Iran has drawn a hard red line around its stockpile of 60%-enriched uranium: none of it will leave the country. The declaration by Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, closes off one of the main diplomatic routes for verifying or removing the material that most worries the United States, Israel and the UN nuclear watchdog.
Rezaei told Lebanon’s pro-Iranian Al Mayadeen television that Iran would not surrender “even a single particle” of enriched nuclear material. He said Tehran had informed Moscow that the stockpile would remain in Iran and be used for Iranian purposes, including the claimed development of nuclear-powered ships and submarines.
Before the June 2025 attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, the International Atomic Energy Agency estimated that Iran held 440.9 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60%—a level far beyond civilian power needs and a short technical step from weapons-grade material. The IAEA has since been unable to verify how much of that stock survived the strikes.
That is why Tehran’s refusal to export the material matters. Russia had offered to take Iranian enriched uranium as part of a possible arrangement to ease US concerns; Rezaei’s statement effectively rejects that option before negotiations can even test it.
The nuclear question
Iran insists its program is peaceful and says the uranium is needed for naval propulsion projects. But retaining a large, poorly verified stock of near-weapons-grade material gives Tehran a major strategic asset: it preserves the option to move quickly toward a nuclear weapon if its leaders choose to cross that final line.
There is no public proof in Rezaei’s remarks that Iran has made the political decision to build a bomb. Still, keeping 60% enriched uranium inside Iran—rather than allowing independent removal, storage or verification abroad—materially increases the danger and makes outside monitoring harder.
Rezaei said Iran and the United States are not currently negotiating, dismissing reports of a recent meeting in Qatar as “pure lies” intended to depress oil prices. He said Iran had sent a proposal through Qatar but would discuss it only after Washington met seven Iranian demands, including unfreezing Iranian assets and lifting sanctions in return for reopening the Strait of Hormuz.
The security chief also threatened consequences if the United States strikes Iran again, saying Tehran would target US bases “far away.” He further claimed Iran has cyber-warfare capabilities that could force American drones to land.
Washington softens, Israel does not
US officials have recently sounded less eager for further military action. President Donald Trump said the war was “effectively over” militarily, while Secretary of State Marco Rubio argued that economic pressure had made major combat operations unnecessary.
Israel takes a sharper view. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said the war cannot be considered over until Iran’s enriched uranium is removed from the country—an aim now directly contradicted by Rezaei’s pledge that none of it will leave Iranian territory.
The immediate risk is not necessarily a sudden Iranian nuclear test. It is a widening gap between Iran’s refusal to give up its most sensitive material and the West’s insistence that any durable agreement must account for it.
