President Donald Trump said that an agreement with Iran makes clear that Tehran will not have a nuclear weapon, as he spoke to reporters during the G7 summit in France on Tuesday. But key details on how that would happen remain unresolved.
The stated aim of joint U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran had been to destroy Tehran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon.
The memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the U.S. and Iran—expected to be formally outlined this week—would open the Strait of Hormuz which Tehran has blocked, much to the relief of the global economy. It would also start a 60-day negotiation process that includes discussions over the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program.
However, there is a limit to what can be achieved in that period, said Manuel Herrera, project manager of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Monitor at the security think tank BASIC.
President Donald Trump is pictured at the G7 summit on June 15, 2026 in Évian-les-Bains, France. Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images.
“Sixty days is not enough. The JCPOA took years of negotiations,” Herre told Newsweek on Tuesday, referring to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action signed in 2015 by the Barack Obama administration that limited Iran’s nuclear program in return for the lifting of sanctions. Trump withdrew from the deal in 2018.
“You cannot reduce three years of diplomatic and technical expertise to only 60 days,” Herrera said. “As a time frame, it’s not feasible.”
On the other hand, the nongovernmental Arms Control Association (ACA), which has delved into the practical aspects of what neutralizing Iran’s highly enriched uranium would entail, said the “Trump administration cannot afford to squander—for the third time—this diplomatic opportunity.”
The framework deal touted by Trump—of which details have not been made public —has been spun in different ways by American and Iranian sources.
‘All We Have Is Just Speculation’
At the heart of the issue is Iran’s existing stockpile of highly enriched uranium.
Vice President JD Vance told Fox News on Monday that Tehran was agreeing to eliminate its highly enriched uranium stockpile
Before Israeli and U.S. strikes in June 2025, the nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), estimated that Iran possessed roughly 970 pounds of uranium enriched to 60 percent.
That level is only a short technical step from the 90 percent enrichment typically associated with nuclear weapons. (Iran has said that it is not pursuing nuclear weapons, and that its program is entirely peaceful.)
Vice President JD Vance is pictured on the show “Hannity” with host Sean Hannity at Fox News Channel Studios on June 15, 2026 in New York City. Photo by Roy Rochlin/Getty Images.
Since June 2025, Iran hasn’t given IAEA inspectors access to nuclear sites, even though Tehran is legally obliged to cooperate with the watchdog under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Herrera from BASIC said that eliminating Iran’s ability to get a nuclear weapon cannot be done without the supervision of the nuclear watchdog and much depends on what Tehran tells it and allows it to do.
“The Iranian authorities will have to provide access to inspectors to check exactly what are the real amounts that Iran has right now in its stockpiles,” he said, “because so far, since 2022, everything… all we have is just speculation.”
Most of the stockpile is likely intact, but inaccessible in underground storage sites following the Israeli and U.S. strikes in June, said the ACA.
Excavating the stockpile—what Trump has called “nuclear dust”—under IAEA supervision and diluting it inside Iran would be an effective way of “neutralizing the risk posed by that material,” according to the ACA.
Herrera said that given that Article 4 of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) does not forbid countries to have enrichment and reprocessing capacities, legally it would be difficult to justify Iran give that up on a voluntary basis.
So reducing Iran’s enriched uranium to less than the 5 percent level suitable for power reactors under monitoring, would remove the near-term proliferation risk, the ACA said. Another option would be to ship the material out of Iran to an international fuel bank or storage facility under IAEA supervision.
A U.S. official suggested on June 12 that the final deal would include a long-term suspension of Iran’s uranium enrichment program, said the ACA, pointing out that, if that were indeed the case, Trump would have shifted from demanding that Iran forgo enrichment permanently, likely to increase the chances of a deal.
Safe embed will be rendered here
Thousands of missiles and drones have been launched in the Iran war
Service URL: https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/RUAxC/7/
A Deal With ‘Clear Benefits to Iran Stands the Best Chance’
Each option carries logistical and political hurdles. Physically removing uranium from Iran would require consent that is not likely to be given. Diluting it domestically would hinge on constant monitoring to ensure material is not diverted.
Critically, any path depends on the return of IAEA inspectors.
Iran would also have to demonstrate a practical need for future enrichment and face more intrusive monitoring, while being encouraged to explore less risky nuclear fuel cycle options, the ACA said.
“Iran has gained irreversible knowledge about the uranium fuel cycle since Trump pulled out of the 2015 nuclear deal,” the ACA said, referring to the JCPOA.
The U.S. could push Iran for deadlines to respond to requests for access to nuclear sites and information and any new deal tying the atomic program with sanctions relief must be backed by the UN Security Council, the ACA added.
“Negotiating an effective, verifiable nuclear agreement that also provides clear benefits to Iran stands the best chance of disincentivizing Tehran from developing nuclear weapons,” said the ACA.
What Has the IAEA Said?
In its first report on Iran’s nuclear program since the start of the war, the IAEA told U.N. member states on June 4 it has not reported any major changes to its assessment.
The report seen by Reuters said that the IAEA had repeated calls for Tehran to explain the fate of stockpiles of enriched uranium and that for Iran it was “indispensable and urgent to implement effectively the NPT [Non-Proliferation Treaty] Safeguards Agreement.”
“Its implementation cannot be suspended by Iran under any circumstances,” the report added. IAEA chief Rafael Grossi told the watchdog’s 35-nation Board of Governors on June 8, “it’s very important that we re-engage,” with Iran.
Regional Backlash and Diplomatic Skepticism
Several politicians and media in Israel have reacted negatively to reports of the preliminary agreement between the U.S. and Iran criticizing its lack of detail, reported concessions to Tehran, and the move to defer key nuclear issues to future talks.
Brig. Gen. Yossi Kuperwasser, head of the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS) told Newsweek on Tuesday: “This deal features zero Israeli involvement, leaving the defense establishment completely in the dark.”
Kupperwasser said the Israeli leadership had presented red lines, including that Iran give up enriching uranium on its soil.
“It seems that this deal might allow them to continue doing exactly that,” he said. “This brings to question the diplomatic and military efforts of the U.S. and their outcomes.”
“From the Israel perspective, we are left feeling neglected and ignored by our allies the Americans, with whom we fought shoulder to shoulder,” said Kupperwasser from the JISS. “If this is indeed the final arrangement, it is a disaster that relies on the hollow promise of a regime that has historically lied, cheated, and breached its commitments.”
Justin Logan, director of defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, told Newsweek: “If the memorandum of understanding holds, it opens the prospect for a new negotiated agreement to take the prospect of a nuclear Iran off the table for a generation. That such an agreement was likely achievable without the war shows how unnecessary it was.”
Herrera, who insisted talks would revolve around the stockpiling of nuclear fuel as well as Iran’s future enrichment capacity, added there are questions over how capable the U.S. negotiators would be.
“The people the Trump administration is sending to negotiations don’t have the know-how, the expertise, nor the diplomatic skills to engage seriously on these matters,” he said.
Related Articles