know the administration has provided zero briefing to this committee on the negotiations, so they seem to be happening totally in secret," US Senator Chris Murphy told Iran International.
The Connecticut Democrat sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
"I think that's pretty dangerous for the American people to be kept in the dark about these negotiations, especially really sensitive negotiations that involve a potential nuclear war," he added.
Tehran’s response to Washington’s proposal to halt uranium enrichment in exchange for sanctions relief has been marked by deep distrust and combative rhetoric—but not a complete break from diplomacy.
The proposal has yet to be revealed officially, but it is said to include a halt-for-sanctions-relief clause and an enrichment consortium involving the United States and some of Iran’s Arab neighbors.
“Why do you interfere in whether Iran enriches uranium or not—what business is it of yours?” Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei said on Wednesday, dismissing US objections to domestic enrichment by Iran.
Khamenei delivered one of his harshest speeches in recent memory, denouncing the proposal and pouring cold water on hopes of an immediate resolution to the nuclear standoff.
Minutes later, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi reiterated that no deal excluding enrichment would be accepted, and Nuclear Chief Mohammad Eslami declared that Iran’s program would continue “with full force.”
Strategic ambiguity
Despite the sharpness of his remarks, Khamenei stopped short of ending negotiations—a nuance not lost on Iranian analysts, many of whom saw room for continued backchannel diplomacy.
His tone of suspicion echoed deeper cultural themes. Some commentators likened it to the writings of novelist Sadeq Hedayat, whose characters in Alaviyeh Khanom and Haji Aghaview the world as a web of deception and distrust, responding with preemptive cynicism.
Even before Khamenei’s speech, Iranian outlets had rallied against any framework that excluded enrichment. The official news agency IRNA published two sharply worded pieces on Tuesday.
One called Washington’s position “a gamble doomed to fail,” while the other warned the talks were headed for deadlock unless Tehran’s right to enrich was preserved.
State broadcaster IRIB maintained its usual pessimism.
In a symbolic moment following Khamenei’s address, it abruptly cut a weather update to broadcast a Moscow street interview, where Russian citizens praised Iran’s founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, and his prophecy of communism’s fall—blending nostalgia with present-day complexity.
Press looking ahead
Wednesday marked the anniversary of Khomeini’s death in 1989, a national holiday with no newspapers in circulation. Even online publications were dominated by reverential pieces about the former Supreme Leader.
But Tuesday’s press and foreign-based Persian outlets struck a more somber tone. The reformist site Rouydad24 warned that what it called the achievements of five rounds of talks remained fragile, and that issues like zero enrichment could trigger collapse.
Though few in Iran or abroad believe war is imminent, some exiled Iranian analysts suggested the impasse could embolden Israel, long bent on dismantling Tehran’s nuclear infrastructure.
Meanwhile, U.S. media reported that a new round of indirect talks—possibly in Oman—could take place as early as next week.
